Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
452
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 09:20:00 -
[31] - Quote
Devs have responded that missiles will be brought in line with other weapon systems, meaning that missile range and damage will be nerfed across the board.
They simply do too much damage with unnatural accuracy at too long ranges, so this nerf is balanced.
|
Sunviking
The Shining Knights
26
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 09:22:00 -
[32] - Quote
Roime wrote:Devs have responded that missiles will be brought in line with other weapon systems, meaning that missile range and damage will be nerfed across the board.
They simply do too much damage with unnatural accuracy at too long ranges, so this nerf is balanced.
How did you manage to arrive at this 'nerf missiles' conclusion? Missiles are most definitely not overpowered. |
Bubanni
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
223
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 09:38:00 -
[33] - Quote
I think missiles should be made much much faster (and have their flight time reduced to give same distance)....
I think this would also reduce lag a little as they will be in space for less time :) |
Sunviking
The Shining Knights
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 09:39:00 -
[34] - Quote
Bump
Would love to see a dev answer on this please. |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
159
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 10:03:00 -
[35] - Quote
HAMs don't have enough DPS to justify the short range compared to HMLs Torpedoes need a boost, they should be able to hit web'd non-AB'ing battleships for near full damage, but they don't 6th launcher for the cerb/sac? Remove defender missiles + skill, reimburse the sp |
Sunviking
The Shining Knights
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 10:52:00 -
[36] - Quote
Vaal Erit wrote:HAMs don't have enough DPS to justify the short range compared to HMLs Torpedoes need a boost, they should be able to hit web'd non-AB'ing battleships for near full damage, but they don't 6th launcher for the cerb/sac? Remove defender missiles + skill, reimburse the sp
I can agree with removing Defender missiles from the game. |
Arkady Vachon
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
32
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 10:53:00 -
[37] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: The ability to switch targets in mid flight by highlighting a different targeted ship would help long range missiles (especially) become much more effective in PVP.
Hmm or at least let them choose their own targets if their original target is taken out, kind of like real-world antiship missiles and especially torpedoes, whereas if the torp loses its target it has its own onboard scanner and looks for a target in range as it continues on its original trajectory. If it finds a target in its own scanner range it attempts to acquire and go after that target, and if it does not find a target it self-destructs at maximum range.
so if the primary target is destroyed, then all of his nearby buddies could now be in danger.
dunna if that can be done, tho.
|
Sunviking
The Shining Knights
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 10:56:00 -
[38] - Quote
Arkady Vachon wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: The ability to switch targets in mid flight by highlighting a different targeted ship would help long range missiles (especially) become much more effective in PVP.
Hmm or at least let them choose their own targets if their original target is taken out, kind of like real-world antiship missiles and especially torpedoes, whereas if the torp loses its target it has its own onboard scanner and looks for a target in range as it continues on its original trajectory. If it finds a target in its own scanner range it attempts to acquire and go after that target, and if it does not find a target it self-destructs at maximum range. so if the primary target is destroyed, then all of his nearby buddies could now be in danger. dunna if that can be done, tho.
Missile randomly seeking a new target? This is a cool idea and one way of mitigating one of the main reasons people don't use Missiles for long-range PvP - wasted vollies on targets that die while your missiles are in mid-flight. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3359
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 10:59:00 -
[39] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Sunviking wrote:As the title suggests, have you got around to looking at the issues with Missiles in time for Inferno? What issues?
Cruise missiles are particularly sucky, for one thing. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3359
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 11:03:00 -
[40] - Quote
Skydell wrote:Once the TD effect is applied to missiles they will be in essence what they were made after the nano nerf that changed missiles. Any old timer knows that missiles before that were viewed as OP and Torp Raven fleets were the flavor of the day...
I'm an old timer who remembers the nano-nerf. Missiles were essentially unused in PvP in the period leading up to the nano-nerf because it was so easy to exceed their explosion velocity by enough to reduce each hit to 0.1hp damage.
Long, long ago, once upon a time, years before both the nano-nerf and Malc, missiles did always do full damage regardless, and all missiles fitted in all launchers; the only limitation was the missile volume vs launcher capacity, so Cruise Missile Kestrels ruled the skies.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
|
Sunviking
The Shining Knights
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 11:04:00 -
[41] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Tippia wrote:Sunviking wrote:As the title suggests, have you got around to looking at the issues with Missiles in time for Inferno? What issues? Cruise missiles are particularly sucky, for one thing.
To be honest, the only missiles that DON'T suck are Heavies and HAMs. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3359
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 11:04:00 -
[42] - Quote
Sunviking wrote:Roime wrote:Devs have responded that missiles will be brought in line with other weapon systems, meaning that missile range and damage will be nerfed across the board.
They simply do too much damage with unnatural accuracy at too long ranges, so this nerf is balanced.
How did you manage to arrive at this 'nerf missiles' conclusion? Missiles are most definitely not overpowered.
He perhaps thinks that Tengu PvE is all that matters because it's all he's seen. But more likely trolling. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Sunviking
The Shining Knights
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 11:06:00 -
[43] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Sunviking wrote:Roime wrote:Devs have responded that missiles will be brought in line with other weapon systems, meaning that missile range and damage will be nerfed across the board.
They simply do too much damage with unnatural accuracy at too long ranges, so this nerf is balanced.
How did you manage to arrive at this 'nerf missiles' conclusion? Missiles are most definitely not overpowered. He perhaps thinks that Tengu PvE is all that matters because it's all he's seen. But more likely trolling.
Probably both! |
Tozmeister
Digital Fury Corporation Outbreak.
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 11:11:00 -
[44] - Quote
Yes Roime, please provide a link to this quote from CCP.
Also add to the list, T2 precision ammo. Worked fine when first introduced but got whined about by nano pilots and subsequently got over-nerfed to the point where normal Faction ammo is more effective in any situation where you would need precision ammo. |
Sunviking
The Shining Knights
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 11:15:00 -
[45] - Quote
Tozmeister wrote:Yes Roime, please provide a link to this quote from CCP.
Also add to the list, T2 precision ammo. Worked fine when first introduced but got whined about by nano pilots and subsequently got over-nerfed to the point where normal Faction ammo is more effective in any situation where you would need precision ammo.
Done. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3359
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 11:16:00 -
[46] - Quote
Sunviking wrote:Malcanis wrote:Tippia wrote:Sunviking wrote:As the title suggests, have you got around to looking at the issues with Missiles in time for Inferno? What issues? Cruise missiles are particularly sucky, for one thing. To be honest, the only missiles that DON'T suck are Heavies and HAMs.
Lights work fine, but the fitting requirements are really high.
One area where missiles really suffer is that there are no weapon tiers. For turret ships it's really handy to be able to downgrade From Neutron Blasters to Ions, or from Megapulse to Dual Heavy Pulse. Missile ships get no such option, and not only are there no lower tiers, but Caldari ships in particular tend to be gimped in their fitting capabilities; a Raven with 6x Seige Launcher II has 476 CPU and 1950 grid left for the rest of the fit. A Megathron with 7 Neutron Blaster Cannon II has 383 CPU and 6278 grid left. A Tempest with 6 800mm AC II has 503 CPU and 7495 grid left... Once you subtract the fitting requirement of the Mandatory Warp Drive (75 CPU, 1250 grid), then there's very little left for luxuries like cap injectors, tank and heavy utility modules on a Raven, and the same goes for most other Caldari missile boats. If your MegaPulse Geddon or 425mm Rail Domi won't quite fit, then you can easily drop to DHPs or 350mm rails and be able to fit that heavy cap injector or heavy neut. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Sunviking
The Shining Knights
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 11:26:00 -
[47] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Sunviking wrote:Malcanis wrote:Tippia wrote:Sunviking wrote:As the title suggests, have you got around to looking at the issues with Missiles in time for Inferno? What issues? Cruise missiles are particularly sucky, for one thing. To be honest, the only missiles that DON'T suck are Heavies and HAMs. Lights work fine, but the fitting requirements are really high. One area where missiles really suffer is that there are no weapon tiers. For turret ships it's really handy to be able to downgrade From Neutron Blasters to Ions, or from Megapulse to Dual Heavy Pulse. Missile ships get no such option, and not only are there no lower tiers, but Caldari ships in particular tend to be gimped in their fitting capabilities; a Raven with 6x Seige Launcher II has 476 CPU and 1950 grid left for the rest of the fit. A Megathron with 7 Neutron Blaster Cannon II has 383 CPU and 6278 grid left. A Tempest with 6 800mm AC II has 503 CPU and 7495 grid left... Once you subtract the fitting requirement of the Mandatory Warp Drive (75 CPU, 1250 grid), then there's very little left for luxuries like cap injectors, tank and heavy utility modules on a Raven, and the same goes for most other Caldari missile boats. If your MegaPulse Geddon or 425mm Rail Domi won't quite fit, then you can easily drop to DHPs or 350mm rails and be able to fit that heavy cap injector or heavy neut.
Noted, I will find a way of putting this on the list. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
259
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 12:01:00 -
[48] - Quote
Sunviking wrote:Hello CCP,
UPDATE: I've started making a list of all the issues players are finding with Missiles below and will keep it updated for all. Current Issues 1. Range of Torpedoes compared to HAMs and Rockets (Torps currently have no more range over HAMs, that is just wrong) 2. Uselessness of Cruise Missiles in PvP (maybe shift damage to more Alpha to compensate?) 3. Fitting Requirements of Light Missile Launchers (too high) 4. DPS of Javelin HAMs (too low) 5. Explosion Velocity of missiles too low in general (too easily speed-tanked) 6. Inflight missile volley damage wasted where target dies before target reached. 7. Tech2 Precision Ammunition. All-round they are just not effective, as they can still be speed-tanked by most ships, and are inferior in most ways to Faction Missiles. 8. Tech2 Missile penalties i.e. Signature radius and Ship Velocity.
1. Torps don't need more range. If they need anything, then cutting explosion radius down to 400-425 m would be it. But I think the real problem isn't with torps, it's with the Raven - it needs a bit more fittings and a lowslot moved to a medslot, it doesn't really have the tank it needs to survive as a close-range anti-BS/BC gank platform.
2. Cruise has no role. It will still have no role even with more alpha. There are no targets worth shooting with Cruise (over another weapon system) and there is no effective Cruise platform. F*** knows how you solve all this.
3. They're tricky to fit. Not convinced that they're too tricky though.
4. Jav DPS is okay, but its range isn't. 50% extra isn't enough, it only gives 5 km more on rockets and 10 km more on HAMs and torps, neither is enough to be really useful. Guns get a much greater range increase between high-damage ammo and T2 long-range ammo (which is the comparison used in balancing). Compare Mulitfreq and Scorch: that's a 200% increase! A range increase of 100%, instead of 50%, would be more appropriate.
5. They're fine.
6. That's missiles for you. Skill can reduce the effect. This isn't a problem.
7. When CCP reworked Precisions in QR in 2008, I immediately posted that they were worthless. Precision lights especially, as they don't have the range to hit their intended targets, because of the crazy -50% range. At the other end of the spectrum, Precision Cruise does have sufficient range and does do notably greater % damage against small fast stuff, but since doubling a very small number is still a very small number, this isn't useful.
The whole concept of Precision is probably a bad idea. Maybe a line of extra-fast T2 missiles, trading damage for speed, would be a better idea?
8. If Barrage, Null and Scorch do not have velocity penalties; neither should Jav. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
485
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 12:20:00 -
[49] - Quote
Tozmeister wrote:Yes Roime, please provide a link to this quote from CCP.
For some reason I can't find a link anymore, but this has been confirmed by the authorities to be the case indeed.
They also cause lag and encourage lazy piloting.
|
Mugged Yougot
NorCorp Security AAA Citizens
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 12:47:00 -
[50] - Quote
From what I understand, missiles don't require as much active piloting so instead of grouping all your guns you can activate them individually as how you see fit. That would at least mitigate a lot of the "alpha-issue". |
|
MeestaPenni
Deadman W0nderland The 99 Percent
209
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 12:55:00 -
[51] - Quote
Tippia wrote:What issues?
Whenever Tippia jumps into a thread all I can think of is the signature melody from the movie JAWS, when the beast is moving in for the kill of another easy meal. Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore. |
Sunviking
The Shining Knights
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 18:41:00 -
[52] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:
4. Jav DPS is okay, but its range isn't. 50% extra isn't enough, it only gives 5 km more on rockets and 10 km more on HAMs and torps, neither is enough to be really useful. Guns get a much greater range increase between high-damage ammo and T2 long-range ammo (which is the comparison used in balancing). Compare Mulitfreq and Scorch: that's a 200% increase! A range increase of 100%, instead of 50%, would be more appropriate.
The reason long-range version of short-range gun ammo (Scorch, etc) has a greater range bonus than long-range version of short-range Launcher ammo (Javelin) is because Gunnery range support skills (Trajectory Analysis, Sharpshooter) give only a 5% bonus to range per level, whereas Missile range support skills (Missile Projection, Missile Bombardment) give 10% bonus to missile range per level.
My opinion is that Javelin Rockets and HAMs range is absolutely fine. Javelin Torps, and Torp range in general is terrible. My point is that Torpedoes are a battleship-class weapon, yet Torpedo range is no better than HAM range, and HAMs are a cruiser-class weapon. The fact that Torpedoes are almost unusable by any Caldari ship other than the Raven hull (which has a missile velocity bonus), kind of points this flaw out. |
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
176
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 19:46:00 -
[53] - Quote
Something as simple as halving the range and doubling the velocity of all missiles could be very useful. |
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
7
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 19:58:00 -
[54] - Quote
Bubanni wrote:I think missiles should be made much much faster (and have their flight time reduced to give same distance)....
I think this would also reduce lag a little as they will be in space for less time :) It's one option.
Unfortunately the physics engine in EVE does not support increasing the speed. Well, maybe for torps and cruises.
I remember a Dev posting they got some weird results when they were playing around with missile speed the last time, around the "nano-nerf".
|
Buzzmong
Aliastra Gallente Federation
193
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 20:14:00 -
[55] - Quote
I'm not sure, but I think I saw a post from a dev regarding Citadel missiles getting tweaked in the Titan change thread, although I could be mistaken.
Tbh, I can quite clearly see that HML's will get looked at, if only because their good damage and range is massively magnified by a couple of specific ships (Tengu, possibly Cerb but the Cerb actually has downsides) which makes them seem out of line. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
259
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 23:17:00 -
[56] - Quote
Sunviking wrote:The reason long-range version of short-range gun ammo (Scorch, etc) has a greater range bonus than long-range version of short-range Launcher ammo (Javelin) is because Gunnery range support skills (Trajectory Analysis, Sharpshooter) give only a 5% bonus to range per level, whereas Missile range support skills (Missile Projection, Missile Bombardment) give 10% bonus to missile range per level.
I don't see the link. Why do the skill bonus magnitudes have to do with anything? It sounds like you're balancing weapon systems by comparing patterns of bonus numbers, but that's just... crazy.
Sunviking wrote:My opinion is that Javelin Rockets and HAMs range is absolutely fine. Javelin Torps, and Torp range in general is terrible. My point is that Torpedoes are a battleship-class weapon, yet Torpedo range is no better than HAM range, and HAMs are a cruiser-class weapon. The fact that Torpedoes are almost unusable by any Caldari ship other than the Raven hull (which has a missile velocity bonus), kind of points this flaw out.
What is this nonsense? The Raven hull is the only one that can has bonused torps (yeah yeah Manti). Of course it's the only Caldari ship which uses them effectively!
Why is torp range horrible? Just saying because it's the same as HAMs isn't good enough, that tells us nothing of their value. What is the problem with ~28 km torps on the Raven? This covers normal disruptor range. You seem to be saying that pretty patterns of numbers are required for weapons to be balanced, but not only does that incorrectly assume that 1 km of range is of equal value at any range, but it also suggests that nerfing HAM range to 15 km (giving rockets, HAMs, torps 10, 15, 20 km base ranges) would results in balanced torps, which is absurd.
The additional 5 km range of Jav rockets is not useful in the slightest. Much of this is the speed penalty that prevents Jav rockets from effectively being used by kiters, but even without that, the 10-15 km range is almost impossible to maintain, as it is overheated web/scramble range. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
259
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 23:25:00 -
[57] - Quote
Pohbis wrote:I remember a Dev posting they got some weird results when they were playing around with missile speed the last time, around the "nano-nerf".
This was back in the runup to QR. TBH, it's a bollocks statement, because we don't know at what speed these problems appeared. Or what the effect was. Or how much whatever this effect was was to do with the target ship also travelling at very high velocity (e.g. dodgy collision detection).
However, you can test for yourself that, say, a missile velocity-bonused ships with missile velocity rigs can get 13 km/s missiles which work perfectly normally. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3383
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 23:32:00 -
[58] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Sunviking wrote:The reason long-range version of short-range gun ammo (Scorch, etc) has a greater range bonus than long-range version of short-range Launcher ammo (Javelin) is because Gunnery range support skills (Trajectory Analysis, Sharpshooter) give only a 5% bonus to range per level, whereas Missile range support skills (Missile Projection, Missile Bombardment) give 10% bonus to missile range per level. I don't see the link. Why do the skill bonus magnitudes have to do with anything? It sounds like you're balancing weapon systems by comparing patterns of bonus numbers, but that's just... crazy. Sunviking wrote:My opinion is that Javelin Rockets and HAMs range is absolutely fine. Javelin Torps, and Torp range in general is terrible. My point is that Torpedoes are a battleship-class weapon, yet Torpedo range is no better than HAM range, and HAMs are a cruiser-class weapon. The fact that Torpedoes are almost unusable by any Caldari ship other than the Raven hull (which has a missile velocity bonus), kind of points this flaw out. What is this nonsense? The Raven hull is the only one that can has bonused torps (yeah yeah Manti). Of course it's the only Caldari ship which uses them effectively! Why is torp range horrible? Just saying because it's the same as HAMs isn't good enough, that tells us nothing of their value. What is the problem with ~28 km torps on the Raven? This covers normal disruptor range. You seem to be saying that pretty patterns of numbers are required for weapons to be balanced, but not only does that incorrectly assume that 1 km of range is of equal value at any range, but it also suggests that nerfing HAM range to 15 km (giving rockets, HAMs, torps 10, 15, 20 km base ranges) would results in balanced torps, which is absurd. The additional 5 km range of Jav rockets is not useful in the slightest. Much of this is the speed penalty that prevents Jav rockets from effectively being used by kiters, but even without that, the 10-15 km range is almost impossible to maintain, as it is overheated web/scramble range.
Typhoons get a bonus to torps. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 23:35:00 -
[59] - Quote
Kattshiro wrote:Tracking Disruptors will work on missiles as well? What?
Now that's stupid.
|
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse
126
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 00:43:00 -
[60] - Quote
Spc One wrote:Kattshiro wrote:Tracking Disruptors will work on missiles as well? What?
Now that's stupid.
TD impact the turet, not the ammo. Missile launchers have no stats besides refire. Unless the tracking disruptor creates a launcher malfunction that just makes it launch slower I don't see how it will work.
As for Torps and Cruise, they work fine short range because you aren't throwing your flight time away chasing the ship. Where a gun cancels out transversal at range, it has the opposite effect on a missile. 90 km away orbiting me at 350 m/s means I need to take my 3750 m/s and reduce that by 350 for every second the missile is in flight because Missiles are the only weapon that don't travel in a straight line. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cg-_HeVNYOk
Save Derpy! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |