These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#401 - 2015-10-28 03:59:35 UTC
Pieter Patrick wrote:
I only trained missles-skills... all to level 5.
Looks likes the end for missles...
And a total wasted of level 5 skills. :-)

It's only a waste if you trained Defender missiles to V...

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

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#402 - 2015-10-28 04:03:27 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.

What is the possibility of getting the Missile Guidance Enhancer buffed by 20% instead of 10%? ie:
• Missile Guidance Enhancer I: 5% Ev, -5% Er
• Pro-Nav Compact Missile Guidance Enhancer: 6.25% Ev, -6.25% Er
• Missile Guidance Enhancer II: 7.5% Ev, -7.5% Er

Any timeframe on the Faction and possible Officer versions of the MGE and MGC?

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

Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#403 - 2015-10-28 04:22:14 UTC
The Enhancers do, without a doubt, need a bigger buff than the Comps. Right now, they don't even come close to competing with alternate low slot mods, where as the Comps are in a far more comfortable place even compared to other mid slot mods. 20% seems reasonable to start with, I think. Higher Meta versions should also not be forgotten, especially if the Disruptors are getting Meta 6 on up as well.

"Tomahawks?"

"----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."

token trade alt
Slamming Mad B-Balls
#404 - 2015-10-28 05:58:48 UTC
If smartbombs no longer affect missiles, this will be a great change. If they do and these are introduced, there is no place for missile boats in large scale pvp.

Firewalls are already irritating, this would make things quite a bit worse.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#405 - 2015-10-28 21:11:18 UTC
Maybe the Enhancers could have a missile HP or magazine capacity buff to help it stand out more. Personally, I still feel that they ought to be retooled to benefit the user in a way outside the realm of the currently chosen stats. A 10% buff is a start, but I fear it'll be no better received than the 5% damage buff for heavies, which did more to at least confirm for us that CCP agrees heavies are in need of help than actually help them directly.

"Tomahawks?"

"----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."

Idame Isqua
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry
Templis CALSF
#406 - 2015-10-29 05:51:46 UTC
If they treated missiles and drones somewhat equally

Things would be better
Pieter Patrick
State War Academy
Caldari State
#407 - 2015-10-29 06:40:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Pieter Patrick
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Pieter Patrick wrote:
I only trained missles-skills... all to level 5.
Looks likes the end for missles...
And a total wasted of level 5 skills. :-)

It's only a waste if you trained Defender missiles to V...

You're so right! :-)
I trained defenders only untill level 2, than I realised how useless they are.

Now I train Targetpainting level 5.
But I don't know what to do at this moment.
I'm not whining, but it's a pitty.
(And I realize that the game can evolve in any way it want.)
Mad Abbat
Talon Swarm
#408 - 2015-10-29 16:07:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Mad Abbat
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey folks thanks for the feedback so far. To answer a few of the common questions:

Q: Why make separate modules instead of using a script on existing TDs?
A: We believe that the script method would make TDs too powerful. Using separate modules means that weapon disruption ships can hedge their bets by fitting a spread of TDs and MDs, but that they'll have smaller numbers of each.


You are wrong.

In current meta Any racial EWAR is usefull, except Amarr, bacause:

1) Maulus can dump any targets, regaradless of its type -> heavy use
2) Griffin can jamm any targets, regaradless of its type -> heavy use
3) Vigil add some application bonuses -> usefull in missle fleets
4) Crusifier can TD only turrets, making it useless for fleets, where you have to take out logi, ewar, missle, drone boats etc.

How it can be too powerfull if it is scripted module is beyond me, as it remains useless against primary EWAR fleet targets, you can't even take out anti-support wing, as it made of musslie and turret boats in unknown mix.

You forcing an already gimped EWAR to make "sacrifaces" and not adding it any extra utility. People will not start to use amarr EWAR after that changes.

We need adaptable module for all race EWAR, not to 3/4 of current selection.

Even better if you add optimal+falloff for remote reps, and ability to disrpt it with amarr EWAR, after that is all becomes much more interesting instrantly.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#409 - 2015-10-29 16:46:19 UTC
Idame Isqua wrote:
If they treated missiles and drones somewhat equally

Things would be better


It's what I was trying to do for ages now. Glad to see I'm not the only one.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#410 - 2015-10-29 16:50:01 UTC
Mad Abbat wrote:
...4) Crusifier can TD only turrets, making it useless for fleets, where you have to take out logi, ewar, missle, drone boats etc.


Thank you for bringing it up, so it doesn't always come from me alone, fighting the windmills-


Yes I am Satans advocate, there is no god only the Devil himself. When you need one or more ships to make a weapon system work, that weapon system has a problem - a big one.

CCP Fozzie, do you now see that problem?

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Poranius Fisc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#411 - 2015-10-29 20:04:00 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Mad Abbat wrote:
...4) Crusifier can TD only turrets, making it useless for fleets, where you have to take out logi, ewar, missle, drone boats etc.


Thank you for bringing it up, so it doesn't always come from me alone, fighting the windmills-


Yes I am Satans advocate, there is no god only the Devil himself. When you need one or more ships to make a weapon system work, that weapon system has a problem - a big one.

CCP Fozzie, do you now see that problem?

Like missiles?
token trade alt
Slamming Mad B-Balls
#412 - 2015-10-30 01:51:04 UTC
Mad Abbat wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey folks thanks for the feedback so far. To answer a few of the common questions:

Q: Why make separate modules instead of using a script on existing TDs?
A: We believe that the script method would make TDs too powerful. Using separate modules means that weapon disruption ships can hedge their bets by fitting a spread of TDs and MDs, but that they'll have smaller numbers of each.


You are wrong.

In current meta Any racial EWAR is usefull, except Amarr, bacause:

1) Maulus can dump any targets, regaradless of its type -> heavy use
2) Griffin can jamm any targets, regaradless of its type -> heavy use
3) Vigil add some application bonuses -> usefull in missle fleets
4) Crusifier can TD only turrets, making it useless for fleets, where you have to take out logi, ewar, missle, drone boats etc.

How it can be too powerfull if it is scripted module is beyond me, as it remains useless against primary EWAR fleet targets, you can't even take out anti-support wing, as it made of musslie and turret boats in unknown mix.

You forcing an already gimped EWAR to make "sacrifaces" and not adding it any extra utility. People will not start to use amarr EWAR after that changes.

We need adaptable module for all race EWAR, not to 3/4 of current selection.

Even better if you add optimal+falloff for remote reps, and ability to disrpt it with amarr EWAR, after that is all becomes much more interesting instrantly.


To be fair, increased sig radius makes it easier for allies to lock onto a new primary as well as track smaller sigged targets in turret fleets. It's not just for missiles.
Cerulean Ice
Royal Amarr Reclamation
#413 - 2015-10-30 07:44:11 UTC
I'm really hoping this change comes with the removal of Defender Missiles. Defenders are pretty much useless, while MDs sound useful.
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
#414 - 2015-11-01 18:20:29 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks?
A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.



Missile range =/= turret range
Missile application =/= Turret application

Missiles are delayed dps, reducing the speed doesn't just reduce range it also makes it easier to outrun the missiles, turrets don't have this issue

The range disruption script on missile TD's is too strong, and the Application bonus on Missile guidance computers and enhancers is far too weak because you keep comparing them directly with turret modules.

For guidance computers 15% explosion velocity bonus and 15% explosion radius reduction bonus is not the same as 30% better tracking. the formula only considers the value of the worst of the two; not both at the same time so you only ever get at most 15% bonus to application while turrets get 30% better tracking from their module. BUT missile damage application is not the same as tracking either, because tracking is only of benefit when the angular velocity of your target is higher than your tracking so 30% better tracking either gives no additional application or 100% additional application depending on the situation.

There are too many variables to make direct comparisons between Missile and Turret Tracking Computers, or missile and turret tacking disruptors. All I know is the Missile tracking computers are worse than what we had before, we can make direct comparisons there, and what we had before wasn't good enough to begin with so why are you now bringing in another module to make life even more miserable for missile pilots?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#415 - 2015-11-01 22:21:07 UTC
Fourteen Maken wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks?
A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.



Missile range =/= turret range
Missile application =/= Turret application

Missiles are delayed dps, reducing the speed doesn't just reduce range it also makes it easier to outrun the missiles, turrets don't have this issue

The range disruption script on missile TD's is too strong, and the Application bonus on Missile guidance computers and enhancers is far too weak because you keep comparing them directly with turret modules.

For guidance computers 15% explosion velocity bonus and 15% explosion radius reduction bonus is not the same as 30% better tracking. the formula only considers the value of the worst of the two; not both at the same time so you only ever get at most 15% bonus to application while turrets get 30% better tracking from their module. BUT missile damage application is not the same as tracking either, because tracking is only of benefit when the angular velocity of your target is higher than your tracking so 30% better tracking either gives no additional application or 100% additional application depending on the situation.

There are too many variables to make direct comparisons between Missile and Turret Tracking Computers, or missile and turret tacking disruptors. All I know is the Missile tracking computers are worse than what we had before, we can make direct comparisons there, and what we had before wasn't good enough to begin with so why are you now bringing in another module to make life even more miserable for missile pilots?

While playing a few years ago, on a quiet winters night - Fozzie was killed by a Drake
He has hated all missile pilots since.

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.

token trade alt
Slamming Mad B-Balls
#416 - 2015-11-02 03:52:49 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Fourteen Maken wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks?
A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.



Missile range =/= turret range
Missile application =/= Turret application

Missiles are delayed dps, reducing the speed doesn't just reduce range it also makes it easier to outrun the missiles, turrets don't have this issue

The range disruption script on missile TD's is too strong, and the Application bonus on Missile guidance computers and enhancers is far too weak because you keep comparing them directly with turret modules.

For guidance computers 15% explosion velocity bonus and 15% explosion radius reduction bonus is not the same as 30% better tracking. the formula only considers the value of the worst of the two; not both at the same time so you only ever get at most 15% bonus to application while turrets get 30% better tracking from their module. BUT missile damage application is not the same as tracking either, because tracking is only of benefit when the angular velocity of your target is higher than your tracking so 30% better tracking either gives no additional application or 100% additional application depending on the situation.

There are too many variables to make direct comparisons between Missile and Turret Tracking Computers, or missile and turret tacking disruptors. All I know is the Missile tracking computers are worse than what we had before, we can make direct comparisons there, and what we had before wasn't good enough to begin with so why are you now bringing in another module to make life even more miserable for missile pilots?

While playing a few years ago, on a quiet winters night - Fozzie was killed by a Drake
He has hated all missile pilots since.


Tbh that's kind of what the latest development process seems to be like.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#417 - 2015-11-02 05:08:00 UTC
Mad Abbat wrote:


In current meta Any racial EWAR is usefull, except Amarr, bacause:

1) Maulus can dump any targets, regaradless of its type -> heavy use
2) Griffin can jamm any targets, regaradless of its type -> heavy use
3) Vigil add some application bonuses -> usefull in missle fleets
4) Crusifier can TD only turrets, making it useless for fleets, where you have to take out logi, ewar, missle, drone boats etc.



Now that's a load of baloney if I ever seen one. Maulus damps affect my brawler how exactly? Yup: not at all. Griffin does what to a droneboat? Bubkes. Vigils add application in missile fleets; because we need application; because current meta revolves around -oh snap!- RLML. Oops. Ergo, no one ever uses Vigils. They might, in Cerberus fleets; although in general a TP is an afterthought, by no means your first choice if you can only dedicate a few guys to EWAR and you have to pick and choose. Presented the choice between a Maulus, a Griffin or a Vigil, nobody would pick the Vigil. (and a Maulus is only bang-for-your-buck if you bring a couple of those).

Crucifiers are useless because they "only affect turrets" you say? ... thereby taking care of like 70% of all ships out there. Sweet. Optimal Range scripts on snipers and blasterboats; Tracking Disruption scripts on lasers, also snipers and all gunsizes bigger than your own. "Useless" he says - hah!

Now, imagine if you will that the Crucifier pilot could simply swap out a script and stop ANY weapon system except drones at will, from long range ... where would that leave the other EWARs ?? It'd do the same job a griffin does, without being chance-based. It'd outperform the Maulus by taking brawling ships out of the picture as well; and it'd completely roflstomp the already rather underwhelming, highly situational Vigil.

Granted, Maulus and Griffin are the T1 EWAR frigs of choice. Because their T2 EWAR frigs are a bit ... weak in comparison. A Keres is essentially an interceptor with damps -- which is great except when you already have great tackle in fleet, you might just as well settle for its T1 counterpart. A Kitsune is ..... well, still a Griffin. Just more of it. On the other hand, you can't get a Vigil to do a Hyena's job or a Crucifier to replace the Sentinel.

That's what makes those two T1 frigs so popular. It's not that the Crucifier is bad; it's that Sentinels are even better!
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
#418 - 2015-11-02 14:15:00 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Mad Abbat wrote:


In current meta Any racial EWAR is usefull, except Amarr, bacause:

1) Maulus can dump any targets, regaradless of its type -> heavy use
2) Griffin can jamm any targets, regaradless of its type -> heavy use
3) Vigil add some application bonuses -> usefull in missle fleets
4) Crusifier can TD only turrets, making it useless for fleets, where you have to take out logi, ewar, missle, drone boats etc.



Now that's a load of baloney if I ever seen one. Maulus damps affect my brawler how exactly? Yup: not at all. Griffin does what to a droneboat? Bubkes. Vigils add application in missile fleets; because we need application; because current meta revolves around -oh snap!- RLML. Oops. Ergo, no one ever uses Vigils. They might, in Cerberus fleets; although in general a TP is an afterthought, by no means your first choice if you can only dedicate a few guys to EWAR and you have to pick and choose. Presented the choice between a Maulus, a Griffin or a Vigil, nobody would pick the Vigil. (and a Maulus is only bang-for-your-buck if you bring a couple of those).

Crucifiers are useless because they "only affect turrets" you say? ... thereby taking care of like 70% of all ships out there. Sweet. Optimal Range scripts on snipers and blasterboats; Tracking Disruption scripts on lasers, also snipers and all gunsizes bigger than your own. "Useless" he says - hah!

Now, imagine if you will that the Crucifier pilot could simply swap out a script and stop ANY weapon system except drones at will, from long range ... where would that leave the other EWARs ?? It'd do the same job a griffin does, without being chance-based. It'd outperform the Maulus by taking brawling ships out of the picture as well; and it'd completely roflstomp the already rather underwhelming, highly situational Vigil.

Granted, Maulus and Griffin are the T1 EWAR frigs of choice. Because their T2 EWAR frigs are a bit ... weak in comparison. A Keres is essentially an interceptor with damps -- which is great except when you already have great tackle in fleet, you might just as well settle for its T1 counterpart. A Kitsune is ..... well, still a Griffin. Just more of it. On the other hand, you can't get a Vigil to do a Hyena's job or a Crucifier to replace the Sentinel.

That's what makes those two T1 frigs so popular. It's not that the Crucifier is bad; it's that Sentinels are even better!


nothing works on drone boats. target painters help tracking on turrets. Damps can make your brawler take 2.5 life times to lock.

Bloodmyst Ranwar
Leviathan Rising
Fortis Et Certus
#419 - 2015-11-09 00:08:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodmyst Ranwar
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey folks!
If you've followed our development over the past few years you'll know that the idea of tracking disruptors for missiles has been bouncing around for a long time. 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.
We think that adding Missile Disruptors will create some interesting new fitting options, especially for ships with bonuses to weapon disruption.

We're now planning on releasing these new modules in our December release, and we're ready to start getting your feedback!
These disruptors would be seperate modules within the same group as Tracking Disruptors.
They will use the same skills and get the same bonuses as Tracking Disurptors (so for example a Pilgrim would automatically get bonuses for these modules).
Pilots will be able to choose what combo of missile and tracking disruptors to fit on their ships, based on what they expect to face.
We're planning on introducing T1, T2 and named versions with faction options being considered.

We expect that the stats will need extensive tweaking and playtesting, but here's what we're working with at the moment:
[img]http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67557/1/MissileDisruptor.jpg[/img]

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.

We're really interested in your feedback and we have plenty of time to get these properly adjusted before release. These changes are currently planned for our December release.

Q/A:

Q: Why make separate modules instead of using a script on existing TDs?
A: We believe that the script method would make TDs too powerful. Using separate modules means that weapon disruption ships can hedge their bets by fitting a spread of TDs and MDs, but that they'll have smaller numbers of each.

Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks?
A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.

Q: Will these disruptors apply to missiles already in flight, or just missiles fired while the disruptor is active?
A: Only missiles fired while the disruptor is active will be affected.

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%.

Let us know what you think!



Given the current meta of Eve (Garmurs, Orthrus, Rapid Light Missile systems), I think a Missile Disruption module is long overdue.

Just a suggestion however, instead of the module requiring a mid slot,can we change the module so it has the ability to be fitted to a utility high slot?

Currently, utility high slots are used mostly for Neutralizers, Nosferatus and Rocket/Missile Launchers. Giving this new module the ability to be fit into a utility high would provide many more interesting fits, without putting such a dampener on most fits we see to date.

The abundant presence of spam T3D's, Orthruses, Garmurs and Rapid Light missiles has pretty much almost destroyed any type of Frigate play. Yes we have Novice plexes in FW..... but in nullsec, it really just isn't viable anymore. Giving these modules the ability to be fit into a utility high, would at least bring a little hope back to Frigate play in Nullsec anyway.
Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#420 - 2015-11-09 02:20:09 UTC
Ewar in utility highs? That won't totally imbalance EWAR hulls and make for hilarious situations where you completely lockdown literally everything you run into.

Seriously though the midslot limitation is part of balance. They generally contain things that lock down an enemy either by stabbing them, webbing them, or preventing them from dictating the fight the way they might otherwise choose to. If you take any of these items and expand them outside of the midslot with exclusivity you will automatically grant whatever that item is an insane buff via power creep. The choice to fit that item suddenly becomes very easy and thus the risk associated with NOT having said item along goes away as well.

I'm sorry but highslot EWAR without making literally everything highslot would just make a balance nightmare.