Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 18:13:00 -
[31]
Fixing the explosion velocity on rockets would not require doubling the fitting cost of rocket launchers in the least. Rockets would still be an incredibly wimpy damage dealing platform, but at least one that could sorta kinda combat the ship types it's intended too (frigates).
I think the fitting costs of HAM's are too high, but Torpedo vs cruises seems about right. Of course, torpedos give you a huge boost in performance compared to cruise. Rockets don't really give you any kind of performance boost compared to light missiles :p
|
4THELULZ
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 18:31:00 -
[32]
Well look at it this way, the Kestrel does alright dps with rockets due to the 50% damage boost, which is 25% more than the other rocket using ships get, so bump up the base damage by a quarter (ish) as well as tweaking the explosion velocity. Then they'd probably be fine.
|
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 18:38:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Gypsio III Cut fitting requirements Boost base damage Decrease DRF Increase explosion velocity/decrease explosion radius
I.e., everything.
This.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Pvt Public7
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 06:23:00 -
[34]
[imo] Instead of initiating fuel burn at launch, start fuel burn after 1 second. Missile should launch from ship, drift at ship vel + launch vel (500m/s maybe?) and re-orient itself before ignition [/imo] --- SWA was here IAC is a loser |
Marlona Sky
Digital assassins The Foray Project
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 07:33:00 -
[35]
Have rockets bypass shields and armor and do hull damage right off?
Or maybe spread thru shields, armor and hull at same time.
What you think?
|
Something Awry
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 12:39:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Something Awry on 27/05/2009 12:40:44 Essentially, the problem is that rockets/light missiles are out of step with the usual short/long range weapon dichotomy.
In general, short range weapons are
- easier to fit
- shorter-ranged (duh)
- better at hitting small, fast targets
- use more ammo
Rockets are
- easier to fit
- shorter-ranged
- use more ammo - and it's different ammo
- need an extra skill even at tech 1
- hold far less ammo - typically need to reload in half the time or less of equivalents
- because of a combination of their stats and the game mechanics, far worse at hitting small, fast targets
Part of the problem is that missiles, for perfectly sensible reasons, often compare badly in raw DPS terms with other weapon systems because of the specific advantages they offer in terms of damage type, range and the absence of tracking considerations. Few of these advantages apply to rockets because of the short range at which they are used and their inability to affect small fast targets. A traditional Kestrel fit engaging at 20-25km or further is a very different proposition from trying to close to under 5km. Other ships that fit for close range combat face the same problem, but are more able to deal with it. Simply comparing the stats of rockets and missiles is not a good guide to comparing their relative effectiveness.
I can't help thinking that some of the problems with rockets actually stem from them being viewed (as I did for a long time) not as fully equivalent to light missiles but as a step below them, with a straight choice between guided/unguided/short/long-ranged missiles only really kicking in at heavy/HAMs. The different ammo and skills illustrate this.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |