These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2015-10-02 18:05:32 UTC
And definitely NOT one scripted mod, as I'll simply put a TD on EVERY SINGLE ship. Because why would I not....
Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2015-10-02 18:10:14 UTC
Good general direction and nice information flow. +1 from me

Though it may be worth considering a ROF script as well. There are certain situations where point blank crippling the dps of a missile/torp ship would be beneficial as well as add more tactical depth. The idea would also apply well to turret ships for similar reasons.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#43 - 2015-10-02 18:12:31 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 like separate modules. Otherwise one ship can defend against any threat with a single mod. At least you have to choose the mod and cant just blanket every circumstance. Course mobile depots will work around this, but at least you cant change mid fight.

Welp, its going to be sentinels, crucifiers, arbitrator, curse/pilgrim online after this. Like LS needs more of these flying around. Indirect drone buff as theyre the only weapon system that doesnt have an ewar counter.

Will adapt as usual, but heavies are going to be even more useless except in niche scenarios.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#44 - 2015-10-02 18:18:57 UTC
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
general buffs to missiles also incoming to balance this out? Outside of frigate sized missiles, missiles just don't seem like a great weapon type. that said I don't have the math wizardry or usage stats to really check, but it seems HML lose out on damage to MWDing cruisers to RLML even after reloads. add links and bleh. maybe just always fly with a rapier?



do people actually believe that rapid launchers aren't massively overpowered?
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2015-10-02 18:20:52 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
general buffs to missiles also incoming to balance this out? Outside of frigate sized missiles, missiles just don't seem like a great weapon type. that said I don't have the math wizardry or usage stats to really check, but it seems HML lose out on damage to MWDing cruisers to RLML even after reloads. add links and bleh. maybe just always fly with a rapier?



do people actually believe that rapid launchers aren't massively overpowered?


Do people remember there are more missile systems than that?
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#46 - 2015-10-02 18:25:32 UTC
my sentinel is ready

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#47 - 2015-10-02 18:27:11 UTC
afkalt wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
general buffs to missiles also incoming to balance this out? Outside of frigate sized missiles, missiles just don't seem like a great weapon type. that said I don't have the math wizardry or usage stats to really check, but it seems HML lose out on damage to MWDing cruisers to RLML even after reloads. add links and bleh. maybe just always fly with a rapier?



do people actually believe that rapid launchers aren't massively overpowered?


Do people remember there are more missile systems than that?


yeah but nobody is using them
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#48 - 2015-10-02 18:29:21 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
afkalt wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
general buffs to missiles also incoming to balance this out? Outside of frigate sized missiles, missiles just don't seem like a great weapon type. that said I don't have the math wizardry or usage stats to really check, but it seems HML lose out on damage to MWDing cruisers to RLML even after reloads. add links and bleh. maybe just always fly with a rapier?



do people actually believe that rapid launchers aren't massively overpowered?


Do people remember there are more missile systems than that?


yeah but nobody is using them


So we fix the systems with problems, we don't sledgehammer everything else along the way.
Muon Farstrider
Hidden Flame
The Ancients.
#49 - 2015-10-02 18:29:25 UTC
In my opinion, I'd rather just add these capabilities to the existing tracking disruptor modules (and probably rename them). Just have the base module do all four effects in addition to the current three effects, then give it all 4 scripts.

Why? Well, tracking disruption is already not that strongly used, partly because it doesn't affect so many ships. If you make separate missile and tracking disruptors, you still have the same problem. Either you have to know in advance exactly what you're fighting, or else you'll either be stuck with useless ewar modules if you guess wrong or have to reduce your overall ability to disrupt any one type of target by fitting a mix. Meanwhile, damps and target paints work on everything. And while racial ecm is a thing, an off-race jammer still at least has partial effectiveness.

If it's deemed too much to have one disruption module fully effective against both weapon types, then I would alternately suggest following the pattern of ECM by giving each disruptor the ability to affect the opposite weapon type at half effectiveness. (So, for example, a T2 tracking disruptor would still have its current -17.2% base tracking/optimal/falloff, and then also have -4.5% flight time/velocity, -6% explosion velocity, and +6% explosion radius. A T2 missile disruptor would have full strength missile disruption stats and half strength turret disruption stats. Fitting either of them with a range or application script would appropriately remove/double the penalties for both weapon types.) This at least avoids the problem of getting caught with a literally useless ewar module, while still preserving the relevance of correctly choosing your module type if that is deemed desirable.

Also, while this might seem a bit odd in light of what I wrote above, I'm a bit concerned that this whole thing might represent too severe a decrease in the overall viability of missiles. Missiles not having any ewar counter *was* weird and probably should have been corrected, but that was arguably one of the things helping balance them. Not all missiles are bad - rockets and light missiles, for example, are in a good place overall (and RLML can even be argued to be a bit OP) - but there are a fair number of missile types and platforms that are struggling. (Oddities like BCUs inexplicably using 25% more CPU than turret damage modules or the absence of remote missile guidance computers don't help either.) It's probably time to take another pass at individual missile types and hulls and see if they need buffing. (And for pete's sake, if you're not going to remove damage type locking, at least give those hulls half-strength bonuses to the other types just so that the designed advantage of missiles being able to switch damage types isn't *completely* negated for them.)
Riela Tanal
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#50 - 2015-10-02 18:30:06 UTC
As has been stated by others. If they go with the script method, every ship will fit just one of these tracking disruptors and swap the script out for whatever weapon type they are fighting.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#51 - 2015-10-02 18:30:12 UTC
afkalt wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
afkalt wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
general buffs to missiles also incoming to balance this out? Outside of frigate sized missiles, missiles just don't seem like a great weapon type. that said I don't have the math wizardry or usage stats to really check, but it seems HML lose out on damage to MWDing cruisers to RLML even after reloads. add links and bleh. maybe just always fly with a rapier?



do people actually believe that rapid launchers aren't massively overpowered?


Do people remember there are more missile systems than that?


yeah but nobody is using them


So we fix the systems with problems, we don't sledgehammer everything else along the way.


not sure how a general missile buff to compensate for missile disruptors achieves that
h4kun4
Banana-Republic.
Shadow Cartel
#52 - 2015-10-02 18:30:16 UTC
I suppose that the decision to add an extra module instead of making a script is to not make it OP, i think it is a good decision, so have to think about what you do when you fit the ship
Mario Putzo
#53 - 2015-10-02 18:33:50 UTC
Sure would be nice to have missiles feel balanced before you go making ways to make them less effective.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#54 - 2015-10-02 18:36:38 UTC
yeaaaaaaaaay, **** you drake! back in yer box!
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#55 - 2015-10-02 18:36:44 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:

not sure how a general missile buff to compensate for missile disruptors achieves that


Because if 75% of the systems are weak and 25% are too good, we reign in th 25% and give the 75% a leg up.


Hit quote limit
Goran Mitelek
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#56 - 2015-10-02 18:45:11 UTC
* Would like to see torps on battleships being a more viable choice.
* +1 vote for Faction Tracking Mods (+ storyline and even purples)
* Curious to see how missile disruptors work out
* Curious to see what else one can do with defender missiles. One idea is to remove their missile hardpoint requirement like with festival launchers. Give them a chaff launcher or something weird that can fit to a utility high slot. Might make em a wee bit overpowered, but if their cpu and grid costs are high enough it may well compensate. Or otherwise for a utility launcher give em a speed buff but a rof penalty or something like. Just an idea. Use it, don't use it, whatever.
* EWAR as a whole, and ECCM especially needs a drastic, drastic, drastic overhaul, with ECCM's becoming more effective imo as well. The ECCM mechanics are weird, and class type dont benefit above omni in any particular way. I would advise that you figure out what you are going to do with EWAR and ECCM as a whole before implementing mechanics for disruptors.
Leucy Kerastase
650BN
#57 - 2015-10-02 18:45:32 UTC
sytaqe violacea wrote:
Do you have any plan to add bonus about this modules on any ship?

CCP Fozzie wrote:
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).
unidenify
Deaf Armada
#58 - 2015-10-02 18:50:50 UTC
I have big concern that I would like to see to be addressed.

current missile has issue where any change on missile range during in flight cause it to disappear

it is common knowledge among Golem pilot that once missile get in flight and bastion either go online or offline after launch, Missile simple disappear.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#59 - 2015-10-02 18:52:22 UTC
Muon Farstrider wrote:
In my opinion, I'd rather just add these capabilities to the existing tracking disruptor modules (and probably rename them). Just have the base module do all four effects in addition to the current three effects, then give it all 4 scripts.

Why? Well, tracking disruption is already not that strongly used, partly because it doesn't affect so many ships. If you make separate missile and tracking disruptors, you still have the same problem. Either you have to know in advance exactly what you're fighting, or else you'll either be stuck with useless ewar modules if you guess wrong or have to reduce your overall ability to disrupt any one type of target by fitting a mix. Meanwhile, damps and target paints work on everything. And while racial ecm is a thing, an off-race jammer still at least has partial effectiveness.

If it's deemed too much to have one disruption module fully effective against both weapon types, then I would alternately suggest following the pattern of ECM by giving each disruptor the ability to affect the opposite weapon type at half effectiveness. (So, for example, a T2 tracking disruptor would still have its current -17.2% base tracking/optimal/falloff, and then also have -4.5% flight time/velocity, -6% explosion velocity, and +6% explosion radius. A T2 missile disruptor would have full strength missile disruption stats and half strength turret disruption stats. Fitting either of them with a range or application script would appropriately remove/double the penalties for both weapon types.) This at least avoids the problem of getting caught with a literally useless ewar module, while still preserving the relevance of correctly choosing your module type if that is deemed desirable.

Also, while this might seem a bit odd in light of what I wrote above, I'm a bit concerned that this whole thing might represent too severe a decrease in the overall viability of missiles. Missiles not having any ewar counter *was* weird and probably should have been corrected, but that was arguably one of the things helping balance them. Not all missiles are bad - rockets and light missiles, for example, are in a good place overall (and RLML can even be argued to be a bit OP) - but there are a fair number of missile types and platforms that are struggling. (Oddities like BCUs inexplicably using 25% more CPU than turret damage modules or the absence of remote missile guidance computers don't help either.) It's probably time to take another pass at individual missile types and hulls and see if they need buffing. (And for pete's sake, if you're not going to remove damage type locking, at least give those hulls half-strength bonuses to the other types just so that the designed advantage of missiles being able to switch damage types isn't *completely* negated for them.)


I stopped reading when you said tracking disruption is rarely used. Think you should fly around a bit more. TDs are everywhere in LS, and seems most gangs i run into have either a sentinel or curse and even an arbitrator on hand. Hell even newbros have made me useless with a crucifier.

Its actually just as devasting as being damped, since i cant hit **** 8km from me with large guns when theyre right inline with me. No to it being in the same module, it would be OP and every risk averse gang will have a curse/sentinel to go along with their falcon/kitsune. Neut and TD all the things.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#60 - 2015-10-02 19:03:56 UTC
afkalt wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:

not sure how a general missile buff to compensate for missile disruptors achieves that


Because if 75% of the systems are weak and 25% are too good, we reign in th 25% and give the 75% a leg up.


Hit quote limit


non-rapid/light missiles are fine. you just never see them because rapids and lights are op