Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 41 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 19 post(s) |
Zantei
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 15:33:00 -
[31]
Bump,
It comes down to this one very simple question.
Why introduce ships which rely on broken mechanics?
Fix rockets, make this game itneresting.
|
Yankunytjatjara
|
Posted - 2009.03.06 13:09:00 -
[32]
Devs give rockets some love!
|
Ketusan
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 23:26:00 -
[33]
If you've ever shot a rocket at another fast moving interceptor/frigate you'll quickly realize a horrible conclusion...
Even if the rockets are fast enough to catch the target, by the time they accelerate and get within range to contact, they're dead.
I've shot rockets in a malediction at a rifter within 5 kilometers, well within skill ranges, and by the time the missile closes in to actually hit, it's gone.
In a less than 5km engagement...?
Sorry, Rockets need a serious re-analysis, they're specifically listed as::
"A tiny launcher that can carry a very limited supply of rockets. Not really intended as a primary weapon but rather as a cheap supplementary weapon system."
Yet you've made them a primary weapon system used by a whole race? Please... if you want to make rockets into a primary weapon system for a specific race, then give them stronger bonuses than 5% to 20 damage... which is.. guess what? 21 damage. yay? 1 extra point of damage.
Khanid ships with rocket bonuses need A) Longer Range - Either a Speed Bonus or a Lifetime Bonus B) Bigger bay capacity from their, and I quote, "very limited supply". C) Bigger damage output at the cost of relaunch speed to increase the damage output bonus effect.
|
Mohenna
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 10:38:00 -
[34]
Thanks for your support guys.
Originally by: Ketusan C) Bigger damage output at the cost of relaunch speed to increase the damage output bonus effect.
I think you mean, raise base damage, this doesn't work mathematically, you'd get the same dps. Unless you are speaking of alpha only?
I'm all for an increase to base damage... Just thought it'd fall on dead ears. Explosion speed seems more likely to happen.
|
Lenia Aheralel
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 15:20:00 -
[35]
I myself did some basic mathematics on this subject. I have determined this; rockets suck.
Unbonused ship [scorpion], maxed skills, dps/alpha numbers (no implants or whatnot). 'Close Range' weapons only. {EFT numbers, subject to errors} DPS / Alpha Rocket Launcher II (gremlin rocket): 16 / 34
125mm Gatling Autocannon (EMP S): 20 / 43 150mm Light Autocannon (EMP S): 21 / 52 200mm Autocannon (EMP S): 22 / 66
Gatling Pulse Laser II (Multi S): 23 / 34 Dual Light Pulse Laser II (Multi S): 23 / 46 Medium Pulse Laser II (Multi S): 27 / 68
Light Electron Blaster II (Anti S): 28 / 40 Light Ion Blaser II (Antimatter S): 30 / 64 Light Neutron Blaser II (Anti S): 32 / 80
So rockets... uh... lowest DPS, lowest alpha (tied with GPL II *has wrecking*). There have been enough posts about range, so I left that out.
My Proposal: Raise Rocket damage to around 36 damage. This would make the fully skilled damage to come around 48. Increasing the dps by a factor of 1.375. This would make the new numbers be as follows. DPS / Alpha Rocket Launcher II (gremlin rocket): 22 / 48
This would keep rockets in-line as far as dps/alpha goes, while not making it a WTFPWN weapon system everyone would use. Now, on a bonus ship (Vengeance) This would be a very nice damage boost, bringing it in line with the other Assault Ships (although still pretty pathetic IMO). All of my numbers are completely done through use of a calculator and EFT. This may have resulted in stupid/wrong calculations which will result in their imminent burning.
Thanks for participating in "Love your Rocket"
|
Lysander Collins
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 10:54:00 -
[36]
I don't have any math to use here but empirically it does appear that rockets have lost a lot of power. 2 years ago I won a corp frigate tourny with a rocket armed kestrel with meh skills. Now many millions of skillpoints later my rocket armed vengeance sucks.
|
Mohenna
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 15:07:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Mohenna on 16/04/2009 15:07:42 It's disheartening that nothing at all is written on the apocrypha 1.1 patchnotes regarding rockets.
Rockets need some love. Further proof. Check out these statistics: http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20&type=fotmships http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20&type=fotmweapons
Nobody at all is using rockets or rocket dedicated ships.
(the stats alone are not proof, but together with all the rest bring more and more evidence to the problem)
|
Admiral IceBlock
Caldari Northern Intelligence PuPPet MasTers
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 15:19:00 -
[38]
CCP was aiming for rockets to be anti-frigate fast spamming weapon, however, they took a u-turn and basicly said **** it, we'll make rockets more like torps but without the damage.
I can hear the CCP office rejoice!
|
Yankunytjatjara
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 13:35:00 -
[39]
Good news, on the balance thread there seems to be an outcry for rockets, half the posters put them in the list
Go and push the issue!!
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 17:48:00 -
[40]
it should be OVER 9000!!!!!! m/s that is
could probably use a boost, I haven't used rockets much, got turned off by missiles early on.
|
|
Valorous Bob
TARSHISH FOUNDATION
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 04:33:00 -
[41]
I never realised there was anything wrong with Rockets, but u guys have got some good evidence and have therefore convinced me that rockets need fixing.
FIX ROCKECTS! _______________________________________________
|
Yankunytjatjara
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 17:13:00 -
[42]
I sincerely hope that this becomes Nozh's next balance thread! It should be an easy enough topic, without drama, that he can deal with it in say, 1 day, after reading the comments, then switch to more complicated stuff that requires more time like t2 ammo.
|
Mohenna
|
Posted - 2009.04.27 11:34:00 -
[43]
I concur, rockets are an easy fix! Do rockets next please
|
GyokZoli
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.04.27 12:04:00 -
[44]
Edited by: GyokZoli on 27/04/2009 12:04:33
Originally by: Cadde
Originally by: Mohenna
And agility as some poster above mentioned, I gather. I can't find numbers for rocket agility though... I always assumed the circles and accelerations that they do are graphics only, because the old missiles guide says that flight distance = speed x time.
Missiles are not affected by agility. Only their velocity. Where as guns basically hit or miss instantly. Missiles travel to their target and they travel by X m/s, you really have to think of them as 100 m range tacklers with a 100% chance to hit as long as they don't run out of cap or are too slow.
Indeed you can say "flight distance = Speed x time" but keep in mind that the target is moving away so you have to deduct/add some range to allow for them to reach their target.
If the missile is moving at 5,000 m/s and the target is moving away from you at 2,500 m/s then your net gain will be 2,500 m/s on that target. With a flight time of 10 seconds, what shows as 50 km's on paper turns into 25 effective range. If the target is beyond that range your missile will not catch up. The opposite is true when the target is approaching you. Then your 50 km range on paper is actually 75 km's in reality if the target continues his path straight for you. Only difference is that when moving away from you, the only thing the target can do is go straight away from you to avoid getting hit or outpace the missile. When approaching you all he has to do is stop at your theoretical max range. But should he approach you at the same speed you can indeed launch at 75 and hit him at 50 as the two will meet there.
//Cadde, blah blah blah.
Missiles do accelerate after launch as one of the devs replied to my bugreport:
Quote: // Missiles always come up a bit short of time x speed as they accelerate to their full speed during which the clock is running but they are not yet going full speed. Also if they have to "turn" after leaving your ship this eats up time as well. This is by design.
But yeah, rockets must be fixed.
|
CrestoftheStars
Caldari Violent Force Productions
|
Posted - 2009.04.27 13:59:00 -
[45]
Edited by: CrestoftheStars on 27/04/2009 14:03:20 problem isn't the just the rockets its the whole goddamn calculation that they royaly scruwed up when trying to althrough it.. :/
ps: the speed problem is general too, i made a freaking long post a long time ago about the rediculess speeds, compared the speeds of missiles/rockets and aircraft, too prove how rediculess it is that their base speed isn't 2-3 times more then it is (although set down the lifetime to compensate, this would also allow them to be a varible weaponry for fleets. etc.. sigh i simply don't get why the balance team haven't realised this yet :/.. ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded |
Mohenna
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 09:47:00 -
[46]
Yep not only they accelerate. They appear to start their motion like the bombs, moving towards where the ship is facing. They should at least move towards the target... This for rockets makes quite a difference.
The damage is quite low, but the explosion speed is terrible for something that should frag drones like eggs.
|
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 10:24:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 28/04/2009 10:25:39
Originally by: Mohenna Yep not only they accelerate. They appear to start their motion like the bombs, moving towards where the ship is facing. They should at least move towards the target... This for rockets makes quite a difference.
The damage is quite low, but the explosion speed is terrible for something that should frag drones like eggs.
This. Also: rockets change dirtection (while following target) each second. This means that target which turns fast will not be hit at all (they have like 2 direction changes and are gone). Tested on close range orbit ceptor (think he was 500m orbit, landed at 3,5km from me doing around 2km/s) - with skills 5/5/dictors 4 (heretic, thus additional 40% to rocket velocity) he was hit 3 times out of around 100 rockets fired.
|
Mohenna
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 12:52:00 -
[48]
I don't think we can hope for a rework of the code atm. I'd really be content to see rockets become a high damage, no range kind of weapon.
Originally by: Deva Blackfire Tested on close range orbit ceptor (think he was 500m orbit, landed at 3,5km from me doing around 2km/s) - with skills 5/5/dictors 4 (heretic, thus additional 40% to rocket velocity) he was hit 3 times out of around 100 rockets fired.
Is this with javelins? It seems not... I don't mind being restricted in the kind of targets I can choose with rockets. I see them as the blasters of the missile side: give them power, not range! I can live with interceptors being kinda immune to them unless you're or using javelins, or tailing them with another intie... "Tailing inties with another intie" OMG the images of dogfights that this sentence awaken in me disturb me to a whole new level. I thought I had forgotten the Topgun movie craze - but apparently, it was only removed /dooms the friggin na-na-na-nananana... theme, took me ages to remove it from my head
|
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 13:37:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 28/04/2009 13:47:06 Normal ammo not javelins (so ~14km range). Still its mostly due to their agility. Maxskill rocket has 3 seconds flight time:
0s - launch 1s - missile flies forward (3-4km dependant on velocity skill and ship) 2s - missile turns towards target. If target is behind you missile will be more-less near you at this point 3s - missile moves 3-4km from your position towards enemy.
Effective range (for enemy "behind" you): 3-4km. If hes on the side it is around 5-6km. And this is IGNORING the fact that enemy might be moving thus range gets reduced further.
So pretty much we land inside blaster/ac range with poorest DPS of all weapons in game.
Note to above: javelins might help a bit but not much. Its still 1 second forward, 1 second back so you always lose 1/3 of range on 1st second. Easy to see on vengeance while running from NPCs (they follow). Your range is not 15km but some pathetic 8km. EVEN tho enemy follows you = gets closer (into incoming missile).
Fixes?
1. fix launch vector so rocket start following target as soon as its launched instead of moving forward 2. if (1) is not possible add another second to their flight time and improve range. Yes it might be even 15-20km on maxskilled (no ship bonus) rocket, effective range will be cut almost in half anyways. Speed is needed to catch up to ceptors (lol @ rocket being anti-ceptor weapon - like on heretic) 3. increase rocket DPS. If no range increase is given make em even 25-40% stronger. If range boost is given (as per 2) it might be less but they still need damage boost (15-25% in this case i guess).
Reason about damage boost? Even after damage increase rockets still suffer HEAVILY from new missile damage formula up to the point where ceptor moving WITHOUT speed mods (just plain chassis speed) can mitigate up to 40% of DPS (IIRC, correct me on this one if its more/less, i cba to find missile damage formula right now).
Point (3) can be changed depending on other rocket stats (like explo velocity etc). Its obvious that 25-40% damage boost with changes to explo velocity/radius so there is no negation from speed might be way too much, so it has to be balanced a bit. It was just general idea(s) for fix.
Also its worth to consider what was said earlier (forgot who posted it). Make rockets into short burst VERY heavy DPS weapons. Give them 300dps but reduce their clip amount so after reloads its ~120-140dps on for example malediction (so clip would have to be emptied in 10 seconds?). But this weapon type change should be done AFTER points 1-3 were taken into account.
EDIT: oh yea i almost forgot. ROCKET LAUNCHER FITTING REQUIREMENTS. Reduce them please. Or give more CPU/grid to heretic. After 6x launcher barely anything fits to this ship...
|
Mohenna
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 14:28:00 -
[50]
Yeah.
The range - no pls, the vector - yes pls. Why? Because dps and explosion speed should be more important imho. Range is for missiles.
The grid - it's a bit strange I concur, both for rockets and missiles, but that's touching a lot of things at the same time. While it's CCP's normal modus operandi, I can't see that as a good thing in game balance terms.
|
|
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 14:56:00 -
[51]
Fix?
Make rockets, missiles and torps insta-hit.
Yes you heard me... everytime this damn weapon platform comes up it's always; "Yeah yeah, but they always hit, no tracking, blah blah, they are low, reliably DPS.
Problem is, they're not. They are low base dmg, correct, but they don't always hit. They need ages to reach their target, in which the target is most likely moving, reducing that freaking lying "EFT godlike range" or simply warp off.
If you would make just one change, make them insta-hit. They would be the reliable, low dmg, choose your dmg type weapons everybody is talking about.
No tracking, explosion radius and explosion speed vs. signature radius and target speed. That's all that should matter.
All the crap that happens from when the crap leaves the tubes and until they "hit" royally ****s with the intended purpose of these weapons.
|
Georgina Eldridge
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 15:45:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Pohbis Fix?
Make rockets, missiles and torps insta-hit.
Yes you heard me... everytime this damn weapon platform comes up it's always; "Yeah yeah, but they always hit, no tracking, blah blah, they are low, reliably DPS.
Problem is, they're not. They are low base dmg, correct, but they don't always hit. They need ages to reach their target, in which the target is most likely moving, reducing that freaking lying "EFT godlike range" or simply warp off.
If you would make just one change, make them insta-hit. They would be the reliable, low dmg, choose your dmg type weapons everybody is talking about.
No tracking, explosion radius and explosion speed vs. signature radius and target speed. That's all that should matter.
All the crap that happens from when the crap leaves the tubes and until they "hit" royally ****s with the intended purpose of these weapons.
YES MAKE EVERYTHING THE SAME SO ITS ALL FAIR ITS NOT FAIR THAT DIFFERENT RACES HAVE DIFFERENT WEAPON SYSTEMS WHICH DO DIFFERENT THINGS. Q_Q
|
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 15:59:00 -
[53]
Do you have emotional problems? All your posts are in caps.
|
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 19:40:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Georgina Eldridge YES MAKE EVERYTHING THE SAME SO ITS ALL FAIR ITS NOT FAIR THAT DIFFERENT RACES HAVE DIFFERENT WEAPON SYSTEMS WHICH DO DIFFERENT THINGS. Q_Q
Yes, having ammo fly towards your target, under a mechanic that works like crap because of the way the engine works is truly amazing diversity.
What would instahit change? Nothing but make missiles on par with the other weapon systems.
And please, the same? Try reading and comprehending, instead of searching for your CAPS key. All mechanics that make missiles missiles would still be there. Explosion velocity, explosion radius. Damage would still be calculated the same. Everythings is still there... except the FUBAR travel ****up that makes missiles nothig than a PvE mission runner weapon, or secondary choice in PvP if you can't bring anything else.
There's is not a single missile-boat, where people wouldn't switch to the turrect equivilant in a heartbeat if they were given the choice. That alone speaks volumes about how subpar missiles are.
|
Great Artista
Caldari Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 20:02:00 -
[55]
Fun fact: UNBONUSED AUTOCANNONS (not even blasters) do more damage than bonused rockets. Problem gets worse when reload times are included.
Not to mention the silly explosion radius/speed problem they have; totally useless in inty combat. They need a buff, badly. _______
◕◡◕
|
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 20:17:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Pohbis
There's is not a single missile-boat, were people wouldn't switch to the turrect equivilant in a heartbeat if they were given the choice. That alone speaks volumes about how subpar missiles are.
Cerb.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 20:22:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Pohbis
There's is not a single missile-boat, were people wouldn't switch to the turrect equivilant in a heartbeat if they were given the choice. That alone speaks volumes about how subpar missiles are.
Drake.
|
yani dumyat
Minmatar purple pot hogs
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 20:52:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Pohbis
There's is not a single missile-boat, were people wouldn't switch to the turrect equivilant in a heartbeat if they were given the choice. That alone speaks volumes about how subpar missiles are.
Hawk (After Nozh reads this sense and succumbs to the common sense within)
Sig_________________________________________________________________________________
My alliance, corp, psychiatrist and parole officer claim no responsibility for my actions on these forums. |
Ellena Manim
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 01:47:00 -
[59]
Rocket in fact has a single advantage over other missile system. They are defender immune. By the time the defender has acquired the rocket as a target rocket has landed and the defender stupidly fly around looking for a target.
But yeah, other then that, it is pretty crappy DPS. I got more skill points in rocket then small laser yet my retribution eat trough ships about twice as fast as the vengeance.
So what ever is done, something must be done.
Less reload time, Less room taken by 1 rocket More raw damage More explosion velocity More speed or even an FoF rocket ,
I'm open to ANY type of change. Let's face it, that weapon system is so crappy that no mather what it is changed by CCP, it will be a boost. Even nerfing it would be a boot to rocket-based ships has it will force them to get a other weapon system... which are better.
|
Great Artista
Caldari Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 02:00:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Great Artista on 29/04/2009 02:01:38 dblpst. :( _______
◕◡◕
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 41 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |