These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#381 - 2015-10-16 05:23:52 UTC
Resinball wrote:
need to buff their damage if your going to make them target disrupt-able.

not powerful enough due to the fact it's the only system that requires time to hit the target.....

*looks at drones*
Zakks
CSR NAVY
Citizen's Star Republic
#382 - 2015-10-16 05:44:52 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Resinball wrote:
need to buff their damage if your going to make them target disrupt-able.

not powerful enough due to the fact it's the only system that requires time to hit the target.....

*looks at drones*


Sentries?
kelvin oriley
Caldari Deep Space Ventures
#383 - 2015-10-16 17:33:27 UTC
dear ccp

please make this far more simple and use the weopen disruption moduals that allready exist and just add the scrips for the missiles

the choices on the market are too many all ready when it comes to ewar and from a training new bros point of view this is just going to make it far more painfull


adding this would make it far more intresting deciding what scrip and when in the heat of battle just like what damege type to use it keeps the heart pumping and keeps the pvp to the grid and not the meta having it your way means the battles are decided before you undock
Mario Putzo
#384 - 2015-10-16 18:13:34 UTC
So are we getting Remote Guidance systems (akin to Remote Tracking Links)? Yes or no? If not why not?
Norn Thilnir
Naragnir
#385 - 2015-10-17 11:56:29 UTC
Two comments:

(1) While I like the idea of fitting options and compromises, I am worried that the current dev resources EVE management are committing to balancing will be insufficient to properly balance the increased complexity.

The fact that missiles had no disruption made them unique. In fact, there was a time that optimal range disruption did not affect falloff. While it arguably made weapon disruption a poor choice against AC/Artillery, it did provide AC and artillery with an advantage. Taking these advantages away, meant that they required further balancing in other ways.

(2) Arguably the strongest other argument against missile disruption is that it takes away from the uniqueness of missiles.
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#386 - 2015-10-17 12:26:13 UTC
Norn Thilnir wrote:
Two comments:

(1) While I like the idea of fitting options and compromises, I am worried that the current dev resources EVE management are committing to balancing will be insufficient to properly balance the increased complexity.

The fact that missiles had no disruption made them unique. In fact, there was a time that optimal range disruption did not affect falloff. While it arguably made weapon disruption a poor choice against AC/Artillery, it did provide AC and artillery with an advantage. Taking these advantages away, meant that they required further balancing in other ways.

(2) Arguably the strongest other argument against missile disruption is that it takes away from the uniqueness of missiles.



Same argument can also be used against RMLs and missile upgrades. Missiles were uniquely weak at applying damage to smaller and faster targets, not anymore. So you missile users gain some, lose some.

Imho missiles are a bad mechanic and should be completely removed instead of trying to make them fit in EVE combat with all these gimmicky fixex.
bunzing heet
The Icarus Expedition
Solyaris Chtonium
#387 - 2015-10-17 13:02:14 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
Norn Thilnir wrote:
Two comments:

(1) While I like the idea of fitting options and compromises, I am worried that the current dev resources EVE management are committing to balancing will be insufficient to properly balance the increased complexity.

The fact that missiles had no disruption made them unique. In fact, there was a time that optimal range disruption did not affect falloff. While it arguably made weapon disruption a poor choice against AC/Artillery, it did provide AC and artillery with an advantage. Taking these advantages away, meant that they required further balancing in other ways.

(2) Arguably the strongest other argument against missile disruption is that it takes away from the uniqueness of missiles.



Same argument can also be used against RMLs and missile upgrades. Missiles were uniquely weak at applying damage to smaller and faster targets, not anymore. So you missile users gain some, lose some.

Imho missiles are a bad mechanic and should be completely removed instead of trying to make them fit in EVE combat with all these gimmicky fixex.


They dont need to be removed that's just overkill
I don't like that all weapon system are becoming similar to each other
And I fear this will just kill most caldari ships due to better options
Fleets and solo PvP will be affected a lot
I don't like being the negative nancy
But I really and trully hate these upcoming missile disruption modules
We will see what happens

Fly safe keep killing And remember I'm watching you !!!!
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
#388 - 2015-10-17 17:48:44 UTC
bunzing heet wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:
Norn Thilnir wrote:
Two comments:

(1) While I like the idea of fitting options and compromises, I am worried that the current dev resources EVE management are committing to balancing will be insufficient to properly balance the increased complexity.

The fact that missiles had no disruption made them unique. In fact, there was a time that optimal range disruption did not affect falloff. While it arguably made weapon disruption a poor choice against AC/Artillery, it did provide AC and artillery with an advantage. Taking these advantages away, meant that they required further balancing in other ways.

(2) Arguably the strongest other argument against missile disruption is that it takes away from the uniqueness of missiles.



Same argument can also be used against RMLs and missile upgrades. Missiles were uniquely weak at applying damage to smaller and faster targets, not anymore. So you missile users gain some, lose some.

Imho missiles are a bad mechanic and should be completely removed instead of trying to make them fit in EVE combat with all these gimmicky fixex.


They dont need to be removed that's just overkill
I don't like that all weapon system are becoming similar to each other
And I fear this will just kill most caldari ships due to better options
Fleets and solo PvP will be affected a lot
I don't like being the negative nancy
But I really and trully hate these upcoming missile disruption modules
We will see what happens


I agree, but i'd say it's going to hit the non range bonused missiles even harder and that's mostly minmattar and amarr.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#389 - 2015-10-18 16:36:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
When is the issue of large missile implants conflicting with Omega implants finally going to be addressed?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
O2 jayjay
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#390 - 2015-10-18 23:07:10 UTC
Not trying to be negative but youre slowly making all the ships the same. These changes are trimming down what makes ships unique. Missles have a flight time which delays damage and can also be out ran. No need to have the ability to distrupt their guidance system. My 2¢
bunzing heet
The Icarus Expedition
Solyaris Chtonium
#391 - 2015-10-18 23:39:05 UTC
O2 jayjay wrote:
Not trying to be negative but youre slowly making all the ships the same. These changes are trimming down what makes ships unique. Missles have a flight time which delays damage and can also be out ran. No need to have the ability to distrupt their guidance system. My 2¢


I agree if it were to effect missile speed and not expl radius and velocity I could live with it but this just doesn't make sense to me
Maybe it just me aye

Fly safe keep killing And remember I'm watching you !!!!
ROXGenghis
Perkone
Caldari State
#392 - 2015-10-19 02:08:09 UTC
Sorry I'm tardy to the feedback party, but that's my jam. Someone in this thread suggested moving these new MD bonuses to Caldari ships because Caldari only have one form of ewar and the suggested change would _kind of_ be giving Amarr three types of ewar.

I just want to point out that, from a lore perspective (groan, and I'm not even an RP'er), a MD bonus would be more appropriate for an Amarr hull because their natural enemy are the missile-spewing Caldari. If anything, you'd want to move TD bonuses to another race...maybe to Minmatar, since their natural enemy are laser-pewing Amarr and many folks consider the Minnie painter bonus under-utilized (because in fleets you only need a few paints, and in solo there's always a better module). Heck, maybe the Minnie TD bonus should go to another race to counter Minnie's speed and sig radius advantages.

Not that I'm suggesting such a radical and probably unworkable juggling happen! And I'll get to an actual, relevant but possibly bad idea in the next paragraph. But as long as I'm on the subject of ewar balancing, recall that someone has suggested re-purposing defender missiles to counter drones. If this were to happen, it might finally be the opportunity to give the Caldari their long-missing second form of "ewar" (actually, "specialized defensive countermeasure") because the drone-spawning Gallente are the Caldari's natural enemy and it may be too powerful for every race of ships to be able to counter drones with a utility highslot. And...no. As I write that, I'm imagining ECM boats capable of shutting down their main counter and...no, sorry. But I'll leave this here as a small thought exercise and a lesson/warning to others. And add that this has implications in general against any future/proposed anti-drone countermeasure: you'd have to make sure ECM boats couldn't use it. (And you thought I went off in the weeds in my second paragraph!)

***Finally, back on the actual thread topic of MDs, I agree that as they stand, TDs and MDs need to be two separate modules to avoid OP'ness and being a "must-fit" module on every PVP ship. However, if you reduced the effectiveness of both TDs and MDs, maybe you could consolidate them into a single, more generally applicable but less powerful module. And, in so doing, counter some of the game's current complexity and proliferation trends. (Asterisks surround this paragraph because it's actually relevant to the thread; sorry I got off course above.)***
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#393 - 2015-10-19 04:18:32 UTC
ROXGenghis wrote:

I just want to point out that, from a lore perspective (groan, and I'm not even an RP'er), a MD bonus would be more appropriate for an Amarr hull because their natural enemy are the missile-spewing Caldari.


I believe your statement to be in error. Amarr and Caldari are allies. Logic would dictate it'd be a Gallente thing, being a direct counter to Caldari.

Then again, logic would suggest FIXING heavy/ham/cruise missiles and time-to-impact to avoid outrunning them... but I'm not complaining. I just kicked missiles off my skillcue again and dust off the old Arbitrator. Still seems odd to me a light missile can't keep up with a frigate. Torp range on battleships is also off. In fact there's too many thing going wrong before "missile disruption" I don't see a need for these modules at all - save to counter Garmurs and Orthruses, yet the killer here is not the hull nor the missiles-- it's the offgrid booster.

But I digress. Point I was going to make: the enemies of the State would be either Minmatar or Gallente.

HOWEVER. Since many races seem to mostly counter their OWN weapons, Caldari would also be a good pick for the Missile Disruptor -- after all, Minmatar speed/sigtank --> Webs & Target Painters. Amarr lasers --> Neuts & Tracking Disruptors.

Minmatar never have any trouble hitting Amarr, so TP was definitely not intended for those situations. Long-webbing the slowest ships in the game seems a bit overkill too. And tell me, how well do Caldari jams work against drone boats? Capping out a Minmatar won't keep him from ripping you a new butthole either ... therefore, assuming EWAR is tied to the "natural enemy" is already a long shot. Doesn't matter though if you mixing up the natural enemies lore-wise ;-)
ROXGenghis
Perkone
Caldari State
#394 - 2015-10-19 08:17:15 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
ROXGenghis wrote:

I just want to point out that, from a lore perspective (groan, and I'm not even an RP'er), a MD bonus would be more appropriate for an Amarr hull because their natural enemy are the missile-spewing Caldari.


I believe your statement to be in error. Amarr and Caldari are allies. Logic would dictate it'd be a Gallente thing, being a direct counter to Caldari.

[and a lot of other good points]


Thanks for pointing out my myriad errors politely. I appreciate it! And even though I said I wasn't an RP'er, the me from 9 years ago would have known you to be correct about everything. So I guess I have to put it down to bittervet senescence.

Luckily, the whole thing was an aside that's easily ignored for the purposes of the MD balance discussion.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#395 - 2015-10-19 15:14:49 UTC
Fifth Blade wrote:
Ripard Teg wrote:
If they're going to use the same skills/bonuses as Tracking Disruptors, why not just use missile disruption scripts for the existing Tracking Disruptors instead of a new module?

As always ( Blink ), my thinking here is geared toward small gang, who while roaming are not going to know if they're going to be facing turret ships or missile ships until they're facing them.

Came here to say the exact same thing. From the same perspective (small gang). Please do this.


Tracking disruptors would be way overpowered if it just needed a script to disrupt missiles.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Perrdy Lady
Doomheim
#396 - 2015-10-19 19:04:01 UTC
More missile nerfs, why am I not surprised?
Lara Sunji
Doomheim
#397 - 2015-10-21 04:59:50 UTC
This wasn't a planned feature that's crystal clear to me, they just threw it in there to add to the list of stuff to make it look impressive. Well I'm far from impressed.
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#398 - 2015-10-23 21:24:40 UTC
Has the December release stuff landed on SiSi yet?

Please do not release till its fully looked at in a live-ish state.
Idame Isqua
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#399 - 2015-10-24 08:02:20 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
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?



Ok so Caldari got the jackdaw and t3d didn't get banned from small plexs... when is this happening?
Hookbill finally looks like it can compete with the comet
Missiles get nerfed
Gals get navy maulus

GG

I try and fight comets with a TD it does virtually nothing against someone with skill (optimal/tracking disruption can be easily removed as an issue by simply repositioning your ship.

Now how are missile disruptors going to work, in a equally pitiful manner, probably not I bet they will be incomparably OP compared with TD, and will basically render them useless for hitting things outside web/scram range.
Also remembering turrets have instant alpha

gg

We sometimes run a corax fit with 3 tds to fight catalysts
Will be interesting to see what happens when gals have missile disrupting Algos fleets fighting missile ships that can hardly hit the ship yet alone medium drones

Now what about a damage saturation = damage reduction mechanic for ships? i.e. limiting the amount of damage received per tick
That would solve half of the problems with alpha doctrine everyone goes on about very easily.
Pieter Patrick
State War Academy
Caldari State
#400 - 2015-10-28 01:21:35 UTC
Missles are not the best weapen.
...But I like them.
I only trained missles-skills... all to level 5.
Looks likes the end for missles...
And a total wasted of level 5 skills. :-)

Question; why should I still want to use missles in the future.