These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Missile Guidance Computer/Enhancer - why no higher Meta levels ?

Author
Fancy Candy
Good Names All Gone
#1 - 2017-02-18 08:55:34 UTC
Nearly every weapon upgrade system has a faction and/or even Officer version to it.

Missile Guidance Computer and Enhancer are still new (in eve time scale).
Wouldn't it be a good option to introduce higher Meta versions of these ?

Currently there is only T1 , Compact, and T2 for booth.
Which seems a little dissapoiting ... cause "options"

The typical increases in effectivness is already a well know calculation for CCP.

Benefits:
More fitting options
More LP Store Items
Indirect buff for Missile ships

Drawbacks:
Maybe edge cases on Phoenix and Leviathan against Subcaps (cant calculate it, so its only a speculation)

Problems:
Dev worktime (and we know that's the most valuable resource in Eve - and possibly the reason these aren't existing already)


Are there any things that slipped my mind, i'm happy to learn new things :)
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#2 - 2017-02-18 09:04:25 UTC
Because CCP eventually wants to turn all these T1 meta Version modules into items that players can produce and to that end they want to reduce the "unnecessary" clutter. Faction versions may come in the future, but for the T1 meta versions I don't see any point in providing more than the Compact: Better application/range stats of a Scoped would make the T2 obsolete and the capacitor usage for the BGC is too negligible to warrant an Enduring version.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Fancy Candy
Good Names All Gone
#3 - 2017-02-18 09:07:34 UTC
i am sorry maybe i got missunderstood.

I didnt ask for more options between T1 and T2.

I was suggesting Faction and Officer versions.
Meta mods above T2.
Caldary Navy, Domination, Republic Fleet, Officer
Lugh Crow-Slave
#4 - 2017-02-18 09:30:43 UTC
Lol because these were a nerf to missiles in general that never should have been added but players just kept on being for it
Lugh Crow-Slave
#5 - 2017-02-18 09:33:49 UTC
Fancy Candy wrote:
i am sorry maybe i got missunderstood.

I didnt ask for more options between T1 and T2.

I was suggesting Faction and Officer versions.
Meta mods above T2.
Caldary Navy, Domination, Republic Fleet, Officer



Yes eventually all these will be built by players best not to add more till that's in place. They have already stated with capital mods. (Now we just have to hope something shiny doesn't distract them)
Fancy Candy
Good Names All Gone
#6 - 2017-02-18 11:11:28 UTC
The Faction goods are already "produced" from the players
- or kind of produced with the LP Store .. which are good cause ISK sinks.

And if Officer Mods should be changed to BPC drops -- thats something CCP should decide.

But that would not hinder them to bring these Mods.
It wouldnt stop or hinder CCP to "move more to Produce".
They only would need to change the Mods Dropping to BPC dropping ... that change could still be made.
Do Little
Bluenose Trading
#7 - 2017-02-18 12:59:58 UTC
CCP is currently in the middle of a module tiercide. In my opinion, they should add no new variations to existing modules until this is complete and we have transitioned from loot drops to player built using named components for meta modules.

With limited resources I would rather they invest effort cleaning up the loose ends from all the stuff they added to the sandbox last year rather than balancing new modules that will probably need to be rebalanced when tiercide is complete!
Lugh Crow-Slave
#8 - 2017-02-18 14:04:45 UTC
I mean you do understand you're asking for another nerf right?

Why does everyone want to nerf missiles so badly?
Fancy Candy
Good Names All Gone
#9 - 2017-02-18 15:21:00 UTC
@Lugh Crow-Slave:
Sorry what ?

How should a modul that helps for Missiles DPS application or/and Range be a NERF ?

You maybe should explain your worries, indstead of posting twice "its a nerf" and hope for someone to catch onto the phrase.

It would speed up the process and clears possibly missunderstandings faster (from booth sides)
Wolfgang Jannesen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2017-02-18 15:23:15 UTC
*ahem* Why? All the low slot damage mods for missiles and turrets have their faction variants and a large chunk of them aren't a huge improvement over the T2.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#11 - 2017-02-18 15:34:17 UTC
Fancy Candy wrote:
@Lugh Crow-Slave:
Sorry what ?

How should a modul that helps for Missiles DPS application or/and Range be a NERF ?

You maybe should explain your worries, indstead of posting twice "its a nerf" and hope for someone to catch onto the phrase.

It would speed up the process and clears possibly missunderstandings faster (from booth sides)




because i'm almost board repeating myself


at current the max application possible is what all these modules are balanced around. should you want to add mods that are better in any way it will mean nerfing the current ones to achieve this so as nothing becomes over powered. Many of us tried to explain this when ppl asked for a missile tracking computer. The end resault was when they were added you now have to give up more tank or more utility to get back to where you were before they were added and to top it off you also need to worry about disruptors. MGE effectively nerfed every missile ship in the game and this will just further nerf the MGE in order to keep things balanced.
Fancy Candy
Good Names All Gone
#12 - 2017-02-18 17:34:47 UTC
so "please no better mods" cause the existing would need to be nerfed to introduce these ?

I would like to see and learn how close these are to be OP.
Is it cause of the Caldari Dread/Titan High angel weapons ?
Please explain/show so i can understand and learn.

That would help to refine the idea and show flaws/edge cases which would occure.
Or render it completly usless cause of gamebraking mechanics.


Personal note:
In my personal use (HAM,CM,Torp) it had a very positiv impact using a single precision or range scripted MGC.
I had to trade Tank/Resists - with adapting fits (were fitting alows it) i got a realy good improvment.

If i wouldnt use the MGC i would stil have the same DPS-application as infront of the Agis release. (except HM which received +5% Basedamage)
Lugh Crow-Slave
#13 - 2017-02-18 18:01:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Unless you can make a good argument as to how the current max rang/application needs to be raised the only way to add better mods is to make them the same as the current ones and then make the current ones worse


And then if you can do that and these mods are balanced you have to make the argument as to why faction mgd do not need to be added. If MGD do get added you leave any missile ship not fitting the new MGE vulnerable something that again would be a nerf to missiles
Cade Windstalker
#14 - 2017-02-18 18:13:34 UTC
CCP just haven't gotten around to adding stuff like this yet. If I had to guess their main concern is adding yet another Caldari/Guristas exclusive set of Faction and Deadspace mods and thus, essentially, further buffing the value of ratting in that space which is already fairly high among the available options.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#15 - 2017-02-18 18:33:08 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
If I had to guess their main concern is adding yet another Caldari/Guristas exclusive set of Faction and Deadspace mods and thus, essentially, further buffing the value of ratting in that space which is already fairly high among the available options.



... if that was the case they could make them fleet and eom or tribe
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#16 - 2017-02-19 01:57:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Soon.™

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