Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sigras
Conglomo
994
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 11:17:56 -
[31] - Quote
Making missiles more like turrets is not the solution.
I believe CCP had it right the first time; they should revert back to the days where you could load any missile into any launcher as long as the launcher had capacity to hold at least one missile.
Maybe break it up into short ranged and long ranged missiles, and if you wanted to make the balancing job a bit simpler, you could say all missiles smaller than or equal to the fitted launcher size.
For Example: Rocket launchers would stay the way they are, but Heavy Assault Launchers could load rockets if they choose to, and torpedo launchers could load Torpedoes, Heavy Assault Missiles, or Rockets.
Now of course the downside to loading smaller ammo would be a drop off in DPS as your larger sized missile launchers fire slower than the smaller ones, but you would also always have an option to engage ships of a smaller size if you had to.
Rapid launchers would also still have their place as they could fire much more rapidly but would still be classified a size smaller so they would be stuck with the one size smaller ammo.
I believe this would make missiles unique, distinct and very versatile. Now not only do you get to switch damage types but also swap to the correct weapon to strike at your opponent.
Thoughts? |
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
1114
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 15:24:26 -
[32] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:The only thing that needs to happen with missiles is retracting the 12% increase to explosion radius on Heavy Missile. The other sizes are effectively on par in terms of application with other weapon types. While their peak DPS is lower, they have a high alpha and other perks.
Even when accounting for the worst possible transversal on average long range medium turret weapons lose ~30% of peak dps through application. Heavy missiles lose up to ~45%. This is a huge gap in terms of mid sized long range weapon equality. Much larger than the application loss comparison between Citadels and Large LRTs, and Light Missiles and other Small LRT's which are all around 30-35% DPS loss through application on average.
Heavy Missiles is the only weapon system in the game that loses over 40% application, against like sized targets (IE. Medium Weapons shooting cruisers).
Reverting the 12% Explosion Radius increase will result in around 9% Increase to DPS after application, without impacting the peak damage of Heavy Missiles. Which is in line with other Mid Sized weapons. This would pull heavy missiles from around 45% damage lost, to about 35%. Still lagging behind other medium weapons but a far cry from the 15% gap.
The numbers are using 3 rigs for HM application and 1 TC for LRT's. The results show that HMs are superior inside 10KM (5KM if target is webbed or painted) and inferior from then on against a moving target (regardless of direction, speed, or prop mod option) all LRT in the medium class hit further than unbonused HMs all hit for a higher average DPS at all ranges over 10KM than HM's./
Revert the Change, Fix HMs, and then Missiles can counter the drone boats they are supposed to (Ishtar et all). Not regardless of direction. Not regardless of weapon a caracal with a painter will apply better than a Thorax (tracking bonus) with TC and rail guns shooting a similar target upto 25km. and an artie ruppie with a TC peaks at <25% application against targets of similar size at 30km. It NEVER applies better than HML's with a painter. edit and it looks to be about 30-35km for a beam maller with a TC.
Well this is just false. Unless you are only applying the Painter to missiles, and never ever ever change ammo. I am not going to go through the numbers again you can find dozens of Damage comparison graphs comparing all the LRT medium sized turrets to HMs under a bunch of scenarios, No Prop, AB, MWD, Good Transversal, Worst Transversal, TPs on, Tps off, Webs, no Webs, in the last Heavy Missile Idea thread.
In every single case Heavy Missiles had the largest damage bleed of all targets, across the largest volume of Range. Inside 10K and 50-65K is the only place Missile have the upperhand in most situations, anything from 10-50K and 65K+ is LRT country.
When you look at the application values of the turrets vs Missiles there is around a 15% difference, hell when you look at application value change between LMs HMs and CMs there is around a 15% difference with LMs and CMs both around 33% and HMs around 45% "damage bleed".
Even if you ignore Application modules entirely for all weapon types HMs are at nearly 65% damage reduction through application where as all the others end up around 45-55% (Citadel Missiles are also over 60% without rigs, and just over 40% with them against moving Capitals).
The only issue with Missiles application is HMs, Lights are fine, Rockets fine, Heavy Assaults fine, Torps fine, Cruise fine, even Citadels are close to par with other Capital weapon systems. HMs are 15-20% worse in application across all conceivable scenarios, and are significantly inferior at most ranges considered "engagement" range.
|
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
1114
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 15:26:57 -
[33] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Making missiles more like turrets is not the solution.
I believe CCP had it right the first time; they should revert back to the days where you could load any missile into any launcher as long as the launcher had capacity to hold at least one missile.
Maybe break it up into short ranged and long ranged missiles, and if you wanted to make the balancing job a bit simpler, you could say all missiles smaller than or equal to the fitted launcher size.
For Example: Rocket launchers would stay the way they are, but Heavy Assault Launchers could load rockets if they choose to, and torpedo launchers could load Torpedoes, Heavy Assault Missiles, or Rockets.
Now of course the downside to loading smaller ammo would be a drop off in DPS as your larger sized missile launchers fire slower than the smaller ones, but you would also always have an option to engage ships of a smaller size if you had to.
Rapid launchers would also still have their place as they could fire much more rapidly but would still be classified a size smaller so they would be stuck with the one size smaller ammo.
I believe this would make missiles unique, distinct and very versatile. Now not only do you get to switch damage types but also swap to the correct weapon to strike at your opponent.
Thoughts?
I like this idea because it does allow you more control over application, similar to how all Turrets have ammo options for range/tracking which essentially does the same thing. That being said Heavy Missiles are still far behind the curve of all other missiles, let alone turret options, and would still need to be tweaked so missiles have a competitive long range mid sized weapon option. |
Sigras
Conglomo
994
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 17:01:40 -
[34] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:Sigras wrote:Making missiles more like turrets is not the solution.
I believe CCP had it right the first time; they should revert back to the days where you could load any missile into any launcher as long as the launcher had capacity to hold at least one missile.
Maybe break it up into short ranged and long ranged missiles, and if you wanted to make the balancing job a bit simpler, you could say all missiles smaller than or equal to the fitted launcher size.
For Example: Rocket launchers would stay the way they are, but Heavy Assault Launchers could load rockets if they choose to, and torpedo launchers could load Torpedoes, Heavy Assault Missiles, or Rockets.
Now of course the downside to loading smaller ammo would be a drop off in DPS as your larger sized missile launchers fire slower than the smaller ones, but you would also always have an option to engage ships of a smaller size if you had to.
Rapid launchers would also still have their place as they could fire much more rapidly but would still be classified a size smaller so they would be stuck with the one size smaller ammo.
I believe this would make missiles unique, distinct and very versatile. Now not only do you get to switch damage types but also swap to the correct weapon to strike at your opponent.
Thoughts? I like this idea because it does allow you more control over application, similar to how all Turrets have ammo options for range/tracking which essentially does the same thing. That being said Heavy Missiles are still far behind the curve of all other missiles, let alone turret options, and would still need to be tweaked so missiles have a competitive long range mid sized weapon option. I have 2 comments to this post... 1. WTB Blasters/Pulse Lasers with tracking ammo please... 2. Heavy Missiles are not as far behind the curve as you might think...
I put 4 of each type of weapon system on a prophecy because it gets no bonuses to any gun/missile so it's an even platform.
250mm Railguns with Spike do 108 DPS, 422 volley damage at 65 + 15 Heavy Beam lasers with Aurora do 105 DPS, 455 volley damage at 54 + 10 720 Howitzars with Tremor do 75 DPS, 968 volley damage at 54 + 22 Heavy Missiles with CN ammo do 103 DPS, 853 volley damage at 62.9
I understand that missile flight time is a huge problem, but the pure stats are not as far off as you would think |
Lugh Crow-Slave
562
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 17:12:32 -
[35] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Making missiles more like turrets is not the solution.
I believe CCP had it right the first time; they should revert back to the days where you could load any missile into any launcher as long as the launcher had capacity to hold at least one missile.
Maybe break it up into short ranged and long ranged missiles, and if you wanted to make the balancing job a bit simpler, you could say all missiles smaller than or equal to the fitted launcher size.
For Example: Rocket launchers would stay the way they are, but Heavy Assault Launchers could load rockets if they choose to, and torpedo launchers could load Torpedoes, Heavy Assault Missiles, or Rockets.
Now of course the downside to loading smaller ammo would be a drop off in DPS as your larger sized missile launchers fire slower than the smaller ones, but you would also always have an option to engage ships of a smaller size if you had to.
Rapid launchers would also still have their place as they could fire much more rapidly but would still be classified a size smaller so they would be stuck with the one size smaller ammo.
I believe this would make missiles unique, distinct and very versatile. Now not only do you get to switch damage types but also swap to the correct weapon to strike at your opponent.
Thoughts?
I worry how this would work now with RLML and RHML
what i would rather see is them use only exple radios and remove expl vel or at least up expl vel to a level that it matches AB speeds for its class
Fuel block colors
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
706
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 17:20:51 -
[36] - Quote
Sigras wrote:2. Heavy Missiles are not as far behind the curve as you might think...
I put 4 of each type of weapon system on a prophecy because it gets no bonuses to any gun/missile so it's an even platform.
250mm Railguns with Spike do 108 DPS, 422 volley damage at 65 + 15 Heavy Beam lasers with Aurora do 105 DPS, 455 volley damage at 54 + 10 720 Howitzars with Tremor do 75 DPS, 968 volley damage at 54 + 22 Heavy Missiles with CN ammo do 103 DPS, 853 volley damage at 62.9
I understand that missile flight time is a huge problem, but the pure stats are not as far off as you would think
Look at the charts in my post on this page. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2200
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 18:04:43 -
[37] - Quote
@ afkalt and mario
mario said regardless of direction or prop mods
so put an ab caracal moving in the opposite direction of the attacker and HML's with a painter and no application rigs will apply better.
so thats to say, direction DOES matter. But we always knew that and mario's post was pretty pointless.
As for saying nothing can maintain 90 degrees of transversal, no, sometimes ships move in opposite directions. 45 degree transversal is helping the turrets and is also difficult for the attacker to maintain.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
706
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 21:26:36 -
[38] - Quote
So post a chart like mine - I especially look forward to a target burning away from a turret boat. 0.000 transversal.
The transversal in my charts is 1600+ that's HIGH for a cruiser.
45 is a typical (average) corkscrew approach. |
Tusker Crazinski
Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels
20
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 22:18:04 -
[39] - Quote
Patri Andari wrote: I nervously wonder why you are in favor of limiting missile boats to be the only ones with such limited options.
fool proof weapon system, game design 101 "if it's going to be easy it's just going to suck."
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
569
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 22:41:02 -
[40] - Quote
Tusker Crazinski wrote:Patri Andari wrote: I nervously wonder why you are in favor of limiting missile boats to be the only ones with such limited options.
fool proof weapon system, game design 101 "if it's going to be easy it's just going to suck."
but they don't suck people just don't know how to use them (except maybe heavies)
Fuel block colors
|
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2200
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 01:29:46 -
[41] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/pp5v3Dr.png
HML applying 40% dps.
Beam Maller with TC applies 40% dps at around 25km.
About the same as a Rail Thorax which has a tracking bonus to boot.
The rupture never applies more than 22% damage no matter the range.
Now if you put prop mods on the attacking ships: http://i.imgur.com/EhHM9Rx.png
HML is the same
Maller never applies better than 12%
Thorax never applies better than 12%
Rupture never applies better than 3.3%
Thus confirming what we already knew, which is prop mod, speed, direction and weapon type does matter.
as for 45 degrees being typical for shooting a spiralling target...yes if the attacker is stationary. Why would that be particularly useful data?
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
472
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 03:02:54 -
[42] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:OP doesn't seem to understand that Target Painters and Stasis Webifiers both exist and both do a splendid job of increasing missile damage application.
OP also doesn't seem to have considered that if missiles get dedicated mid/low application mods they'll also become susceptible to disruption mods - something that will be a very significant nail in the coffin of "missiles in PvP".
Blatantly lying.
14 page long thread proves you wrong. Try again.
Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
|
Sigras
Conglomo
994
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 06:19:48 -
[43] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Sigras wrote:Making missiles more like turrets is not the solution.
I believe CCP had it right the first time; they should revert back to the days where you could load any missile into any launcher as long as the launcher had capacity to hold at least one missile.
Maybe break it up into short ranged and long ranged missiles, and if you wanted to make the balancing job a bit simpler, you could say all missiles smaller than or equal to the fitted launcher size.
