These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sky Marshal
State War Academy
Caldari State
#501 - 2015-12-09 00:28:57 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Bianca Niam wrote:
Cant believe ccp is nerfing missiles yet again and without any counter whatsoever.

you missed the whole missile guidance computers, didn't you

You do realize that the old proverb « Caldari : Tank, Electronic Warfare, Damage. Take only 2 of them. » is still there ? Losing one more medium slot in a Caldari ship is NOT an option.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#502 - 2015-12-09 00:41:14 UTC
Sky Marshal wrote:
Rowells wrote:
Bianca Niam wrote:
Cant believe ccp is nerfing missiles yet again and without any counter whatsoever.

you missed the whole missile guidance computers, didn't you

You do realize that the old proverb « Caldari : Tank, Electronic Warfare, Damage. Take only 2 of them. » is still there ? Losing one more medium slot in a Caldari ship is NOT an option.

Use the low slot one then.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#503 - 2015-12-09 01:12:01 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
Sky Marshal wrote:
Rowells wrote:
Bianca Niam wrote:
Cant believe ccp is nerfing missiles yet again and without any counter whatsoever.

you missed the whole missile guidance computers, didn't you

You do realize that the old proverb « Caldari : Tank, Electronic Warfare, Damage. Take only 2 of them. » is still there ? Losing one more medium slot in a Caldari ship is NOT an option.

Use the low slot one then.


I don't know that I've ever had a low slot available for the low module..
Not would I want to use it.
Basically, all the MGC does is allow me to replace a TP.

For those making claims that it evens playing field, since turrets have disrupters and drones can be killed;
You must first consider that missiles already require assistance in order to apply optimal damage to ships in their class.
IE: heavies against cruisers and cruise/torp against another BS.

You must then also consider that when your tracking disrupted, they effect your ability to hit moving targets without effecting the ability to hit stationary targets; while being range disrupted, it doesn't effect your ability to track targets within range.

Now, factor missile disrupters. If fitted to disrupt range, they reduce your range, as well as reduce the ability to hit fast targets, as it will reduce velocity on top of flight time.
If fitted to disrupt application, they will effect your ability to hit moving targets via exp velocity, but also your ability to hit stationary targets via exp radius.

Basically, regardless of script, you will effect my ship in two different aspects.
How does this seem like balance?
Missiles already have these issues and require modules to address them. Now, they will need even more modules.
A Raven fitted with torps or cruise already needs 2-3 MGCs to get full applications against another BS hull,'moving or not moving, with or without a prop mod.. Am I now supposed to fit 4-6 MGCs?
Am I then supposed to fit an armor tank and forgo damage modules?

See, in a turret or drone boat, you typically already have relatively good tracking and application against like size hulls.
You add modules in order to increase your effectiveness against smaller targets and/or to counter TDs; so for a turret boat, these modules become an addition as opposed to a necessity.
For missile boats larger than a destroyer, module assistance is a necessity when using their standard weapon classes.

As a side note, turrets have variations that can allow for more variable and durable fits by going with smaller sized turrets, which will likely be balanced to make lower and mid sized turret variations even more viable, while the larger variants in a class will be optimal for a destroyer, in the case of smaller, and BCs in the case of med turrets, which is somewhat already the case.

For missiles, heavies, and especially HAMs, are difficult to build viable fits with on cruiser hulls; suggesting that their balance is focused around BCs.
Honestly, their needs to be another class of missiles for cruiser hulls, thus leaving heavy systems for BCs, though they still need balance for the better.

Overall point, MDs only make the flaws with missiles stand out that much more.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#504 - 2015-12-09 02:51:30 UTC
Sky Marshal wrote:
Rowells wrote:
Bianca Niam wrote:
Cant believe ccp is nerfing missiles yet again and without any counter whatsoever.

you missed the whole missile guidance computers, didn't you

You do realize that the old proverb « Caldari : Tank, Electronic Warfare, Damage. Take only 2 of them. » is still there ? Losing one more medium slot in a Caldari ship is NOT an option.

English?
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#505 - 2015-12-09 03:22:21 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Raven fitted with torps or cruise already needs 2-3 MGCs to get full applications against another BS hull,'moving or not moving, with or without a prop mod.. Am I now supposed to fit 4-6 MGCs?
Am I then supposed to fit an armor tank and forgo damage modules?

your going to have to back that up.

And before any mentions it again, please inform me of this stationary target that has a small enough sig to avoid damage so much.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#506 - 2015-12-09 04:06:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Rowells wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Raven fitted with torps or cruise already needs 2-3 MGCs to get full applications against another BS hull,'moving or not moving, with or without a prop mod.. Am I now supposed to fit 4-6 MGCs?
Am I then supposed to fit an armor tank and forgo damage modules?

your going to have to back that up.

And before any mentions it again, please inform me of this stationary target that has a small enough sig to avoid damage so much.


Fury cruise missiles on a Raven, with all skills 5, has an explosion radius of 425.25.. Rage torps on a Raven, all skills 5, has an exp radius of 580.5.
The Raven itself has a sig radius of 410.
This means a fury cruise Raven needs 1 MGC with precision script to get full application, while a rage torp raven needs 3.. That's against a stationary target.

If the target Raven is moving at full speed, with no prop mod, it takes 2 MGCs with precision to get full application with fury missiles, while rage torps need still require 3.

That's not even factoring a prop mod on the target ship, as a simple afterburner means you'll need 3 MGCs and 3 PWNAGE TPs for fury cruise, while torps can use 3 MGCs and 4 PWNAGE TPs and STILL not get full application.

So, the amount of MGCs I suggested is only slightly varied in the case of fury cruise only needing 1 for a stationary target, and the fact that past 3 MGCs, you're better off with TPs.


Edit... Forgot to factor in missile disruptors "Guidance Disruptor II" with precision disruption script
This means fury needs a second MGC to hit at max potential while rage needs 3 and a TP for a single disruptor.
Against a moving with no prop - fury needs 3 MGC and 2 TP, rage needs the same.
Against moving with an AB - fury can use 3 and 4 and only get 69% efficiency, while rage gets 52% efficiency.
a second disruptor puts fury at 42% and rage at 32%...


To compare and abaddon with 4 TCs does not get full tracking against an AB Raven, when using multifrequency.
However, mega pulse with multi retains 81% efficiency against a single tracking disruptor, and tachyon beam with multi retains 75% efficiency. With 2 disruptors, mega pulse retains 62% efficiency, while tachyon beam retains 56%.

In other words, missiles require more assistance from the start, and takes more negative effect as you go up, by a significant amount, and cannot be negated through piloting skills, while traversal can be countered through good piloting.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#507 - 2015-12-09 05:57:19 UTC
Zakks wrote:
Missiles/rockets getting whacked bigtime. With no missile rebalance or friendly tracking module announced they will be in a sorry state for a while more.

Fixed it for you.

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

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#508 - 2015-12-09 10:20:06 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:


Fury cruise missiles on a Raven, with all skills 5, has an explosion radius of 425.25.. Rage torps on a Raven, all skills 5, has an exp radius of 580.5.
The Raven itself has a sig radius of 410.
This means a fury cruise Raven needs 1 MGC with precision script to get full application, while a rage torp raven needs 3.. That's against a stationary target.

Fury and rage are your high damage bad application missiles that are meant to be fired at either capitals, or targets heavily webbed and painted.

Please at least understand what missiles you should be using for what target before you try and pull numbers out of the air.
For a better comparison, please use Navy missiles, since that's the PvP standard really. Or at least standard missiles.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#509 - 2015-12-09 14:55:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:


Fury cruise missiles on a Raven, with all skills 5, has an explosion radius of 425.25.. Rage torps on a Raven, all skills 5, has an exp radius of 580.5.
The Raven itself has a sig radius of 410.
This means a fury cruise Raven needs 1 MGC with precision script to get full application, while a rage torp raven needs 3.. That's against a stationary target.

Fury and rage are your high damage bad application missiles that are meant to be fired at either capitals, or targets heavily webbed and painted.

Please at least understand what missiles you should be using for what target before you try and pull numbers out of the air.
For a better comparison, please use Navy missiles, since that's the PvP standard really. Or at least standard missiles.


That's the PVP standard because Fury and Precision generally suck in PVP.
Fury and Rage are NOT meant to hit capitals, structures, and heavily webbed and painted targets as you suggest.

If that were the case, than why do blasters, rails, pulses, beams, ACs, and arty's all work perfectly fine against BS class hulls with t2 ammo?


Edit... Forgot to mention the needs of navy against a target raven with a AB.
cruise - 3 MGCs for full
torp - 3 and 1 TP

Add 1 disruptor
cruise - 3 and 2
torp - 3 and 4

2 disruptors
cruise - 3 and 4 (mid slots full) 81% efficiency
torp - 3 and 4 60% efficiency.


Mind you, in comparison to the Abaddon, the efficiency becomes relatively equal.
HOWEVER, the Abaddon retains that efficiency while still maintaining tank, and dps.
In order for a cruise or torp fitted Raven with navy missiles to retain this efficiency, they must completely load down their mid slots with application modules, thus requiring the use of armor tank. Costing the ship damage, tank, and whatever else.

Also, if you're not using a web/MGC/TP, your efficiency with any missile drops by an insane amount.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#510 - 2015-12-10 02:18:59 UTC
For missile to be effective in PvP you really need to drop down a size, ie:
Battleship » Rapid Heavy Launchers
Cruiser » Rapid Light Launchers

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

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#511 - 2015-12-10 02:45:13 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

Edit... Forgot to mention the needs of navy against a target raven with a AB.

Ah, so now it's an unwebbed BS with an AB, AB's being ideal for countering missiles..... And you are expecting 100% application vs this, something that a lot of turrets also will be unable to achieve.
Talk about moving the goalposts for your argument.

Also a lot of T2 ammo is not ideal to use in many circumstances, thus why turret boats will carry normal ammo as well.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#512 - 2015-12-10 02:48:43 UTC
Furys and rage work well vs larger targets, much like void, hail, conflag and so on work well against the same or at very close range.

The low slot guidance enhancers work much like tracking enhancers, and so you can't really complain about one and not the other. It just depends on if you want to sacrifice a low for application.

I wouldn't mind seeing hamls and hmls buffed a bit in relation to their application though. Although missiles as are whole are quite oppressive in the right hands. *looks at mordus*
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#513 - 2015-12-10 03:54:28 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
Furys and rage work well vs larger targets, much like void, hail, conflag and so on work well against the same or at very close range.

The low slot guidance enhancers work much like tracking enhancers, and so you can't really complain about one and not the other. It just depends on if you want to sacrifice a low for application.

I wouldn't mind seeing hamls and hmls buffed a bit in relation to their application though. Although missiles as are whole are quite oppressive in the right hands. *looks at mordus*


One line of ships that performs well with missile does not make missile perform well.


Also, torps a cruise missiles could use a bit of rebalance as well.
I can live with cruise missiles as they are, but torps aren't too grand.

Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Ah, so now it's an unwebbed BS with an AB, AB's being ideal for countering missiles..... And you are expecting 100% application vs this, something that a lot of turrets also will be unable to achieve.
Talk about moving the goalposts for your argument.

Also a lot of T2 ammo is not ideal to use in many circumstances, thus why turret boats will carry normal ammo as well.


Missile boats large than a frig typically don't use webs, as they typically rely on range..
This may be different with armor boats, but this is generally specific to shield and missile combo.

You may find it on a ham tengu or drake, and possibly a torp BS (which you rarely see outside the alliance tournament anymore)..

Most of the cruiser hulls rely on kite fits, so a web means nothing as they will get pwned by the other weapon systems within web range.

And I did not move the goal posts.
I was presenting the fact that turrets can get more efficiency with less modules with or without disruption.

Vailen Sere
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#514 - 2015-12-10 22:42:25 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Kiki Abraxas wrote:
why not fix things that are broken such as sov mechanics :) and then go back to adding new ****



Sometimes I think that people just don't understand that not all development is created equal.

That's right, so if it's totally OP'd , we won't see a fix for at least 6 months cause of that missile "love to nerf" relationship.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#515 - 2015-12-11 23:51:50 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:


Fury cruise missiles on a Raven, with all skills 5, has an explosion radius of 425.25.. Rage torps on a Raven, all skills 5, has an exp radius of 580.5.
The Raven itself has a sig radius of 410.
This means a fury cruise Raven needs 1 MGC with precision script to get full application, while a rage torp raven needs 3.. That's against a stationary target.

Fury and rage are your high damage bad application missiles that are meant to be fired at either capitals, or targets heavily webbed and painted.

Please at least understand what missiles you should be using for what target before you try and pull numbers out of the air.
For a better comparison, please use Navy missiles, since that's the PvP standard really. Or at least standard missiles.

And right there is the problem with "High Damage Anti Ship" missiles, hams and torps, that is what they are called but don't bother using them for that, they are however great for shooting pocos ans pos's. Rage torps are even ok to shoot another battleship (in pvp), as long as it is painted, webbed and your stationary, any transversal will kill your application.

A little test of the "new" MGC precision scripted (in place of the web) on a hamgu (with 1 T2 damage application rig) running besieged sites. It took 9 min 30 sec to complete with Rage.
With web and no MGC it took 7 mins.
With MGE and no web the site exploded before the last npc died.
With web and MGE it took 10 mins 45 secs to complete (dropping the DCU to fit the MGE really hurts DPS and the MGE doesn't make up for it via applying what dps you have left better).
That is cruiser size weapon shooting primarily battleship hulls.
You can by keeping trans low knock a few seconds off the time to complete with a web, with a MGC or MGE it didn't make enough difference to be noticeable.
Running these sites using navy hams, not only takes longer but often ends up costing you more than you'll make from the site as the drops are not reliable, damage application is a little better with navies but the amount applied is far lower.
The few cruisers in the sites do die faster with navies but the 10 seconds between switching ammo all but negates the use of navies. With Rage they die in 4 or 5 volleys (15 seconds at most), with navies they die in 3 volleys plus the 10 seconds to reload (around 15 seconds).

I know, this is a PVE scenario but I wanted to test them somewhere the results are always the same (same amount of battleships and cruisers spawn each time and at approximately the same ranges) against something a class (or 2) above the hamgu.
My skills are all at 5 except Ham spec which is at 4, using no implants or drugs.
I ran 10 besieged sites and took the best time from each config.
I plan on doing this again with a railgu, just for comparison.

Nevyn, Your right, you shouldn't use T2 ammo for pvp. Isn't it a shame that missile boats are unable to use T2 ammo for PVP. Not sure any other weapon system is restricted to faction ammo for pvping.

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.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#516 - 2015-12-12 00:47:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Sgt Ocker wrote:

And right there is the problem with "High Damage Anti Ship" missiles, hams and torps, that is what they are called but don't bother using them for that, they are however great for shooting pocos ans pos's. Rage torps are even ok to shoot another battleship (in pvp), as long as it is painted, webbed and your stationary, any transversal will kill your application.

Uh wtf?
Your own movement has nothing to do with missile application at all. You obviously have no real clue how missiles work.

And yes, missiles do have some issues. Precision type missiles especially suffer badly as they need vastly more velocity since you shoot them at small fast targets, HM's and HAM's have terrible application in general (Though a Tengu is still OP).
But the stuff you are going on about is not the problem.
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#517 - 2015-12-13 04:02:47 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

And right there is the problem with "High Damage Anti Ship" missiles, hams and torps, that is what they are called but don't bother using them for that, they are however great for shooting pocos ans pos's. Rage torps are even ok to shoot another battleship (in pvp), as long as it is painted, webbed and your stationary, any transversal will kill your application.

Uh wtf?
Your own movement has nothing to do with missile application at all. You obviously have no real clue how missiles work.

And yes, missiles do have some issues. Precision type missiles especially suffer badly as they need vastly more velocity since you shoot them at small fast targets, HM's and HAM's have terrible application in general (Though a Tengu is still OP).
But the stuff you are going on about is not the problem.

Yeah.

The rebalance is on the ammo type itself.

Anti-Ship missiles have rediculous explosions radius's for application which would feed into "Missile tracking"

The range is dictate dy missile type an if its action or not.. which works that same was as gunnery ammo, But in short Range "Higher tracking", they have technicallyu "worse tracking", unless you throw in rigs.

I think its more of a balance issue due to complicated mechnics involving factors that are not present in gunnery.

Just my oppinion. I could be wrong.
Idame Isqua
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#518 - 2015-12-13 08:33:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Idame Isqua
Lady Rift wrote:
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.



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

Good poasting

Basically
KISS = keep it simple stupid

turret disruption
is entirely different from missile disruption
which is entirely different from "drone disruption"
which is only slightly different from Cheese
which is entirely different from rotten milk
which is entirely different from soy milk

And I believe it is important to understand these basic principles of eve.
FireFrost
TVMA
#519 - 2015-12-14 21:18:43 UTC  |  Edited by: FireFrost
lol lets just keep nerfing caldari , that seems like a great plan , we re the only race that gets kinetic bonus's only , amarr gets all dmg bonus min all dmg to missles why are we left out with kinetic? , I'm only joking , we should just have 1 ship that we can use that's projectile based and full of nuets and disrupters , cause lets face it that's all pvp ers use pointless to use missles in pvp , lasers do ok but most use projectiles , so we re just getting the kewl race out of the game entirely lol caldari are sexy their ships don't look like a huge female marriage enhancer , they don't have duct tape holding them together , I don't even play the game any more I just train skills in a station , which now my ships will be rust covered lol , it gonna get to a point where no one plays this game anymore , ah the good ole days of running 20-30 missions to get a plex , then china got in and boom 200mil to 800 mil for plexs now theyre over 1.2 bil each , since pvp is soley dependant on what kind of internet you have theres tons of players that don't play because you cant do much content with out pvping someone that's on a massive internet connection , how about adding non pvp stuff for those of us that just like playing the game? id love to just fart around in a highsec wormhole where I can gradualy build a carrier to just cruise around in by myself lol
Idame Isqua
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#520 - 2015-12-19 10:32:01 UTC
FireFrost wrote:
lol lets just keep nerfing caldari , that seems like a great plan , we re the only race that gets kinetic bonus's only , amarr gets all dmg bonus min all dmg to missles why are we left out with kinetic? , I'm only joking , we should just have 1 ship that we can use that's projectile based and full of nuets and disrupters , cause lets face it that's all pvp ers use pointless to use missles in pvp , lasers do ok but most use projectiles , so we re just getting the kewl race out of the game entirely lol caldari are sexy their ships don't look like a huge female marriage enhancer , they don't have duct tape holding them together , I don't even play the game any more I just train skills in a station , which now my ships will be rust covered lol , it gonna get to a point where no one plays this game anymore , ah the good ole days of running 20-30 missions to get a plex , then china got in and boom 200mil to 800 mil for plexs now theyre over 1.2 bil each , since pvp is soley dependant on what kind of internet you have theres tons of players that don't play because you cant do much content with out pvping someone that's on a massive internet connection , how about adding non pvp stuff for those of us that just like playing the game? id love to just fart around in a highsec wormhole where I can gradualy build a carrier to just cruise around in by myself lol


Living the dream

I just re read OP

So you're telling me

Missile disruption will reduce both flight time and velocity
or
explosion velocity and explosion radius

...

what

last time I checked turret disruption only involved
optimal range (not fall off)
or
tracking speed (not rate of fire)


or am I playing the wrong game?

so confused right now, its like I'm playing a game entirely different from what the developers are

this is the eve online forum right?

-_-