EVE Search - Introduce Turn Radius with Missiles

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Introduce Turn Radius with Missiles

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Slithereen	Posted - 2005.02.18 12:14:00 - [1] Dear CCP, If you plan to overhaul the entire missile system, I suggest you introduce a turn radius factor. In short, smaller missiles have a smaller turn radius, making them more agile, while large missiles have a larger turn radius, making them less agile. Smaller ships constantly turning or orbiting at very fast rates would have a more difficult time of being hit by larger missiles such as cruises and torpedoes compared to smaller missiles like rockets, standard and heavy missiles. _______________________________________________ "Is it me or the bad guys just getting totally pathetic?"---Clover, Totally Spies, "Hope is wasted on the Hopeless."---Mandy, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. "Stars are holes in the sky from which the light of the Infinite shine through."---Confucius.
Matthew	Posted - 2005.02.18 12:23:00 - [2] Originally by: Slithereen Dear CCP, If you plan to overhaul the entire missile system, I suggest you introduce a turn radius factor. In short, smaller missiles have a smaller turn radius, making them more agile, while large missiles have a larger turn radius, making them less agile. Smaller ships constantly turning or orbiting at very fast rates would have a more difficult time of being hit by larger missiles such as cruises and torpedoes compared to smaller missiles like rockets, standard and heavy missiles. I believe they tried that the last time they looked at missiles, and it completely broke the missile flight engine. Hence the talk of damage scaling by target size as a solution.
Nomeshta	Posted - 2005.02.18 12:37:00 - [3] Originally by: Matthew Originally by: Slithereen Dear CCP, If you plan to overhaul the entire missile system, I suggest you introduce a turn radius factor. In short, smaller missiles have a smaller turn radius, making them more agile, while large missiles have a larger turn radius, making them less agile. Smaller ships constantly turning or orbiting at very fast rates would have a more difficult time of being hit by larger missiles such as cruises and torpedoes compared to smaller missiles like rockets, standard and heavy missiles. I believe they tried that the last time they looked at missiles, and it completely broke the missile flight engine. Hence the talk of damage scaling by target size as a solution. Which means a Raven webifying a frigate does the same damage as if it wasn't webbing it at all. This is not how turrets behave. - Caution: Ninja Fingers WTB: Implants
Matthew	Posted - 2005.02.18 13:12:00 - [4] Originally by: Nomeshta Originally by: Matthew I believe they tried that the last time they looked at missiles, and it completely broke the missile flight engine. Hence the talk of damage scaling by target size as a solution. Which means a Raven webifying a frigate does the same damage as if it wasn't webbing it at all. This is not how turrets behave. True, but there is an easy fix to that - scale it by target size and current velocity. Then it works very close to the way turrets do, but still keeps missiles unique in that their ability to damage the frigate is independant of range. Then you'd have: Close range: missile>turret mid range: missile = turret long range: turret>missile
Sky Hunter	Posted - 2005.02.18 13:14:00 - [5] so make missle people useless in fleets huh? Whats the point of getting good dmg on 50km range when fleet battle range regulary 50+?? even sometimes more! -=-
Matthew	Posted - 2005.02.18 13:29:00 - [6] Originally by: Sky Hunter so make missle people useless in fleets huh? Whats the point of getting good dmg on 50km range when fleet battle range regulary 50+?? even sometimes more! How would that change do this? Sure, your battleships may be 50km+ apart, but if the fleet's frigates are, I'd suggest the frigates aren't doing their job! This will actually let missile and turret battleships have a symbiotic relationship. The missile user would be guaranteed an average level of damage on the frigate, regardless of what range it was at - you'd just have to wait a bit more at longer ranges for it to happen. The turret user, as now, can really smack frigates at long range, but might as well be using water pistols at short range. So, pair up a turret and missile user into a team. Turret user insta-smacks the long-range friagtes, while the missile user provides the short-range cover to fill in the turrets short-range frigate hole. Against battleships, both would perform exactly the same as they do now.
Hans Roaming	Posted - 2005.02.18 13:59:00 - [7] Originally by: Matthew I believe they tried that the last time they looked at missiles, and it completely broke the missile flight engine. Hence the talk of damage scaling by target size as a solution. What's wrong with the same engine as for ships? Smaller missiles should have short range and high agility, in real life they can accelerate harder too. WTS: Male, 37, single, can fly starships, build rockets and dance Salsa. WTB: Female, plays eve, lives near London UK
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.02.18 14:07:00 - [8] Blah, missing the point. CCP cant get the erver to do turning radius on missiles. So there remain two options to make cruises and torps ineffective against small targets (like they SHOULD be): 1. make em slow or unable to be fired at frigs that are closeby. 2. Make their damage fall if target sig radius is small. Personally, I'd see nr1 solve the range thing too, just make cruises hellisly fast but only usable at 40+km and torps slow and usable at shorter range or something. and split torps into sieges and cruise into cruises. Voila. But I think they think thats too much like turrets or something, so the sig radius thing is gonna do it. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.
Grimpak	Posted - 2005.02.18 14:26:00 - [9] I still remember the time when CCP put a triggering time in cruise missiles and torps... .....never saw so many people whining before tbh ------------------- Quote: Fragm's Oversized Ego Cannon barely scratches the forums, inflicting omgnoonecares damage
Matthew	Posted - 2005.02.18 14:39:00 - [10] Originally by: Hans Roaming What's wrong with the same engine as for ships? Smaller missiles should have short range and high agility, in real life they can accelerate harder too. Well, I'm guessing here, but I would think that the current missile physics engine is very stripped-down, to try and keep server load reasonable when there are lots of missiles in flight. If they started using the full ship physics engine, a few missile boats would probably be enough to lag out even the smallest fight.
meowcat	Posted - 2005.02.18 14:54:00 - [11] The original plan was for this to be implemented at the same time as the turret tracking changes. I vaguely remember somone from CCP coming along and saying it was just far too complicated to do, and that they'd have to find another solution. That was what, 8 months ago? patience is a virtue (sadly not one of mine) ~~~~)\~~~~~\o/~~~~ yeah but no but yeah but no but
Drakxter	Posted - 2005.02.18 15:05:00 - [12] Originally by: Matthew I believe they tried that the last time they looked at missiles, and it completely broke the missile flight engine. Hence the talk of damage scaling by target size as a solution. Great.. first they mess them up by removing the splash damage (stupid whiners) and now they wat to make the completly stupid?! This is NOT the way to fix them CCP. Instead work on the agility again, untill you find a way to do it. ------------- Most tired of thing atm: - Mods on the forum saying: "Please use the bug report page to submit bugs, the forum is not the place to post them." and then closing a topic.
Matthew	Posted - 2005.02.18 15:28:00 - [13] Originally by: Drakxter Instead work on the agility again, untill you find a way to do it. I'm sure they know several ways of doing it. Doing it isn't that hard. Doing it without lagging the servers to death the first time someone starts spamming missiles is the tricky part. Now, the question you have to ask is: is having proper missile agility over a damage scaling model worth the programming team spending months working out how to do it, rather than one programmer spending 2 days implementing the damage scaling and moving on to fix more bugs?
Rex Martell	Posted - 2005.02.18 15:43:00 - [14] What do you want and how do you plan to get it. Problem with NERF'ing missles is that missle user will spam the forums (I will at least) begging CCP to balance turrets and missles again and then there will probably be an enormous Gun Nerf followed by a missile nerf followed by ........ Problem with the magical nerf button is that it is similar to cutting apiece off from a table leg to balance IT. what happens if you get it alittle wrong. CCP Fix things by making things better not worse. "The object of war is not to die for your corp, but to make the other b@##@#d die for his"
Snaieke	Posted - 2005.02.18 16:29:00 - [15] I have to say Rex, i totally agree with you. The answer is not neccessarily always to nerf but to boost the inadequacies of other weapons. I think the damage based on signature radius is a good idea.
Selim	Posted - 2005.02.18 16:31:00 - [16] Originally by: Grimpak I still remember the time when CCP put a triggering time in cruise missiles and torps... .....never saw so many people whining before tbh Yeah, that was pretty massive.
HeLlRaIzA666	Posted - 2005.02.18 17:51:00 - [17] why not just make missiles as they were be4?? where they didnt intercept the opponenets ship... that way missiles and turrets have to use a webber to hit frigates/interceptors -------------------------------------------- In War There Are No Runners Up... Image by Denrace
Ranger 1	Posted - 2005.02.18 18:22:00 - [18] Originally by: HeLlRaIzA666 why not just make missiles as they were be4?? where they didnt intercept the opponenets ship... that way missiles and turrets have to use a webber to hit frigates/interceptors Because that didn't solve the problem. The accidental effect of missiles intercepting targets now merely made it worse, it did not create the problem. Missile damage based on sig radius is half of the proposed fix, it is also being considered to make it base partly on transversal velocity. That way if a small ship is heading straight at a cruise missile it takes full damage, or if the small ship is webbed. But if the ship is flying evasiviely or in orbit it only takes partial damage from the missile... to simulate it being evasive enough to not allow a direct hit. This would also allow the speed of cruise missiles to be upped considerably, making them much more effective at long range combat. Kill the enemy, and break their toys.
Gan Howorth	Posted - 2005.02.18 19:37:00 - [19] Indeed, although it seems to gripe people enormously that a torp would do less damage to a frig than a BS surely under current TQ it is the much lesser of two evils..easily implemented and could be put in next week as part of a mini patch. So do it CCP...then we can wait for something a bit more sophisticated under Kali or summink.
RollinDutchMasters	Posted - 2005.02.18 19:46:00 - [20] Originally by: Sky Hunter so make missle people useless in fleets huh? Whats the point of getting good dmg on 50km range when fleet battle range regulary 50+?? even sometimes more! Listen. Idiots. If cruise missiles stop isntaganking frigates, probably using the velocity/sig radius calculation, then the speed of missiles can be increased. They can be made useful in fleet battles because they will no longer have to be slower then frigates. Whereas if nothing changes missiles can never be improved. They can never go faster, and they can never do more damage. I honestly do not understand how people fail to grasp this concept. Originally by: Sochin CCP has provided you with the tools you need to avoid crime. You're just too lazy/stupid to use them.

Pages: [1] :: 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.