Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1461
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 11:28:58 -
[301] - Quote
I posted a phoon earlier in this thread. It'll be sick for small fights. I don't recall if it was AAR or buffer because either fits and works.
You can squeeze something like 90k ehp out them, and still have something like 700 dps and THREE of the new mods in the mids, plus prop mod PLUS LMJD
I don't think for a second the large fleet meta will move, but small gangs these are fairly game changing. |
Skyler Hawk
Boars on Parade The Tuskers Co.
40
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 11:33:25 -
[302] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Skyler Hawk wrote:These things are overpowered to the point of being broken as it stands. A single range-scripted MGC increases range by 42% whereas a range-scripted tracking computer gives a 15% increase to optimal and 30% to falloff, which is much less powerful. It's harder to directly compare the difference in damage application between a tracking-scripted TC and a precision-scripted MGC due to the differences between the tracking and missile damage equations, but in practical terms the improvement in application that you get from the scripted MGCs is vastly more significant than a 30% boost to tracking on a turret. Actually, the current velocity bonus (there is no range bonus) for a scripted MGC on SiSi is only 21%. And this is stacking penalized. Heavy use of these will seriously cut into any shield tank, tackle or EW. You can't make a direct comparison between missiles and guns, because it's apples to oranges (or grapes to sour grapes). You're wrong, sorry - a missile range script doubles the MGC's base bonuses to both flight time and missile velocity to 19% each. The combined effect is to increase overall range by 41.6%. For example, on SiSi right now a flycatcher with a base missile range of 63 km using faction ammo has its range increase to 89 km when you activate a range-scripted MGC. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1481
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 12:04:19 -
[303] - Quote
Skyler Hawk wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Skyler Hawk wrote:These things are overpowered to the point of being broken as it stands. A single range-scripted MGC increases range by 42% whereas a range-scripted tracking computer gives a 15% increase to optimal and 30% to falloff, which is much less powerful. It's harder to directly compare the difference in damage application between a tracking-scripted TC and a precision-scripted MGC due to the differences between the tracking and missile damage equations, but in practical terms the improvement in application that you get from the scripted MGCs is vastly more significant than a 30% boost to tracking on a turret. Actually, the current velocity bonus (there is no range bonus) for a scripted MGC on SiSi is only 21%. And this is stacking penalized. Heavy use of these will seriously cut into any shield tank, tackle or EW. You can't make a direct comparison between missiles and guns, because it's apples to oranges (or grapes to sour grapes). You're wrong, sorry - a missile range script doubles the MGC's base bonuses to both flight time and missile velocity to 19% each. The combined effect is to increase overall range by 41.6%. For example, on SiSi right now a flycatcher with a base missile range of 63 km using faction ammo has its range increase to 89 km when you activate a range-scripted MGC.
No he's right
Your comparing 2 completely weapon systems that apply their damage through 2 completely different calculations.
Missile Range is a static TxV=R sum, chance to hit is not impacted as long R remains valid Turret Range is an additive O+F where the chance to hit tends to 0 as F increases
FYI O+F is effective range O+(Fx2.6) is maximum range
and yes at F x 2.6 your chance to hit is about 1% ... but that hit can also CRITICALLY HIT something that missiles cannot do turrets can miss or crit missiles only ever hit
It may in future be possible for missiles to "miss" when these e-war features become live, but I very much doubt they will receive the crit hit function that turrets currently enjoy to compensate |
Sky Marshal
Core Industry. Circle-Of-Two
66
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 13:02:33 -
[304] - Quote
Apart some PVE ships who can afford that, and some specific ships of other races, I don't see where this new modules will be used. Caldari ships won't really get any boost, because Tackle/Tank/Damage choose two...
I am still about to switch to an Eagle, guns are better. The last time I used a Cerberus in a big fleet fight, the missiles didn't reach the targets before they were destroyed... Damn Ishtars. |
stoicfaux
5987
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 13:12:58 -
[305] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:Skyler Hawk wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote: Actually, the current velocity bonus (there is no range bonus) for a scripted MGC on SiSi is only 21%. And this is stacking penalized. Heavy use of these will seriously cut into any shield tank, tackle or EW. You can't make a direct comparison between missiles and guns, because it's apples to oranges (or grapes to sour grapes).
You're wrong, sorry - a missile range script doubles the MGC's base bonuses to both flight time and missile velocity to 19% each. The combined effect is to increase overall range by 41.6%. For example, on SiSi right now a flycatcher with a base missile range of 63 km using faction ammo has its range increase to 89 km when you activate a range-scripted MGC. No he's right Your comparing 2 completely weapon systems that apply their damage through 2 completely different calculations. Actually, everyone is right. Sisi doesn't display a flight time bonus, so folks are working with different assumptions and getting different conclusions.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
5222
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 14:21:37 -
[306] - Quote
Hello
Small update for you on the new modules.
First of all, the first build that went to sisi with the new modules has several incomplete pieces, one of which was the absence of stacking penalties on the explosion radius and explosion velocity bonus for new modules. That should be fixed in the newest build.
Second of all, after some really great feedback from you guys (and from the CSM) we are going to tune the initial numbers for these modules down a bit from what was proposed in the OP. There's a few problems with the numbers proposed originally but at the end of the day it would have meant Missile Guidance Modules were substantially stronger than their tracking counterparts (around 50% stronger for the enhancer and around 33% stronger for the computer).
I'm going to just update the OP with the new numbers and you guys can let me know what you think. If you notice any other problems or bugs on sisi be sure to point them out.
Thanks for all the feedback so far!
@ccp_rise
|
|
Mario Putzo
1439
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 14:33:50 -
[307] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hello
Small update for you on the new modules.
First of all, the first build that went to sisi with the new modules has several incomplete pieces, one of which was the absence of stacking penalties on the explosion radius and explosion velocity bonus for new modules. That should be fixed in the newest build.
Second of all, after some really great feedback from you guys (and from the CSM) we are going to tune the initial numbers for these modules down a bit from what was proposed in the OP. There's a few problems with the numbers proposed originally but at the end of the day it would have meant Missile Guidance Modules were substantially stronger than their tracking counterparts (around 50% stronger for the enhancer and around 33% stronger for the computer).
I'm going to just update the OP with the new numbers and you guys can let me know what you think. If you notice any other problems or bugs on sisi be sure to point them out.
Thanks for all the feedback so far!
Nice, So instead of needing only 3 application mods to match applied DPS from turrets using 1 Tracking Computer I only need 4 when using heavy missiles against an AB cruiser. Pretty much right back where we are currently using all three rig slots for application purposes.
Even more reason to change that 5% HM damage change to redaction of the 12% Explosion Radius change you made 2 years ago.
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1913
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 14:39:28 -
[308] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hello
Small update for you on the new modules.
First of all, the first build that went to sisi with the new modules has several incomplete pieces, one of which was the absence of stacking penalties on the explosion radius and explosion velocity bonus for new modules. That should be fixed in the newest build.
Second of all, after some really great feedback from you guys (and from the CSM) we are going to tune the initial numbers for these modules down a bit from what was proposed in the OP. There's a few problems with the numbers proposed originally but at the end of the day it would have meant Missile Guidance Modules were substantially stronger than their tracking counterparts (around 50% stronger for the enhancer and around 33% stronger for the computer).
I'm going to just update the OP with the new numbers and you guys can let me know what you think. If you notice any other problems or bugs on sisi be sure to point them out.
Thanks for all the feedback so far!
I'm not sure about the need for uniformity between the two.
First off, missile travel time is a pain because of delayed damage and reduce effective range for the non-fleeing missile user. Having a decent boost was nice for that, and well deserved.
Second, missile damage application is rarely satisfactory, a stasis is mandatory in most cases, except that it is often not possible using long range missiles. Which are the ones needing the more love. If you compare the missile damage application against turret application, you will see why missile appmication mods or stats desperately need help. And if you factor-in the overall lower dps + not-so-nerfed firewalling, I wonder if it will be viable for medium to large gang pvp. Although the number one issue by FAR is delayed damage. This is a huuuuge downside in a game where logistics are so powerful that mpst tactics rely on outpacing them.
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
|
Callisto Helix
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
22
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 14:40:39 -
[309] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hello
Small update for you on the new modules.
First of all, the first build that went to sisi with the new modules has several incomplete pieces, one of which was the absence of stacking penalties on the explosion radius and explosion velocity bonus for new modules. That should be fixed in the newest build.
Second of all, after some really great feedback from you guys (and from the CSM) we are going to tune the initial numbers for these modules down a bit from what was proposed in the OP. There's a few problems with the numbers proposed originally but at the end of the day it would have meant Missile Guidance Modules were substantially stronger than their tracking counterparts (around 50% stronger for the enhancer and around 33% stronger for the computer).
I'm going to just update the OP with the new numbers and you guys can let me know what you think. If you notice any other problems or bugs on sisi be sure to point them out.
Thanks for all the feedback so far!
As the missile damage application formula is so horribly broken in its current state, I think it's okay if the missile damage application mods are significantly more powerful than their turret counterparts.
Unless you're going to be re-balancing that formula as well, in which case this might end up working out okay in the end. |
Skir Skor
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
18
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 14:54:08 -
[310] - Quote
The FOF missiles are in a really bad spot atm . Any chance of some love?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9_N1ugYSE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL4Z5GM92Qg |
|
stoicfaux
5987
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 14:54:52 -
[311] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hello
Second of all, after some really great feedback from you guys (and from the CSM) we are going to tune the initial numbers for these modules down a bit from what was proposed in the OP. There's a few problems with the numbers proposed originally but at the end of the day it would have meant Missile Guidance Modules were substantially stronger than their tracking counterparts (around 50% stronger for the enhancer and around 33% stronger for the computer).
And bananas should be as difficult to peel as apples? =/
Missiles are *very* different from guns and have a *very* different set of problems to overcome. Why should "missile TCs" be limited by "gun TCs"? Personally, I was liking the current stats as a way of getting away from the need to mount "mandatory" rigor rigs.
Can you please provide the a bit more of the reasoning for reducing their bonuses?
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
stoicfaux
5988
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 15:15:51 -
[312] - Quote
Updated with the new and reduced MGC/MGE values.
Normalized values in terms of how they affect the 2nd part of the missile formula
250.0% - 60% Web 222.2% - 55% Web 200.0% - 50% Web 187.5% - 2x Rigor II, Flare II 179.7% - 2x Rigor II, Flare I 162.8% - 3x Rigor I 156.3% - bonused PWNAGE TP (e.g. Golem) (skills V) 156.3% - 2x Rigor II 138.4% - 2x Rigor I 137.5% - PWNAGE TP (skills V) 135.3% - MGC II @ 15% w/Precision Script 127.3% - Compact MGC @ 12% w/Precision Script 125.0% - Rigor II 122.2% - MGC I @ 10% w/Precision Script 120.0% - Flare II 117.6% - Rigor I 116.2% - MGC II @ 7.5% 115.0% - Flare I 112.8% - Compact MGC @ 6% 111.6% - MGE II @ 5.5% 110.5% - MGC I @ 5% 110.5% - Compact MGE @ 5% 109.4% - MGE I @ 4.5%
Missile distance: (missile flight/speed rigs are stacking penalized)
123.2% - MGC II @ 11% w/Range Script 120.0% - T2 rig @ 20% 118.8% - MGC Compact @ 9% w/Range Script 116.6% - MGC I @ 8% w/Range Script 115.0% - T2 rig @ 15% 112.4% - MGE II @ 6% 111.3% - MGC I @ 5.5% 111.3% - MGE Compact @ 5.5% 110.3% - MGE I @ 5% 109.5% - MGC Compact @ 4.5% 108.2% - MGC I @ 4%
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1423
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 15:23:01 -
[313] - Quote
The drake was happy for a few moments there..
Oh well :-).
Yaay!!!!
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1943
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 15:40:14 -
[314] - Quote
Stoicfaux, for the sake of completeness, can you add 90% webs (serpentis) to the list? |
stoicfaux
5988
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 15:48:24 -
[315] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Stoicfaux, for the sake of completeness, can you add 90% webs (serpentis) to the list? Bwahahhahaha! 1 / ( 1 - .9) = 10 aka 1,000%. When you've slowed something that much, then (normally) the 1st part of the missile formula takes precedent over the 2nd part, i.e. it all comes down to missile radius versus target radius at that point, namely S / E.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
46
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 15:51:36 -
[316] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Heyo
It's getting pretty close to release and I have a lot of balance changes we need to talk about!
This thread is for discussion on a package of missile changes that we are pretty excited to see the results of. So what's in this package?
Missile Guidance Enhancers - Low slot modules that increase missile explosion velocity, lower explosion radius, increase missile flight time and increase missile velocity Missile Guidance Computers - Mid slot modules that increase missile explosion velocity, lower explosion radius, increase missile flight time and increase missile velocity. These modules can use Missile Precision and Missile Range scripts and can of course be overheated. Heavy Missile Damage is being increased by 5% for all Heavy Missile Types Torpedo volume is being reduced by half, meaning you can fit twice as many Torpedo's in all launchers (except polarized, which have had their capacity reduced) as before. Some specifics on the new modules:
We are starting with 3 types in each group. Tech I, Compact (lower fitting requirements), and Tech II. Faction variations would certainly be on the table for later releases when we are happy with the tuning of numbers on these first mods.
The numbers:
Missile Guidance Enhancer I 10 CPU, 1 PG, 4.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 5% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time Pro-Nav Compact Missile Guidance Enhancer 8 CPU, 1 PG, 5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 5.5% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time Missile Guidance Enhancer II 15 CPU, 1 PG, 5.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 6% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time
Missile Guidance Computer I 28 CPU, 1 PG, 5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 4% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time Astro-Inertial Compact Missile Guidance Computer 24 CPU, 1 PG 6% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 4.5% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time Missile Guidance Computer II 35 CPU, 1 PG 7.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 5.5% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time
These are set very close to the corresponding turret module numbers and may need adjustment after deployment.
We would have liked to include disruption modules to go along with these enhancement modules but there are actually some technical hurdles we need to figure out and we didn't want to keep holding back on adding these in the mean time. Look for those sometime in the future.
Let us know what you think! While the initial numbers seemed very strong the new numbers are definitely more average. I hope you have a genuine willingness to boost numbers after release if you don't see desired results.
Personally, if there was a base missile buff for velocity and explosion velocity then I think these new module stats would be on target. But with missile application against speed being as poor as it is to begin with, these modules do not compensate enough for that.
But I am glad CCP has introduced modules to help the situation and give more meaningful fitting choices to missile ships. I just hope, especially for heavy missiles and larger, that balancing will find a place to make these ships competitive and desirable.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1943
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 15:54:34 -
[317] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Stoicfaux, for the sake of completeness, can you add 90% webs (serpentis) to the list? Bwahahhahaha! 1 / ( 1 - .9) = 10 aka 1,000%. When you've slowed something that much, then (normally) the 1st part of the missile formula takes precedent over the 2nd part, i.e. it all comes down to missile radius versus target radius at that point, namely S / E.
I was expecting a rather high value but not 1000% but I'm bad at formula so meh...
The fact that you still fight something at that point with missiles while tracking become borderline irrelevant should be noted imo. Guns can work on one part of their difficulties to achieve constant good hits while missile have to work both side at the same time...
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1318
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 16:06:21 -
[318] - Quote
I didn't want to say anything because of the possibility of jinxing the whole damn thing. But as soon as I tried the MGC last night, I knew it was going to get nerfed. >40% range bonus was very strong.
But the application bonuses too? Those definitely weren't OP.
Is there a reason for the MGE having stronger range stats than application stats, while the MGC has stronger application stats than range? Maybe because of the ability to script for range on the MGC?
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Gorski Car
635
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 16:08:00 -
[319] - Quote
These stats are much better.
Collect this post
|
bunzing heet
Demon-War-Lords SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 16:09:04 -
[320] - Quote
Skyler Hawk wrote:These things are overpowered to the point of being broken as it stands. A single range-scripted MGC increases range by 42% whereas a range-scripted tracking computer gives a 15% increase to optimal and 30% to falloff, which is much less powerful. It's harder to directly compare the difference in damage application between a tracking-scripted TC and a precision-scripted MGC due to the differences between the tracking and missile damage equations, but in practical terms the improvement in application that you get from the scripted MGCs is vastly more significant than a 30% boost to tracking on a turret.
That's because you can outrun missiles and really need that range to compensate for that As for the application it's needed as well to get the larger missiles on track with the rest of the weapon systems
Fly safe keep killing
And remember
I'm watching you !!!!
|
|
stoicfaux
5989
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 16:35:13 -
[321] - Quote
Personally, I would like to see a Mordu's Legion faction script (and faction MGE (and MGC)) that buffs missile speed greatly while reducing flight time greatly...
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1319
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 16:36:27 -
[322] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Personally, I would like to see a Mordu's Legion faction script (and faction MGE (and MGC)) that buffs missile speed greatly while reducing flight time greatly...
That's a really interesting concept.
Faction Missile Guidance mods would obviously come from Caldari Navy, and as you say perhaps Mordu's Legion as well.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
stoicfaux
5989
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 16:44:50 -
[323] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Personally, I would like to see a Mordu's Legion faction script (and faction MGE (and MGC)) that buffs missile speed greatly while reducing flight time greatly...
That's a really interesting concept. Faction Missile Guidance mods would obviously come from Caldari Navy, and as you say perhaps Mordu's Legion as well. And the Minmatar versions would use the SKIN system to have the missile impacts leave rust splotches on the enemy hulls.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Mario Putzo
1442
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 16:57:01 -
[324] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Soldarius wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Personally, I would like to see a Mordu's Legion faction script (and faction MGE (and MGC)) that buffs missile speed greatly while reducing flight time greatly...
That's a really interesting concept. Faction Missile Guidance mods would obviously come from Caldari Navy, and as you say perhaps Mordu's Legion as well. And the Minmatar versions would use the SKIN system to have the missile impacts leave rust splotches on the enemy hulls.
Paintball in space? |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1465
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 17:04:32 -
[325] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Updated with the new and reduced MGC/MGE values. Normalized values in terms of how they affect the 2nd part of the missile formula 1,000.0% - 90% Web (At which point the 1st part of the missile formula overrides the 2nd part, so this isn't relevant.) 250.0% - 60% Web 222.2% - 55% Web 200.0% - 50% Web 187.5% - 2x Rigor II, Flare II 179.7% - 2x Rigor II, Flare I 162.8% - 3x Rigor I 156.3% - bonused PWNAGE TP (e.g. Golem) (skills V) 156.3% - 2x Rigor II 138.4% - 2x Rigor I 137.5% - PWNAGE TP (skills V) 135.3% - MGC II @ 15% w/Precision Script 127.3% - Compact MGC @ 12% w/Precision Script 125.0% - Rigor II 122.2% - MGC I @ 10% w/Precision Script 120.0% - Flare II 117.6% - Rigor I 116.2% - MGC II @ 7.5% 115.0% - Flare I 112.8% - Compact MGC @ 6% 111.6% - MGE II @ 5.5% 110.5% - MGC I @ 5% 110.5% - Compact MGE @ 5% 109.4% - MGE I @ 4.5%
Missile distance: (missile flight/speed rigs are stacking penalized) 123.2% - MGC II @ 11% w/Range Script 120.0% - T2 rig @ 20% 118.8% - MGC Compact @ 9% w/Range Script 116.6% - MGC I @ 8% w/Range Script 115.0% - T2 rig @ 15% 112.4% - MGE II @ 6% 111.3% - MGC I @ 5.5% 111.3% - MGE Compact @ 5.5% 110.3% - MGE I @ 5% 109.5% - MGC Compact @ 4.5% 108.2% - MGC I @ 4%
So basically they're pointless for application now.
Le Sigh. |
Altarica
The Pale Eye
7
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 17:19:00 -
[326] - Quote
afkalt wrote: So basically they're pointless for application now.
Le Sigh.
Are we surprised?
That maybe missiles would be (more) viable again (other than RLML Orthrus) ?
No sadly we are not surprised.
Don't forget there is still the anti missile EW to come.
Looks like this boost to missile will turn out to be another nerf after all |
bunzing heet
Demon-War-Lords SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 17:23:15 -
[327] - Quote
Altarica wrote:afkalt wrote: So basically they're pointless for application now.
Le Sigh.
Are we surprised? That maybe missiles would be (more) viable again (other than RLML Orthrus) ? No sadly we are not surprised. Don't forget there is still the anti missile EW to come. Looks like this boost to missile will turn out to be another nerf after all
Give me back my words because you just used them
Fly safe keep killing
And remember
I'm watching you !!!!
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
297
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 17:30:55 -
[328] - Quote
Altarica wrote:Looks like this boost to missile will turn out to be another nerf after all Roll Easy to predict. When I read "meaningfull choices" or something like that I know it will be bad.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Mario Putzo
1442
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 17:31:01 -
[329] - Quote
afkalt wrote: So basically they're pointless for application now.
Le Sigh.
You shouldn't be shocked. After all this is the balance team who has spent 3 years now attempting to balance drones as a weapon system...yet steadfastly refuse to take the most obvious step in doing so (match them to size appropriate hulls). The same folks who nerfed Heavy Missiles into obscurity because ONE ship that used them was heavily popular, not because it used missiles, but because it was cheap as **** to replace when lost. The same balance crew who have created a glaring gap in intership size balance by making Cruisers essentially the end all be all of cost efficient fleet setups, the same team who claim to be wary of "Power Creep" yet at every turn continue to facilitate changes based on creeping power.
Truth be told, Missiles for the most part don't even need these modules, they would be nice to have so you could make a choice, use a rig slot, or use a mid slot, or use a low slot. But in terms of necessity the only actual change missiles need is reverting the Explosion Radius change made to heavy missiles.
When Cruise Missiles can hit Cruisers for nearly the same applied % Damage as Heavy Missiles, it doesn't take a degree in mathematics to recognize the issue.
Funny thing (ha ha). Missiles Cruisers using HMLs are the best counter to Cruiser Drone Boats fielding sentries. Or they would be if Heavy Missiles weren't ****.
Is there a place we can petition Seagull to find new balance team? |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1468
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 17:33:58 -
[330] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Hello
Second of all, after some really great feedback from you guys (and from the CSM) we are going to tune the initial numbers for these modules down a bit from what was proposed in the OP. There's a few problems with the numbers proposed originally but at the end of the day it would have meant Missile Guidance Modules were substantially stronger than their tracking counterparts (around 50% stronger for the enhancer and around 33% stronger for the computer).
And bananas should be as difficult to peel as apples? =/ Missiles are *very* different from guns and have a *very* different set of problems to overcome. Why should "missile TCs" be limited by "gun TCs"? Personally, I was liking the current stats as a way of getting away from the need to mount "mandatory" rigor rigs. Can you please provide a bit more of the reasoning for reducing their bonuses?
Now I have a real keyboard Ill add my voice to this.
@Rise - turret comparisons are both dangerous and flawed.
I don't see the threadnought of feedback on that sub forum, where is the problem, the evidence for these being OTT as was?
Missiles being different to turrets (or "Missile envy") is an exceptionally poor reason to selectively balance them.
I mean for example, warhead upgrades vs surgical strike, for example - we are content to have missiles getting the lower value here. Or are we going to address that? Missiles can be firewalled, turrets cannot. Targets can warp off before missiles hit, not so with turrets. Missiles in flight disappear if you die, turret damage is not lost. And so on, and so on. Are we addressing these glaring weaknesses of missiles? No we are not.
You've basically said here that "missiles cant have nice things because turrets guys will be sad and jealous". That's....just awful.
These mods in the initial cut finally gave the opportunity for a handful of missile ships to be genuinely valued assets to a fleet but now....now there's just no point. None at all. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |