EVE Search - Tracking disruption for missiles and missile damage reduction..Got Flares??

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Tracking disruption for missiles and missile damage reduction..Got Flares??

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
2ofSpades Medic. 9	Posted - 2012.09.10 22:42:00 - [1] - Quote There is no active weapon disruption for missiles. Flares would be such a cool looking mod to have because defender missiles are crap. Instead of disruption they could have a hit/miss chance to some degree or maybe some sort of damage reduction equal to tracking disruption. The only problem is the idea is setup like defender missiles because the only friendly that could defend would be a ship with flares. You could make some sort of shotgun style projectile that spreads flares or chaffs 10km in front of the affected ship so you can apply the penalty like a tracking disruptor I guess. Active Missile Defense-Medium Slot You could have two different scripts. Chaffs for standard, heavy, and cruise missiles Flares for rockets, assaults, torps At the same time you can fix the damage reduction on some of the current missiles. Pretty much all of the t2 precision and javelin ammo needs some major damage reduction help excluding rockets.
Nnamuachs Kiith Paktu Curatores Veritatis Alliance 14	Posted - 2012.09.11 10:08:00 - [2] - Quote Tracking disruptors increase the explosion radius (or decrease the explosion velocity, i forget which) of missiles.
Tomcio FromFarAway Singularity's Edge 195	Posted - 2012.09.11 10:37:00 - [3] - Quote Nnamuachs wrote: Tracking disruptors increase the explosion radius (or decrease the explosion velocity, i forget which) of missiles. No. CCP was planning to do that but they have scrapped the idea for now.
Doddy Excidium. Executive Outcomes 136	Posted - 2012.09.11 11:09:00 - [4] - Quote or they could just fix defenders.....
Tomcio FromFarAway Singularity's Edge 195	Posted - 2012.09.11 12:25:00 - [5] - Quote Doddy wrote: or they could just fix defenders..... TDs can be used by any ship. Defenders can be used only on missile boats. So you can 'disrupt' turret boats from any ship but the only way to 'disrupt' missile boats is to fly missile boat. Not that I'm suggesting defenders are fine the way they are.
Elshar Khandar The Jolly Slavers 29	Posted - 2012.09.11 12:58:00 - [6] - Quote Defenders could certainly do with a tweak or two.
Uris Vitgar Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 35	Posted - 2012.09.11 14:32:00 - [7] - Quote I think TDs should affect missiles, but with the optimal range effect rather than the tracking effect. You can reduce the "optimal range" of missiles by reducing their velocity, then also maybe with enough TDs a small ship could actually outrun the missiles
Velicitia Open Designs 1150	Posted - 2012.09.11 14:39:00 - [8] - Quote Tomcio FromFarAway wrote: Doddy wrote: or they could just fix defenders..... TDs can be used by any ship. Defenders can be used only on missile boats. So you can 'disrupt' turret boats from any ship but the only way to 'disrupt' missile boats is to fly missile boat. Not that I'm suggesting defenders are fine the way they are. Well, they can be used on any ship with a launcher slot ... granted this means sacrificing a turret in some cases. And, yeah, since "moar DPS" is preferred for ships, well we probably won't see that happening ... hi slots/turret/launcher Battleships : Abaddon -- 8/8/1* Apoc -- 8/8/2* 'Geddon -- 8/8/0 Domi -- 6/6/0 Hyp -- 8/8/1* Mega -- 8/7/2 Mael -- 8/8/3* Raven -- 8/4/6 Rokh -- 8/8/4* Scorp -- 6/4/4 'Pest -- 8/6/4 'Phoon -- 8/5/5 Battlecruisers (Tier1/2): Brutix -- 7/7/0 Cyclone -- 8/5/3 Drake -- 8/0/7 Ferox -- 7/6/5 Harby -- 8/7/0 'Cane -- 8/6/3 Myrmidon -- 6/6/0 Prophecy -- 7/6/1 * = would have to sacrifice a turret for defenders.
Tomcio FromFarAway Singularity's Edge 195	Posted - 2012.09.11 15:18:00 - [9] - Quote Velicitia wrote: [ And, yeah, since "moar DPS" is preferred for ships, well we probably won't see that happening ... That's exactly the reason why I forgot that some turret ships even get launcher hardpoints. Defenders would need to be really good to make it sensible ( when you take into consideration that realistically you could only use 1 slot for that ) but then they might be too good on missile boats. Maybe some special defender-only launcher, which would provide big bonuses to defenders could work. If fitting one of those in your hislot could give similar effect to those of tracking disruptor then it might be actually useful on some setups.
Velicitia Open Designs 1151	Posted - 2012.09.11 15:45:00 - [10] - Quote Tomcio FromFarAway wrote: Velicitia wrote: And, yeah, since "moar DPS" is preferred for ships, well we probably won't see that happening ... That's exactly the reason why I forgot that some turret ships even get launcher hardpoints. Defenders would need to be really good to make it sensible ( when you take into consideration that realistically you could only use 1 slot for that ) but then they might be too good on missile boats. Maybe some special defender-only launcher, which would provide big bonuses to defenders could work. If fitting one of those in your hislot could give similar effect to those of tracking disruptor then it might be actually useful on some setups. A psuedo-bonused "Defender Launcher" would help, provided that these couldn't get further bonused by being on a missile boat. However, missile boats using the normal launchers (and reloading to defenders) would have a slight edge IF they trained to L5 for that hull.

Corina Jarr Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built 1303	Posted - 2012.09.11 16:11:00 - [11] - Quote Defenders need their own launcher, one that doesn't use any type of hardpoint. That way anyone can fit them if they can spare a high slot. Add this to fixing them to be useful, and defenders are now useful and usable.
Joe Risalo State War Academy Caldari State 288	Posted - 2012.09.11 16:41:00 - [12] - Quote Uris Vitgar wrote: I think TDs should affect missiles, but with the optimal range effect rather than the tracking effect. You can reduce the "optimal range" of missiles by reducing their velocity, then also maybe with enough TDs a small ship could actually outrun the missiles NO.. That would be quite unfair... You have dampeners to limit our targetting range which is the same as limiting our missile range.. If we can't target, we can't shoot. Currently you have damps and jams to use against missiles. Explosion velocity and radius are essentially our version of tracking, so it would have to effect one of these two catagories. That said though, missile boats have enough problems in pvp without worrying about disruptors. Now, I do feel that defendors need to be reworked, however, I also feel that fof need to be reworked.
notha atfast Jabba Industries INC. Punkz 'n Monkeys 24	Posted - 2012.09.11 16:53:00 - [13] - Quote I think this should be more of an Ewar module instead of a turret. Some sort of missle spoofing system. It pulls missles off target. You can run multiple but has stacking penalties. Not sure what the % of missle tracking lost should be used. but say 5-10 % of all incoming missles fired at your ship. I think this would be something used to counter Drake fleets and the 100MN AB Tengu. But it's just my .02
Uris Vitgar Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 35	Posted - 2012.09.11 17:16:00 - [14] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: NO.. That would be quite unfair... You're right, that would still be be unfair on the turrets. Turrets would be affected by both tracking-scripted and optimal-scripted TDs, whereas the missiles would only be affected by optimal-scriped TDs. Still, it's better than nothing, and makes reasonable sense in terms of what a tracking disruptor might actually do to a missile.
Utsen Dari Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy 22	Posted - 2012.09.11 17:26:00 - [15] - Quote What if defender missiles had the capability to engage a missile heading for a fleetmate? I'm seeing an aegis antimissile fit with fleet role similar to the firewall ships in use today.
Tomcio FromFarAway Singularity's Edge 196	Posted - 2012.09.11 17:31:00 - [16] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: Currently you have damps and jams to use against missiles. Which is different from dampening and jamming turret ships in what way exactly? EDIT : I would even say that jammers are not as effective when used against missile boats as they are against turret boats because of FoFs. Joe Risalo wrote: Explosion velocity and radius are essentially our version of tracking, so it would have to effect one of these two catagories. Tracking Disruptors affect both tracking and range ( both optimal and fallof ) of turret boats. You can amplify one form of disruption by using scripts but the point is they affect both. Joe Risalo wrote: That said though, missile boats have enough problems in pvp without worrying about disruptors. Serious question : What are those problems? I ask because I don't fly missile boats that often and the ones I used ( Drake, Tengu ) were excellent in terms of pvp effectiveness. Is there a problem with missiles in general or is it rather limited to specific hulls or types of missiles?
Obsidiana White-Noise 181	Posted - 2012.09.11 23:13:00 - [17] - Quote How about this? Counter Measure Launcher Does not use a hard point High slot module No cap use Does use PG Fires one at a time, but they last longer than the RoF. It works like the real thing, with a chance of the missile hitting the wrong object. TP counters it, decreasing the chance. Designed to be a utility high slot module. Missiles are different than guns; so too should the counter to it be.
tankus2 The Peace Keepers 57	Posted - 2012.09.12 04:42:00 - [18] - Quote I'm liking many of the concepts being thought of in this thread. Especially since, as a missile maniac, there seems to be too few trials for my missiles and nothing that really counters them. Once spaceborne, they'll head for the target regardless of my status (jammed, out of lock range, or destroyed even) and kill just about everything. Where the science gets done
Dato Koppla Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 58	Posted - 2012.09.12 04:45:00 - [19] - Quote Missiles aren't that good. We don't need more ways to nerf them.
Lilianna Star SAZI Enterprises The Aslyum 93	Posted - 2012.09.12 05:20:00 - [20] - Quote Do we really need to set missiles back from turrets? Turrets and missiles have their own individual advantages. Turrets deal damage instantly, cannot be outrun, cannot be destroyed midflight and other things. Missiles aren't affected by tracking and never miss unless out of range. There's a good balance between the two and it creates situations where there's some depth and choice between which you want to use based on the specified advantages. And despite the fact that you would think that being able to have perfect accuracy even at top speed and being immune to tracking disruption, turrets are still the weapon of choice for PVP. Why do you feel the need to take that away? Did some Tengu with an MWD hurt your feelings?

Martin0 The Scope Gallente Federation 60	Posted - 2012.09.12 07:55:00 - [21] - Quote Corina Jarr wrote: Defenders need their own launcher, one that doesn't use any type of hardpoint. That way anyone can fit them if they can spare a high slot. Add this to fixing them to be useful, and defenders are now useful and usable. I like this simple and effective idea.
Zyella Stormborn Alpha Strategy In Umbra Mortis 51	Posted - 2012.09.12 08:01:00 - [22] - Quote I personally agree with the 'Defender missiles in mid slot' idea. Most other weapon counters and defenses are located in mid slots already. I also (cant remember where I saw it) like the idea of scrapping defender missiles and making a mid slot 'point defense' turret that works the same way (or way defenders are supposed to work at least).
Mars Theran Caldari Provisions Caldari State 278	Posted - 2012.09.12 12:06:00 - [23] - Quote You could just scrap defenders and and make a high slot module with no attack capability that launches missile interception. Here's the issue: Flares are intended to redirect heat-guided missiles. They won't have any effect on dumb-fire missiles or most other guided missiles. Flack works on any missile provided it damages the missiles guidance system or damages its air-frame enough to redirect its flight. There is also the possibility of flak causing the missile to detonate, or redirecting the missiles flight path when the Flak detonates along its path or next to it. EMP devices that function like flack would be potentially effective against missile guidance systems and internal electronics too, but I'm not sure anyone has bothered to design these. Flares and similar distortions may affect Image recognition systems prior to confirmed target acquisition, but not after. Direct radiation applied to guidance sensors on incoming missiles could prevent target acquisition and even guidance systems from operating properly provided they are accessible to targeted radiation. Potentially, secondary guidance systems on a missile could theoretically use the targeted radiation to guide the missile to its source, removing its effectiveness. Also not known to have been designed or used by anyone. There could be other methods, but that is more or less a breakdown of the effectiveness of conventional methods that are or could be in use. Defenders function by homing in on the missile threats against the ship they are launched from, or by homing in on missiles that are determined to be targets by other means. Technically, provided intercept is possible and likely, they are more effective than many other means. We have Smart-bombs. Provided the cycle is timed right or you have multiple overlapping cycles, you might have a reasonable missile defense available that way. So, what you want is a ranged flak launcher capable of disrupting guided and unguided missiles with an EMP wave and shrapnel(standard flak), that is autonomous and not limited to a specific ship type. It would have to be an active module and require Capacitor, and it would have to acquire new targets and launch at incoming missiles and require ammunition. So all you really need is one module, or variations of one module that serve the same purpose on different sizes of ships vs. missiles on a scale with those ships, (i.e: effective vs. Torpedoes and Cruise Missiles as a Battleship sized module). Sounds like a not-bad idea, but it would have to have some limitations as it couldn't possibly wipe out all missiles in space and still be balanced. It also can't load both a script and ammunition, so dual function is questionable. The most effective way to accomplish that dual purpose without creating questionable game-play elements is to break it up into two separate modules. A mid-slot and high-slot module combination, where the mids module provides the computation and target acquisition and loads the script, and the highs module provides the bombardment and loads the ammunition for that bombardment. Probably the best way as it would allow for varying combinations of effectiveness vs. different targets. It could also be a damaging module and be effective vs. Drones and various other threats. It could be targeted as an advanced weapons system and based on friend or foe aggression of the target, would either intercept or destroy missiles and/or Drones directed at the target or launched by it. Kind of turning into an advanced weapon system. Without the mids module, it might be only partially functional or require pilot operation in some fashion aside from activating it in battle and monitoring cap consumption. Well.. chew on that a bit and figure out what you think of it or how it applies or not to your idea(s).. idk, just thinking. I have deleted and cleared my signature 7 times and it still won't go away.
Meditril T.R.I.A.D Ushra'Khan 117	Posted - 2012.09.12 12:45:00 - [24] - Quote A clear NO! Missiles are already much weaker than any gun-based weapon system in this game. In addition to this they are negatively affected even by signature on a still standing target. Gun's always hit (regardless of size) if both participants are standing still. The only benefit of missiles/rockets is currently that they are more reliable in the fact that they always do (at least a small amount of damage) if they manage to hit a target. This is a fair trade-off.
Mars Theran Caldari Provisions Caldari State 278	Posted - 2012.09.12 13:20:00 - [25] - Quote Another idea is missile defense drones. Right up to sentries, an alternative means of missile defense. ..back to the previous idea for a moment. I was thinking the operation as just a single highslot mosule could just be an activate and go thing where it only targets incoming missiles. Obviously it would have a ROF based on its size, and velocity and AOE based on munitions size that would determine its effectiveness in combat. ..and back to the drones. small, medium, and large drones, and sentries. Small, Medium, and Large would seek and destroy missiles directed at the target they are orbiting if friend, and destroy missiles launched by the target if foe, (based on aggression again). Sentries would destroy missiles launched within their effective range in the same fashion. I'm not sure how easy, hard, or feasible any of this would be. The complexity of determining target acquisition, complexity of combining modules, etc.. I can roughly consider what may or may not function within the game environment and how balanced it may or may not be, but that's about it. For the Mid-Slot and High-slot module combination, I think the balance would be in that one Mid-slot module could effectively control Highslot modules up to a certain number and they could theoretically be grouped as a weapon group to identify specific combinations. The rest would be determined by effectiveness of ammunition and ROF. The Mid-slot could even be designed to function with defender missiles in the same fashion it does with Flak launchers. This would improve Defender missile function and give options, and the defenders could be improved and even given their own launcher specific to this combination in addition to still be usable in standard missile launchers. Game animations and graphics for Flak launchers could follow the turret model, with a simple straight line fire animation followed by an appropriate near-target explosion effect indicating an EMP wave and shrapnel spread. Tracking, missile velocity, and the like would all determine effectiveness in the same fashion as turrets firing on ships does, but with the added consideration of Explosion radius and velocity, or a combination of missile and turret damage mitigation. Defenders would still function as guided missiles vs. missiles, but might gain some benefit with regard to explosion velocity and explosion radius from the guidance computer. I suppose the guidance computer, (midslot component), could also be combined with missile launchers to improve upon their effectiveness if you wanted to get right down to it. The script would determine the function of the guidance computer of course, and the quality of it would determine both effectiveness and how many launchers, (of whatever sort), it could be grouped with. Potentially a lot of different applications here. Script ideas: Drone Defense System: sets parameters to defend vs. or destroy drones. Missile Defense System: sets parameters to defend vs. or destroy missiles. Guided Weapons System: Sets parameters to interface with missile weapons systems, improving on dumbfire weapons systems effectiveness and allowing better management of guided missile weapons systems. Defender Missile Missile Defense: Sets parameters to interface with missile weapons systems and casue them to defend vs. or destroy missiles. Improves on Defender missile system launcher groups effectiveness. Defender Missile Drone Defense: Sets parameters to interface with missile weapons systems and casue them to defend vs. or destroy drones. Improves on Defender missile system launcher group effectiveness. A combination of Drone and Missile Defense for both Defender and Flak launcher systems with a separate script for each of those systems. The midslot module should be an active module, but shouldn't consume a great deal of capacitor to function. Maybe not as little as a Damage Control, but not a lot. It could probably also use size variations to go with different size launcher groups, or even one type for Flak Launchers and another for Missile launchers with shared scripts between them. One variation or another that produces the same end result is as good as any other variation that produces that same result. The best variation is the one combination that requires the least number amount of computational resources while still producing the desired result. (i.e: the one most easily integrated into the current game mechanics and requiring the least amount of resources on the server.) I have deleted and cleared my signature 7 times and it still won't go away.
Mars Theran Caldari Provisions Caldari State 278	Posted - 2012.09.12 13:21:00 - [26] - Quote Meditril wrote: A clear NO! Missiles are already much weaker than any gun-based weapon system in this game. In addition to this they are negatively affected even by signature on a still standing target. Gun's always hit (regardless of size) if both participants are standing still. The only benefit of missiles/rockets is currently that they are more reliable in the fact that they always do (at least a small amount of damage) if they manage to hit a target. This is a fair trade-off. Check the Script ideas in my last post I have deleted and cleared my signature 7 times and it still won't go away.
Suddenly Forums ForumKings Republic University Minmatar Republic 293	Posted - 2012.09.12 14:08:00 - [27] - Quote Tomcio FromFarAway wrote: Joe Risalo wrote: Currently you have damps and jams to use against missiles. Which is different from dampening and jamming turret ships in what way exactly? EDIT : I would even say that jammers are not as effective when used against missile boats as they are against turret boats because of FoFs. Joe Risalo wrote: Explosion velocity and radius are essentially our version of tracking, so it would have to effect one of these two catagories. Tracking Disruptors affect both tracking and range ( both optimal and fallof ) of turret boats. You can amplify one form of disruption by using scripts but the point is they affect both. Joe Risalo wrote: That said though, missile boats have enough problems in pvp without worrying about disruptors. Serious question : What are those problems? I ask because I don't fly missile boats that often and the ones I used ( Drake, Tengu ) were excellent in terms of pvp effectiveness. Is there a problem with missiles in general or is it rather limited to specific hulls or types of missiles? So you only fly the overpowered missile ships and whine missiles are OP? LOL. Drake and Tengu are both grossly OP in PVP right now. Go fly a Caracal and tell me how effective missiles are at PVP. I'll wait.
Joe Risalo State War Academy Caldari State 288	Posted - 2012.09.12 18:12:00 - [28] - Quote Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote: So you only fly the overpowered missile ships and whine missiles are OP? LOL. Drake and Tengu are both grossly OP in PVP right now. Go fly a Caracal and tell me how effective missiles are at PVP. I'll wait. The problem is that everyone has assumed that drakes and Tengus are OP because they're missile boats. this is not true. Hell, they're not even really OP, but their is one feature of each that when used properly can seem OP. For instance, the tengu isn't all that great, but the introduction of the 100mn afterburner tengu fit is. So, it's not the tengu or the missiles that OP, it's mearly then use of the 100mn afterburner that's OP. Now, in the drake's case, it doesn't have all that great of dps, and it's tank isn't all that amazing. What is good about it is the fact that it can fit a passive shield tank. Now, that passive shield tank doesn't make the drake OP, it just makes it hard to counter. That said, a solo drake pitted against any other meta 2 battlecruiser, then the drake will generally lose every time unless the other pilot sucks either due to bad skills, or just bad pilotting. Now, where people seem to get the true sense that these ships are OP is when they're fleeted. "Ahh, that's bull sh!t man, those 20 drakes just came in a pwned us.. Man, the drake is so OP!!!" Seriously though, if you outnumbered then then the only reason they engaged is because they knew you had a crap fleet composition, otherwise, there's not many people in Eve that are going to pick a fight where they don't have an obviously better chance than their target. Now, take a fleet of any ship single ship design, including rookie ships, and if fitted properly, well organized, and I pick and choose the fights, then you can make any single ship fleet seem OP. Could you imagine having a 20 man hurricane fleet pitted against a 20 man drake fleet? Assuming they're both well organized and fitted for a fleet, than I can almost guarantee the hurricanes will win. 1 because they can get decent tanks on them as well, 2 because they can get much higher dps output with less loss to tank, and 3 they can fit much more pvp effective fits without the loss of tank. The drakes on the other hand are limited to passive shield tanks which require a significant amount of slots, cpu, and pg in order to be effective, which leaves them with much less room for dps mods, ecm, and many other types of warfare modules. So, to say a drake is OP based of a large fleet of them that spanked you is just insane. And to say that the tengu is OP based on a blob or a single module(100mn afterburner) is insane as well. Sure, the tengu probably needs a little balancing so it can't fit the 100mn afterburner, but none of what makes these two ships sooo effective in pvp actually comes from the fact that they use missiles.
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp 2416	Posted - 2012.09.12 18:46:00 - [29] - Quote Defender missiles need to be fixed and have a specific dedicated launcher for each class of ship (small, medium, large, cap). Flak Cannons need to be introduced that work essentially the same way but for turreted ships. Both defensive systems need to also target and destroy hostile drones as secondary targets to missiles. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base.
Tomcio FromFarAway Singularity's Edge 201	Posted - 2012.09.12 19:59:00 - [30] - Quote Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote: So you only fly the overpowered missile ships and whine missiles are OP? LOL. Drake and Tengu are both grossly OP in PVP right now. Go fly a Caracal and tell me how effective missiles are at PVP. I'll wait. Apparently you are not a very good reader. 1. Nowhere in my post did I say anything about OPness of missiles. 2. I said that both ECM and damps are affecting both turret and missile ships in the same way because the poster, whom I referred to suggested that it is not so. 3. I also pointed out that tracking disruptors are affecting both range and tracking, which is also true 4. Finally I asked what are the problems with missiles because my experience in that area is very limited Fair suggestion to you : after reading a post try to comprehend it's meaning. Maybe then you won't be making an idiot out of yourself. And I will repeat myself here. Tomcio FromFarAway wrote: Serious question : What are those problems? I ask because I don't fly missile boats that often and the ones I used ( Drake, Tengu ) were excellent in terms of pvp effectiveness. Is there a problem with missiles in general or is it rather limited to specific hulls or types of missiles? Are you capable of providing an actual answer to that question?



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.