|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 16:31:00 -
[1]
Yeah, it would be immensely helpful if you could publish the new formula, please.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 20:39:00 -
[2]
The key balancing issues are the damage done by oversize missiles against smaller ships, and the damage done by missiles against ABing or MWDing ships, with and without web applied. It's tedious to test these things on Sisi, because it involves fiddling with fits, checking logs, getting people with the right skills etc. - but all this can be done easily on a spreadsheet.
I understand why you don't want to publish the formula, but the formula will be derived in due course, and telling us it now would allow us to quickly and easily infer the balance in situations of interest. It would be really helpful.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 19:01:00 -
[3]
Originally by: iudex Also please don't forget that their range is of no big use, any pvp pilot will confirm that shooting cruise missiles over 200km is hardly ever has a point, because of the long travel time. Up to 30 secons from launch till impact is a long time, too long in a pvp situation, hardly any FC accepts ravens in sniper fleets.
Complete rubbish.
But you do have a point about Cruise. A good counter to ECM boats is the cruise Raven, which currently does close to full damage to an enemy Falcon. With the current changes, the Falcon would get a damage reduction of about 70%.
That's too much. The whole point of the Cruise Raven in PVP is that it's a specialist anti-support ship (not a fleet sniper, Iudex... ) - it needs to be able to damage support cruisers more effectively. Especially if the cruise Raven is armour-tanked to enable it to fit ECCM and sensor boosters, preventing it from fitting damage mods.
So I'd advise that Cruise explosion velocity is increased somewhat, and explosion radius decreased. If necessary, base Cruise damage can be reduced to better achieve balance against other ships.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 20:50:00 -
[4]
No, Dipluz, you suck, not Caldari. Now stop polluting this thread with whine, please.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 01:36:00 -
[5]
Quote: At the moment cruise missiles have a base sig radius of 533 and an explosion velocity of 42 (without skills) on the testserver. I'm not sure how the new damage formula will work at the end, but this values show an intention to make cruise missiles bad against small/fast targets.
Yeah, Cruise have a real problem at the moment. A cruise Raven is a long-range antisupport platform - it's not a sniper, shooting other fleet snipers, it's hitting enemy support, especially ECM boats. But enemy support is too far off to be webbed or painted, so the huge explosion radius and awful explosion velocity of Cruise means that a hostile Falcon would go from a current sig-based damage reduction of about 20% to a sig- and velocity reduction of about 70%.
That's too much. Cruise Ravens aren't overpowered at the moment. Indeed, missile "sniping" isn't overpowered at all, it's well balanced by the damage delay. So a Cruise Raven must be able to deliver meaningful DPS to cruiser-sized targets beyond tackle range. This may require reducing base Cruise damage to achieve decent balance elsewhere.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 11:23:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Murina
PROPULSION..................AB.........MWD.....STATIONARY T1 CRUISE WRAITH.......20.7...........36.9.............138.2 T2 CRUISE WRAITH.......51.7...........74.3.............119.8 WRAITH FURY................8.3.......TO SLOW...........159.0
That data is probably out of date. I don't believe that T2 missiles have changed at all yet actually.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 13:03:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Rip Striker The cruise Raven was never supposed to be the anti-Falcon ship. The true anti-falcon ship is another cruiser sized ship, namely, eccm fitted sniping hacs (the exception being stealth bombers).
In the context of missiles, this means that the Cerberus should be the nemesis to the Falcon. However, for this to work optimally, i. e. for heavy missiles to even reach 250 km, a small boost to heavy missile flight time is needed.
EDIT: Imo, cruise Raven is anti BC/BS support ship, nothing more nothing less.
There are no support BC/BS for a Cruise Raven to shoot - they're either fleet snipers, being targeted by your fleet snipers, or tanked close-range gang BS. The whole point of a Cruise Raven is that it's able to damage enemy support - and that means HACs and recons - because there are no support BC/BS worth talking about (yeah yeah Scorp) and those that do exist are better dealt with by your fleet sniper BS.
Furthermore, turret snipers will have no problems tracking a Falcon 200 km away - whereas the current Sisi Cruise will see ~70% damage reduction. TQ is currently balanced because the much higher paper DPS of the Cruise Raven is countered by the missile flight time.
Cruise Raven must remain effective against HACs/Recons - just less effective than a Cerberus - otherwise it has no role. Cruise explosion radius needs to be reduced. Base Cruise damage may need to be reduced to compensate for the increased effectiveness against small targets at close range.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 13:28:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Murina 2500 alpha missile dmg from a frig against a interceptor are you drunk?.
With what a rof of about 3-5 seconds?.
800ish dps from a frig against the fastest pvp ship with the smallest sig radius in the game?.
Stop posting pls.
What does any of this mean? 800 DPS frigate? Whaaaaat?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 13:41:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 20/10/2008 13:44:21
Yeah I got that the first time. What I don't understand is where those numbers are coming from. Where does the 3 second ROF come from?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 13:54:00 -
[10]
Quote: If t2 unnerfed missiles arent even doing enough damage... remember stealth bomber is supposed to be a big alpha which destroys frigates easily. 2500ish dmg.. where
Or else the whole idea behind the stealth bomber is lost because the dps on the stealth bomber is sad. Alpha damage is what you want. Even in the best of situation for interceptors and such... 1st volley ought to leave the interceptor deep into structure or dead.
Where's the delusion? That seems to make sense, generally.
SBs are about big alpha - that's the entire point of them. They should be capable of instapopping frigates, given no damage mitigation via tank or speed/sig issues. Equally, inties should be able to mitigate a lot of their damage, but not all, as currently stands via explosion velocity. SB ROF isn't 3 seconds and they don't deal 800 DPS.
I'm really confused now tbh...
|
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 14:06:00 -
[11]
Ok, I understand now.
Yeah, 2500 damage is typical raw SB damage I think. But yeah, interceptors should get massive damage mitigation while MWDing or ABing - just not the lol-immunity that the current TQ missile damage formula gives to any inty running at speed.
The devs still seem to be tweaking the missile damage formula itself, so I suspect specfic things like balancing SBs against inties will come fairly late in the process, probably via tweaks to the SB and inty bonuses. We'll see.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 15:32:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 20/10/2008 14:59:07
Originally by: Gypsio III Cruise Raven must remain effective against HACs/Recons - just less effective than a Cerberus - otherwise it has no role.
A cruise raven has the same range and more raw dps than any other gunnery sniper BS and it should be no more effective against each class of ships than a gunnery sniper BS.
Cruise on a raven should be as effective against each of the ship classes in eve as 425mm rails, arties and beams are on a mega and all the other relavant tier two BS....
The same as torps are like blasters, AC, pulse..ect ect.
No, your comparison between Cruise and turrets doesn't work because of the missile damage delay. Currently Cruise is well-balanced with the turret snipers, because of that damage delay, despite the higher paper DPS. Even so, Cruise is relegated to anti-support work, away from the true fleet snipers.
So there's no reason to nerf that ability of Cruise to deal meaningful delayed damage to smaller targets any more than the balancing necessary to account for the speed changes. Cerberus must remain superior, but Cruise should not be quite as useless as the current missile stats make it - 70% damage reduction is too much with the missile flight time issue.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 16:30:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 20/10/2008 16:33:36
Originally by: Murina Cruise need a big nerf due to the fact they are BS sniper weapon system with all the dps that goes with it but can be fitted on frigs cruisers and BS.
There need to be new launchers for each class of missile ship reducing the relative dps and range so they are balanced with rails, arties..ect ect.
After all this is all about balance?.
Frigates - stealth bombers - the entire point of them is to use Cruise. There is no turret counterpart. Cruisers - what cruiser fits Cruise? On a sensible, useful fit? Hmmm?
BS - Indeed. And the Cruise Raven is fairly-well balanced on TQ currently. That's why fleet BS are turret snipers, with Cruise Ravens relegated to antisupport roles. Different ships and different weapon systems - heterogenous but well balanced. Some tweaks will certainly be necessary to account for general speed changes - but currently Sisi goes too far.
Understand this - Cruise is a long-range weapon, but it is NOT a sniper weapon.
TBH, your post resembles more an anti-missile rant rather than anything constructive. Do you want to have an ill-informed pop about the length of the missile skill tree as well? Or will you claim that a Cruise Raven is a better mission ship than a 350mm sentry-Domi?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 16:41:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Murina Cruise are way overpowered when used on bombers.
Only if you think they have a 3 second ROF and deal 800 DPS.
In any case, SBs are nothing to do with Cruise Ravens. Different ships, different roles.
Actually, I'm astonished that there's someone out there who thinks that Cruise is currently overpowered in PVP. It can be powerful - but only in certain niche roles - and can hardly be regarded as imbalanced.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 17:50:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Aya Vandenovich Cruises just got changed on SISI, lower explosion radius (300) and velocity (55), but with a higher damage reduction (3.2).
Precisions also got changed to 200, 47, 2.
Yeah lots of things have been changed... DRFs are different, but it looks like explosion radii have been reverted to TQ values. Presumably while they fiddle with variations in DRF etc...
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 18:31:00 -
[16]
Quote: This obviously needs balancing by either reducing cruise to a point where they also cannot hit interceptors or considerably boosting the tracking on BS so they can.
Missiles are not turrets and you shouldn't expect identical performance.
That said, a bit more inty survivability than what you described would be sensible.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 18:39:00 -
[17]
No, the Cruise Raven is not a sniper. Your comparison is absurd.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 18:44:00 -
[18]
Yes, that's why all sniper fleets are composed solely of Cruise Ravens, aren't they?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 18:57:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 20/10/2008 19:00:23
And in return the Cruise Raven can't actually "snipe". Hence the absence of Raven "sniper" gangs, now or in any future.
Incredible... different but balanced. Well, once interceptor survivability is tweaked a bit, anyway.
Lecrotta, I've seen your name next to a whole load of nano-whine posts. I suspect that you don't really understand the game mechanics of Cruise and wouldn't recognise balance if you found yourself sitting on it with "20 stone" displayed...
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 19:07:00 -
[20]
Yeah yeah, BE Cruise Ravens, fairly straightforward tactics etc. But the Cruise Raven is not a sniper and cannot be directly compared to turret BS. I'm surprised that you don't understand this.
Snipers = instant damage. Therefore, Cruise Raven is not a sniper.
The cruise Raven is a decent, if rather niche, long-range antisupport ship, and this position needs to be maintained or Cruise becomes a useless weapon system.
It really is that simple.
|
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 19:17:00 -
[21]
I seriously never thought I'd hear cruise missiles described as "I-win"...
Seriously mate, whatever drugs you're on... go and take some more and stop making yourself look silly.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 19:26:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 20/10/2008 19:26:03
All of them can. And you know, even the really comedy fits would probably do more damage to a MWDing interceptor than a Cruise Raven.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 19:38:00 -
[23]
Originally by: lecrotta Precision cruise can kill a ceptor in just over a minute without warrior II's helping let alone with, all other sniper fitted bs cannot hit at all no matter the ammo.
Yes, we know, and I said right at the start that this wasn't balanced. But T1 missiles stats are changing every day, and I don't think the devs have even looked at T2 missiles yet. So your conclusion is utterly worthless.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 19:48:00 -
[24]
I said 80 seconds to kill wasn't balanced - it should be somewhat longer.
Then you went to cloud cuckoo land on a bizarre rant against the Cruise Raven, apparently believing it's some ultimate weapon of the galaxy, comprising all sniper fleets, then you demanded that these imaginary missile "snipers" be deleted from the game as they were just so unfair.
By the way... you were talking about PVP, weren't you... not L4 missions?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:02:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 20/10/2008 20:05:31
Originally by: Shard Merchant So far, the changes are trying to maintain the status quo we have on TQ. Obviously its not a popular thing for missile users to hear, but that status quo is crap.
Yeah, the current missile damage formula on TQ is broken. Stupidly broken. Missiles are too good against slow small stuff, too useless against fast stuff and it's too difficult for non-nanos to mitigate damage. The new missile formula looks good in general, but it'll take a while to iron out the problems with interceptors taking excess damage from Cruise etc.
I wouldn't even look at T2 missile capabilities until T1 versions have settled down, tbh.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:20:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Shard Merchant Except that the Raven is not a specialist in killing small targets, and its not useless against other battleships. If you have a beef with missile damage (which I don't find valid), then its a trade-off for your weapons doing any damage type and consistent damage at any range. Your argument is voided further by the fact that drones are supposed to be the anti-smallship weapon of EVE.
I agree with all of this, and I'm not sure why you think I don't. I said right at the start of this "discussion" that the figures of Cruise vs. interceptor favoured cruise too much - but that T2 Cruise probably hasn't even been looked at yet. Then Lecrotta started ranting about Cruise Raven "sniper" fleets "instapopping" everything in sight and everything kinda went downhill...
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:46:00 -
[27]
Right, just to clarify my entire stance on long-range missiles here, then I'm outta here until the next iteration of changes is applied:
1. Turrets are not the same as missiles and we can't make them the same. However, a general balance between turret tracking and missile damage mitigation is desirable.
2. The delayed damage of long-range missiles should be balanced by improved DPS - once they start hitting - relative to turret snipers. Current balance on TQ is generally satisfactory in this respect - Cruise Ravens fulfil a niche antisupport role, but are not fleet snipers. Hence their job in fleet/organised gang is to hit enemy support, rather than shooting at enemy sniper BS - that's your snipers' job.
3. So a Cruise Raven should be "effective" against a Falcon, bearing in mind its lack of tank, low speed and largish sig radius, and the missile flight time, but less effective than a HM Cerberus. How "effective" is not completely clear atm and will probably take careful balancing.
4. Precision Cruise should not be able to significantly damage, in a sensible timeframe, a MWDing interceptor - nor an ABing AF, probably. Similarly, precision Heavies should be pretty crappy against inties/AFs, without serious painter/web support anyway.
5. PVP balance is more important than PVE balance, and reading lots of "OMG L4 cruise Raven nerfed!" whines would probably be quite funny.
Erm, I think that's it for now.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 09:07:00 -
[28]
Since yesterday, the DRF of Cruise has been increased a bit. Cruise now deal somewhat less damage to small fast targets such as interceptors.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 10:42:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 21/10/2008 10:44:15
Originally by: Rip Striker I have said it before and I will say it again.
The fundamental problem is that in the type of engagement where a Cruise Raven is useful there aren't any BS/BC support worth firing Cruise at. The BS are fleet snipers, being targeted by your fleet snipers, or tanked short-range gang BS, being hit by your BS. The BCs are irrelevant, since they can't hit effectively at sniper range, or are at close range, in which case you don't want to be using long-range Cruise at all.
Cruise Raven must retain some sort of effectiveness against fat, poorly-tanked cruiser targets such as Falcons, while obviously being less effective than a Cerberus, or it has no role in PVP. If this means balancing Cruise base damage so that it's less effective against BS, then so be it. After all, a fleet sniper doesn't have too much trouble tracking a cruiser at 200 km... and it doesn't have to worry about missile flight time.
Since my original post on this issue, Cruise explosion radius has been reduced from 533 m back down to 300 m.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 12:39:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Rip Striker 300 m explosion radius sounds like typical battlecruiser signature radius, which coincides with what I also said before. Cruise missiles should be most effective towards battlecruisers, not cruisers and frigates.
Going lower than 300 explosion radius on T2 precision cruise missiles would probably be a bad idea, since the number 300 can be reduced significantly with implants and rigs.
I dont have any numbers to give, however, as long as a rigged and implant boosted cruise raven doesnt outdamage a similarly fitted heavy missile ship when taking out cruiser-sized ships, i suppose 300 expl radius for T2 cruise missiles will work.
Fly safe!
This all sounds very sensible. But yeah, the balance between T1 and Precision Cruise will have to be done carefully.
|
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 19:53:00 -
[31]
LOLotta, quit whining and have a look at the new T2 missile stats. Then attempt to apply those numbers to game mechanics. Then attempt to post some feedback. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 21:04:00 -
[32]
lolotta - your figures are hopelessly out of date, and the only BS weapon system in game that cannot currently hit inties and dictors for significant damage is Cruise. Almost everything that you are saying is hilariously, cluelessly wrong.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 21:10:00 -
[33]
Let's have a look at this cavalcade of stupidity.
Quote: 1. Can easily hit at max lock range. 2. Can fit damps, large repper and a 1600 plate while hitting at max. 3. Can Fit ammo that allows them to hit any ship in the game. 4. Have the highest long range DPS by far to compensate for travel time. 5. Missiles follow a ship into a POS and hit even though target lock is broken by the POS shields (BE killed a lot of ships like this that thought they could POS hug).
1. All BS can do this. 2. None of these are useful at sniper ranges. 3. All turret BS can do this also. 4. Indeed, that's why it's balanced. It would be absurd otherwise. 5. You're really scraping the barrel now.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 08:53:00 -
[34]
Originally by: DeadDuck What happened to HAM Javelins ???? 4 secs flight time against 4.3 secs of RAGE ???? The range was nerfed from 84km to about 30 km
Good, Jav HAMs are stupidly overpowered and this is well deserved. Having almost all of the damage of Heavies to almost their range is not balanced and was coming uncomfortably close to obsoleting Heavies.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 12:08:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Cpt Branko I have just one question - why did HAMs / Rockets get nerfed so that they cannot do full DPS to same sized targets (frigates/cruisers) unless they're both webbed AND TP-ed?
Nerfing HAM explosion radius to 166m and not making the precision skill apply to it (and rockets) means that suddenly HAMs are totally obsolete unless you fit a TP or shoot only larger ships.
Rockets are fairly weak and don't deserve a nerf, agreed.
HAMs - I'm less convinced here. Ok, they're a cruiser weapon, but what cruisers actually rely on them? HAM Caracal doesn't really work because of lack of PG. Rupture and Stabber... maybe? HAMs are typically found on "bigger" ships, such as Drake, Sac, Cane. I think my point is that a small loss of damage from those ships against cruisers is not particularly meaningful, and possibly even good for the game, as it increases cruisers' survivability.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 12:24:00 -
[36]
Originally by: lecrotta For example a mega with maxed skills cannot hit a non mwding ceptor (500-700ms) at any range let alone it doing 5kms no matter how its fitted or ammo it uses or at what range.
More lolotta drivel. A Mega is quite capable of instapopping an interceptor.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 12:37:00 -
[37]
Originally by: lolotta
For example a mega with maxed skills cannot hit a non mwding ceptor (500-700ms) at any range let alone it doing 5kms no matter how its fitted or ammo it uses or at what range.
Of course it can. You do realise that the tracking formula relies on transversal, not absolute speed, right?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 12:48:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Cpt Branko words
HAMs offer 25% more damage than HMs, ignoring sig/speed issues. Sacrilege vs. other HACs - good point, I forgot about this. Similarly, Rupture and Stabber don't deserve a hit. Elsewhere, I'm still not convinced that it's a huge issue, especially if it doesn't do anything much for cruiser survivability.
Hmmm. I'll have a play with the numbers later.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 16:32:00 -
[39]
CCP was talking about giving inties a bonus to reduce MWD-sig-bloom. Has that made it on to Sisi yet? That would certainly help the survivability of inties under Cruise fire.
And, for that matter, under medium turret fire, especially pulse.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 17:03:00 -
[40]
Ah, thanks for the update. I see you fixed the comedy range of Jav HAMs, then.
|
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 12:00:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 23/10/2008 12:01:30
Quote: You hit with 3 volleys. Missile ship fires at ECM ship, missile ship gets 3 volleys before getting jammed. All missiles in transit lose lock and don't land.
Can someone confirm this please? I thought that this didn't happen... but when I fire missiles at ECM ships I don't tend to get jammed, so I haven't had much experience of it lately.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 12:47:00 -
[42]
Ah thanks, yeah, that's what I thought happened.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 13:11:00 -
[43]
Originally by: CCP Nozh We're testing ships with MWD, missile precision and explosion velocity bonuses to see whether they need any tweaking.
Sounds good.
Hmmm... the Nighthawk has a precision bonus... any chance of a quick look at its powergrid and its ability to fit a gang mod, please? |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 15:37:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Vigaz
Originally by: CCP Fendahl We have finished the next round of missile tweaks both for T1 and T2 missiles. The T2 missiles have been overhauled significantly:
Rage/fury now do significantly more damage to larger targets (up to 28% more) compared to T1 missiles, but do very poor damage against targets of the same class and lower (if they are speed tanking).
....
Torpedo is a BS weapon, and there is not a sub capital ship bigger than a BS. Are Rage Torpedos intended as anti capital weapon?
New attributes: sig 650m2 and exp velocity 61m/s
I think they're intended to require painter and web support. But yeah, most T2 high-damage ammo is generally best used against the class of ship larger than it.
PWNAGE at Sig Foc IV gives 36% sig boost, so a sufficiently-webbed and painted non-ABing BS with pre-painter sig 477 m will take full damage from them. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.24 01:10:00 -
[45]
While I'm still looking at exact details, things seem broadly quite sensible. It's easy enough to deal full damage to non-ABing targets of the right size, but ABs offer a generally sensible damage reduction.
Two glaring problems though.
Firstly, the extra 5 km range of Jav rockets, relative to T1 (10 km to 15 km) is utterly worthless in a combat situation. I suggest that Jav rocket flight time should be doubled.
Secondly, the range of Precision Lights, ~21 km, is completely insufficient to hit their intended targets of MWDing interceptors around ~28 km away, especially given the nonlinear flight path. Precision Light flight time should be doubled. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.24 10:02:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Vigaz From Devblog: "Speed must never reach ludicrous speed, which is defined as speeds where missiles and drones don't intercept the class of ship they were intended for
This is our celestial vision. "
Let me say that a BS with MWD should be 250-300 m/s max 'ludicrous' speed. 106m/s is the max exp velocity of a cruise missile and 71m/s for torpedo. In Sisi, a t1 fitted Domi with MWD is now immune to all BS missiles (cruise and torpedo).
This is in line with your celestial vision?
Complete nonsense. According to my calculations:
1. Domi moving at 124 m/s takes 100% damage from Cruise and 79% from torps. 2. Domi ABing at 337 m/s takes 58% damage from T1 Cruise and 73% from Precision Cruise. 3. Webbed Domi moving at 50 m/s takes 100% damage from Cruise and 93% from torps. 4. Webbed Domi ABing at 135 m/s takes 100% damage from Cruise and 72% from torps. 5. Painted Domi ABing at 337 m/s takes 79% damage from Cruise and 92% from Precision Cruise. 6. Webbed, painted Domi ABing at 135 m/s takes 100% damage from Cruise and 100% from torps.
The sky is not falling.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.24 10:31:00 -
[47]
No, because very few Domis will be ABing at 337 m/s because of inertia, skills and webs, and very few Domis will be ABing at all. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.24 11:54:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Vigaz could you pls post your calculation regading MWD? Today I've done few tests on Sisi, I found one type of speed tank is to use mwd 10 secs on and 10 secs off. (more than 50% overall dmg reducion) Also do u mind if I ask you to give me your extreme positive vision for Stealth bombers? I think this class is dead, but I feel that u have some calculation to show me that sky isnt falling.
PS:pls do not tell me that I only need a rapier to kill a t1 frig with a SB (I guess a rapier alone can do that without a SB).
Erm, I've left that spreadsheet at home and won't be back until Sunday. I'll try to remember to run through the calculations then though. NB - my calculations use the missile damage formula derived here. If that's shown to be wrong... ignore everything I say.
However, from general memory, MWDs are not particularly effective at reducing same-size missile damage, because of the huuuge sig bloom. Your pulsed-MWD idea is extremely interesting though...
Stealth bombers - I haven't looked at these at all yet, so no comment here yet. Similarly for the explosion velocity/precision bonused ships such as the Nighthawk.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.24 13:27:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Silver Sarena Walk softly CCP. You've been warned.
Is that a RL threat? |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.24 13:31:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 24/10/2008 13:33:16
Originally by: Opertone there is this overdrive injector II, which will be the pinnacle of speed tanking the missiles, so that the battleships do not require to use active speed modules all the time.
Are you seriously suggesting that many BS will be fitting ODIs, with their puny boost, instead of tank/gank mods, in an attempt to speed-tank?
Quote: Anyway, I don't think that the missile nerf is working, because it is making smaller ships the only class that you want to be in (speaking specifically of missile boats). Why? Because Battleship missile boats can't even damage their own class at a 100% dps anymore. All a defending ship has to do is put on an Afterburner, and your battleship class missiles are nerfed by almost 50% (or more) dps. What other single module can do that? Not one that I can think of. If someone else can think of one, please, help me out, I would seriously like to know what it is.
Very few BS will be fitting ABs - it's a non-issue. The "other single module" that you're looking for is called a T2 shield/armour hardener. |
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.24 13:51:00 -
[51]
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.24 15:59:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 24/10/2008 16:02:20
Quote: Wrong on both points, not so sorry to say. I can count on one hand the numbers of times I have flown a BS W/O an AB, in PvE or PvP.
In that case, I can probably count on one hand the number of people who fit ABs to BS in PVP on current TQ. Just because you do it doesn't make it sensible, or mean that others do it.
As for future mechanics, well, a AB BS will still be a sitting duck when off gate/station. Fitting an AB on a BS will become a less stupid decision thanks to AB speed tanks and scramblers, but I don't expect it to become normal. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.24 16:34:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 24/10/2008 16:36:19
Quote: They use MWDs now, and they will use ABs after the speed nerf. A BATTLESHIP SHOULD BE ABLE TO HIT ANOTHER AFTERBURNING BATTLESHIP WITH CRUISE MISSILES FOR FULL DAMAGE!
Don't be ridiculous. The whole point of ABs is speed-tanking, of course an ABing BS shouldn't take full damage from Cruise - otherwise, it would make an absurd mockery of ABs.
And they'll only get the full damage reduction when they've finally lumbered up to speed, and only if fitting ABs in the first place - which really, really, won't be common. The tactical mobility and agility offered by MWDs will still rule. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 12:08:00 -
[54]
Since sig radius/explosion radius issues are now much more important, and the damage reduction from a fast target can be countered by increasing its sig or reducing explosion radius:
GMP just became a useful skill. Crash(?) boosters just became useful. Target Painters just became even more useful.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 18:23:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Allen Ramses One should not need to train Guided Missile Precision V for a light missile to hit a stationary frigate without damage reduction...
Max skills are assumed when balance is considered. You'll need to train Warhead Upgrades V to not get damage reduction, so why not GMP V? |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 19:33:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Lili Lu I am ****ed. I wasted way too much training for HAM spec 4 and now I have no meaningful range option.
Heavy Missile spec users still have a viable close range high damage option.
Thanks for another Amarr nerf (this time to Khanid ships) you *******s. Yeah I said it.
Jav HAMs were stupidly overpowered. Almost the DPS of faction Heavies to almost their range? Come on... No, HM users don't have a high damage option that remotely compares with the extra 25% damage of HAMs.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 21:31:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 29/10/2008 21:32:54
Originally by: Allen Ramses
Originally by: Lili Lu Yeah, they're doing fine for one thing, tackle/close range damage dealing. Heavy missile ships have many more options. And, tell me a Cerb lacks in the damage dealing department with heavy missile options at any range.
A HML cerb is not practical. The kind of range you get with heavy missiles is quite disgustingly pointless when you take delayed damage into consideration. The cerb is a HAM ship. Plain and simple.
Plain, simple and completely wrong.
The ability to project good DPS to 249 km is immensely powerful. We might see less whining about Falcons if more people realised this...
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 10:32:00 -
[58]
Originally by: dojocan81
Hi Nozh
You should consider to add a "Tracking Enhancer" module for missiles.
It exists, it's called the Target Painter.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 10:42:00 -
[59]
It has exactly the effect that you desire.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 11:47:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 03/11/2008 11:48:08
I'm amused that not only is the current lol-immunity of nanos to Cruise is being removed, but that Crash boosters, Guided Missile Precision and Target Painters are being made useful for missile users, and people are still finding reasons to whine.
|
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 12:29:00 -
[61]
Originally by: lebrata Because skilled cruise missile users used team work, tacklers and skill in their gangs and that allowed missiles to melt any nano they came across.
No. Successes like that are the result of teamwork, not missiles themselves.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 12:39:00 -
[62]
Hmmm, I'm not following you. Teamwork will still be just as important in making the most out of Cruise - just as it is for any weapon. Are you saying that Cruise will be overpowered or underpowered after the patch? Or are you not really talking about Cruise at all?
My view of it is that it'll be harder to deal full damage with Cruise, but it'll be much harder to avoid its damage completely, and Crash boosters, target painters and GMP will now offer options for the Cruise user, increasing in-game diversity and lessening the predictable nature of missile DPS. It sounds sensible and balanced to me.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 12:55:00 -
[63]
You tell me. You don't seem to be making any points or offering any examples... just whining generically and displaying an inability to adapt to changes.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 13:14:00 -
[64]
Originally by: TZeer They are made mandatory, if you wanna deal ANY damage worth something you need to double web and double paint an AB cruiser
You really don't.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 09:28:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Sworn Absent So can someone sum up the balls of this thread in simple terms? Are precision & rage missiles finally going to do what they were intended.
Specifically will T2 precision lights be good at killing fast frigates & destroyers?
If they can hit them, yes. The problem is that they won't hit them because of their laughable range. So don't bother reloading and just use CN. For better results, pop a Crash booster, fit Rigour rigs and paint the target.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 11:42:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Gordon Red I have a problem with the light missiles.
WITH skills their explo. velocity is ~250m/s !!! (Even on precision)
Caracal mit light missiles => ceptor/frig = no damage Crow => ceptor = no damage
What is this rubbish?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 12:23:00 -
[67]
By my calculations, a Cerberus using CN Bloodclaw, dual painters and a standard Crash booster will deal ~60% damage to a 5.2 km/s interceptor.
With missile velocity rigs the CN Bloodclaws will have over 100 km flight range.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.06 15:36:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Jhagiti Tyran Are heavy missiles hitting cruiser sized targets properly? like an onyx firing faction missiles at another cruiser sized target that's unpainted, unwebbed but moving at around its base speed (with navigation V ofc)
HM vs. Thorax at max base speed of 213 m/s, I show 85% damage. At max AB speed of 543 m/s I show 45% damage. At max (unplated, unrigged) MWD speed of 1436 m/s I show 79% damage.
MWDs are not particularly effective at avoiding missile damage - because of the sig bloom. Sig radius issues are really, really important now, helping to balance armour vs. shield rigs and making Crash, GMP and painters useful.
AB is used for speed-tanking, MWD is for moving from A to B. But a missile ship with AB or MWD of its own will be able to maintain range against a ABing opponent. Also, how often do people actually fly at max speed? With manoeuvring etc, 10-15% less is quite common.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.06 21:47:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 06/11/2008 21:50:23
Originally by: GateScout
Originally by: Gypsio III HM vs. Thorax at max base speed of 213 m/s, I show 85% damage. At max AB speed of 543 m/s I show 45% damage.
I'm going to have to go check that as those don't seem correct unless the target was painted...and...I don't see how you can get that kind of damage at 543 m/s?
The default explosion velocity for Heavies on SiSi now is 81 m/s. With great skills that goes to 145m/s. Also, the explosion radius has doubled to 150m (up from 75m). The Thorax has a sig radius of 140m so you're losing damage there too.
I'm not saying you're wrong....as I cannot test it right now, but getting 45% damage from Heavies on a thorax traveling at more than 500m/s seems really high.
Those numbers are correct as they come out of Stafen's missile formula. If there's a flaw in that, I'd like to know!
But HM explosion radius hasn't changed or doubled (last time I checked anyway!), it's still at 125 base, 93.75 skills.
Quote: And vaga starts reducing dmg even without a fit which is absurd.
Why is this absurd? And is it less absurd than the Vaga becoming almost immune to missiles simply by hitting MWD?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.06 22:22:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 06/11/2008 22:27:11
Under Stafen's missile damage formula, velocity is much less important than before, with sig effects being more important now. So a target moving faster than a missile's explosion velocity can still take full damage if its sig is sufficiently greater than the missile's explosion radius.
So calling the change in explosion velocity "gigantic" is pretty meaningless without an appreciation of the role of sig effects, and how the damage falls off with increasing AB velocity. For example, my Cerb was making a complete mess of MWDing HACs and Recons on Sisi, because their high speeds were counteracted by their massive sigs.
Thorax sig of 140 m is ~50% greater than the HM explosion radius of 93.75 m. That makes up for some of the difference in speed.
Again, if you can find a mistake in Stafen's missile damage formula, I'd love to know...
|
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.07 21:53:00 -
[71]
What? Cerberus is getting massively boosted.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.07 22:10:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 07/11/2008 22:16:03
The anti-interceptor AML fit will be able to kill any interceptor within 100 km in just a few volleys. The HML Cerberus will still be able to apply good DPS to any tackled target within 240 km, while still retaining its ECM suppression capabilities.
Most importantly, the range tank of both fits has been strengthened immensely. Currently on TQ, sitting 150 km away doesn't really mean much if a HAC can MWD over in 40 seconds while being largely immune to your HMs. With the patch, the option will be to MWD over in twice the time while taking massive HM damage, or to AB over in several minutes while taking some damage. Neither is sensible - the Cerberus will be the best HAC in the game.
EFT numbers are meaningless if you don't know how to apply them to in-game situations. And looking at the missile changes in isolation is absurd.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.07 22:42:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 07/11/2008 22:44:24 Khamal - Cerberus is not a solo ship, a comparison of your DPS against a BS is meaningless. Ships with ABs do not close quickly, this is an astoundingly stupid statement. Even if you were stationary they would not close quickly, and you can easily maintain range with your own AB - or dictate it with MWD.
Soporo - Cerberus does not shield-tank, it range-tanks. NH is currently an useless pile of fail with poor tank and laughable PG. This will not change, even though it now has a marginally useful explosion velocity bonus. Ironically, retaining the previously-useless precision bonus would have been more better. It does not have the range to be useful in a HML fit in the same fashion as the Cerberus, it does not have the tank to be survivable in a useful fit, and it does not have the PG to be fit properly.
The Drake, however, will remain the best BC, joint with Harbinger, arguably.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.07 23:30:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Khamal Jolstien Ships with afterburners close quickly -enough-. If they don't use missiles, they will certainly be outdamaging me, and currently do on SiSi.
Finally had a chance against interceptors. Missiles still never hit, even using Assault IIs firing Precision lights, with the target rapidly approaching me.
That's because CCP has made Precision Lights useless by giving them half the range of T1. Just use T1, they're good enough. And the obvious extra mods and stuff.
A ship with AB will not close on a MWD-fitted Cerberus in any sensible amount of time. And even if it did, it's a colossal change from the current 4 km/s HACs that are largely immune to HM fire.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.08 00:02:00 -
[75]
Urgh, I just logged on to Sisi five minutes before DT. What was your Cerb fit?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.08 12:02:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Naomi Knight With max skills it is 180km without rigs. and it needs at least 2 sb t2 to reach that range. And it is nothing like a rail eagle , eagle has insta dmg which is much more usefull.
The only rigs that you should ever fit to your Cerberus are missile velocity ones. Well, you might choose Rigour for extra interceptor lolz, but I prefer the extra force projection of HBT. The 2 SB is not an issue. Instant damage of rail Eagle is very nice - but it's around half the damage of the Cerb and has tracking problems against close targets. Different but balanced, I feel.
With range becoming much more meaningful, Eagle will also become a better ship, certainly.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.08 14:14:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 08/11/2008 14:15:05
Cerberus vs. Ares.
Ares travelling at more than 5 km/s. Cerberus with AMLs, T1 Bloodclaw, 3x PWNAGE and standard Crash booster. Sig Foc IV, HACs IV, GMP IV, TNP V, Warhead Ups V.
Ares died after 22 missiles - five volleys.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 00:04:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Khamal Jolstien Every time the target just shrugs off the damage no problem, races towards the cerb, and annihilates it.
This must be a reference to current TQ mechanics. My experience of this on Sisi has been precisely the opposite.
You're not shrugging off any missile damage with a MWD running, and you're not racing towards anything with a bloody AB.
Or was your Cerb some sort of horrific failfit with no speed mod and a full rack of SPRs?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 19:16:00 -
[79]
My first post after the Precision changes were announced was to point out that Precision Lights were now useless against interceptors, and that Jav rockets were useless. But it doesn't really matter when faction lights are so effective.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 17:00:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Cpt Cosmic now you have greatly increased dmg penalty on moving targets, but when a missile cannot hit a target of its same size for at least 85% dmg when webbed with normal ammo types without any other help(regardless of Painter/AB) something is wrong in my opinion (compared to guns atleast)
Something is indeed wrong here.
According to Stafen's missile damage formula, and supported by my testing in general:
Torp vs. webbed Mega: 89% Rage HAM vs. webbed Hurricane: 100% HAM vs. webbed Thorax: 100%
|
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.15 12:03:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Rip Striker Why on earth would anyone ever want to fit Flare over Rigor rigs on a missile boat?
Yeah, this is a feature of the new formula. Which is kinda amusing, given the idiots trying to manipulate Flare prices in Jita... and the idiots who think that Flare is better.
The only time to use Flare is because Rigour doesn't affect unguided missiles. But unguided missiles are short-range, where your target will be webbed and so you don't need them after all!
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 14:29:00 -
[82]
That sounds very odd. Can you post a relevant section of your log?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 14:33:00 -
[83]
When testing a while back I found that there was not stacking penalty for multiple Rigour. Have you found differently more recently?
|
|
|
|