For Example: Rocket launchers would stay the way they are, but Heavy Assault Launchers could load rockets if they choose to, and torpedo launchers could load Torpedoes, Heavy Assault Missiles, or Rockets.
Now of course the downside to loading smaller ammo would be a drop off in DPS as your larger sized missile launchers fire slower than the smaller ones, but you would also always have an option to engage ships of a smaller size if you had to.
Rapid launchers would also still have their place as they could fire much more rapidly but would still be classified a size smaller so they would be stuck with the one size smaller ammo.
I believe this would make missiles unique, distinct and very versatile. Now not only do you get to switch damage types but also swap to the correct weapon to strike at your opponent.
Thoughts? I worry how this would work now with RLML and RHML I thought of that, but at least if it were up to me, the way I would handle it would be to only allow the Rapid launchers to fit the size of weapon they were designed for. This would allow cruisers to specialize in anti frigate support instead of simply having the option available as a last resort.
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:what i would rather see is them use only exple radios and remove expl vel or at least up expl vel to a level that it matches AB speeds for its class If they removed explosion velocity shield ships would be at a severe disadvantage as frigates would take half damage from even heavy assault missiles with absolutely no way to dodge, and turning on a MWD would be completely out of the question. This completely eliminates counter play.
I do admit their velocities could be bumped up a little
To be honest I think the best solution is to remove explosion velocity and replace it with missile turning radius. Then you have to be a really quick pilot and it all depends on pilot skill, but that would make the server roll over and die with even a small engagement. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
578
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 09:21:22 -
[44] - Quote
it is already possible to out turn a missile a frig orbiting at the right range (depends on the skill of who they are orbiting) will never be hit by heavy assault missiles as little as 5km away.
but yeah i didn't think the remove expl vel through very far
and really the expl vel only needs to be upped on the mid tier missiles heavies and rapid heaves as it stands they are slower than the base speed of many cruisers
Fuel block colors
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
707
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 11:44:57 -
[45] - Quote
Well I guess we fly very differently if your opponent can hold that kid of transversal for more than a split second. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2204
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 17:44:12 -
[46] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Well I guess we fly very differently if your opponent can hold that kid of transversal for more than a split second.
Please read marios post that i was replying to, and then please read my reply (and every reply of mine). My argument is very specific and absolute.
You guys also keep eft'ing DPS amounts compared to Rails-Rails-And more Rails, in situations that arent practical. Rails are the highest DPS medium turret with mediocre tracking and the longest range. Beams and arties dont fair so well because of tracking, range or both. But heavies are meant to be the lowest dps weapon of the four and the nature of missiles comes with its own advantages and disadvantages.
So nerf rails? apparently its coming.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
Alundil
Isogen 5
843
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 18:43:29 -
[47] - Quote
Tabyll Altol wrote:Patri Andari wrote:It has come to pass that there are modules that increase the damage of drones, and that was the next to last excuse for why missile rely on rigs, boosters and implants if they are to improve explosion velocity and radius. The only other barrier is a weapon to debuff that possible increase.
Now while CCP ponders a buff to projectiles and tinkers with existing named modules could you please:
INTRODUCE MODULES (MID AND/OR LOW) THAT IMPROVE THE DAMAGE APPLICATION OF MISSILES ?
Just askin'
To make it topical, is there any resistant argument that justifies this absence besides the fact that CCP has not gotten around to missiles?
T There are already modules for this (medslot) in the game they are called Target painter and webifier. Use them. You can decrease the speed of your target and blow up his sig. -1 no futher modules needed Not empty quoting.
I'm right behind you
|
Tusker Crazinski
Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels
22
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 20:13:50 -
[48] - Quote
Sigras wrote: To be honest I think the best solution is to remove explosion velocity and replace it with missile turning radius. Then you have to be a really quick pilot and it all depends on pilot skill, but that would make the server roll over and die with even a small engagement.
Not going to lie Ace Combat 4 missiles would be much better than what we have now. I think missile acceleration would be better, but most things would be better than the way they work now.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
584
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 20:20:21 -
[49] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Well I guess we fly very differently if your opponent can hold that kid of transversal for more than a split second.
.... NPC rats do it
(if you were replying to me and not the posts above me)
Fuel block colors
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |