Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
136
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 23:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
Torpedoes have the same range as HAMs, increase the range of Torpedoes.
Oh and don't say that TE and TC will fix that problem because Large Blasters shouldn't have the same range as medium blasters.
Infact I think all unguided missiles should be looked at.
They have shorter range than guided long range missiles, yet they have worse "tracking".
Rigs and Guided Missile Precision(should be changed) skill does not affect Rockets, HAMs, or Torpedoes.
This makes short range missile inferior than guided missiles even within short range, due to poor effective dps.
A Heavy missile will do more applied dps to a cruiser than a Heavy Assault Missile does.
Heavy missile vs Heavy Assault:
Heavy missile: 125m exp radius 81ms exp velocity
Heavy Assault: 125m exp radius 101 exp velocity
You can see here that it may seem that Heavy Assault Missiles are better, but look at the results once we factor Guided Missile Precision:
Heavy Missile: 94m exp radius 81ms exp velocity
Heavy Assault: 125m exp radius 101 exp velocity
What do these numbers mean?
Heavy Missiles have a much lower exp radius that Heavy Assaults. In the missile damage formula, the Explosion Radius has a MUCH more significant affect on damage application compared to Explosion Velocity.
Missile Damage Formula:
Damage = D * MIN(1, Sr/Er, (Ev/V * Sr/Er)^(log(DRF) / log(5.5)) )
where D = base damage of the missile, Sr = signature radius of the target, Er = Explosion radius of the missile, Ev = Explosion Velocity of the missile, V = velocity of the target ship, DRF = damage reduction factor of the missile. MIN being a function that chooses the lower of two given vaules, and log being the natural logarithm of the given value.
TL:DR:
HAMs, Rockets, and Torpedoes should receive exp radius reduction from guided missile precision and rigs, in order to be better at close range applied dps than their long range variants.
Torpedoes need an increase in range, it has the same range as its medium range counterpart HAM's. |
Tragedy
The Creepshow
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:04:00 -
[2] - Quote
OOORRRRR nerf HAMs range. To around say 15kms. Which you could get to around 25-30 with tracking enhancers. Just like med autocannons! Then torpedos could get to 30-40 with the TEs, still better than blasters right? Right?
I like my idea better. |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
136
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:14:00 -
[3] - Quote
Tragedy wrote:OOORRRRR nerf HAMs range. To around say 15kms. Which you could get to around 25-30 with tracking enhancers. Just like med autocannons! Then torpedos could get to 30-40 with the TEs, still better than blasters right? Right?
I like my idea better.
Lex Luther says: WRONG!
Neutron Blasters with T1 Antimatter: 4.5 optimal + 13 km falloff. Optimal + 2 x falloff= max range. = 31 km max range. Still does damage within this range
Torpedo Launcher with T1 Mjolnir: <20.3 ~ 16-18 km based on missile acceleration. Beyond that range does zero damage.
Neutron Blasters will Null: 13 km optimal + 18 km falloff. = 49-50 km max range.
Torpedo Launcher with Javelin: <30.4 km ~ 26-27 km based on missile acceleration. |
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
669
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 01:11:00 -
[4] - Quote
Orrrr... We could wait until missile changes hit test and see where things actually stand. Given that we have no clue what TEs/TCs will do for missiles it's kind of hard to prescribe specific changes right now, isn't it?
Oh, and you're discounting flares, which do in fact help unguided missiles. It's only rigors that don't work. |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
137
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 01:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
Zhilia Mann wrote:Orrrr... We could wait until missile changes hit test and see where things actually stand. Given that we have no clue what TEs/TCs will do for missiles it's kind of hard to prescribe specific changes right now, isn't it?
Oh, and you're discounting flares, which do in fact help unguided missiles. It's only rigors that don't work.
Explosion radius is a much bigger factor in damage application than Explosion Velocity. There is a reason why Level 4 Ravens fit rigors rather than flares.
Every larger weapon system has more range than their smaller weapon system. Why don't Torpedoes have more range than HAMs? |
Paikis
Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking
171
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 04:04:00 -
[6] - Quote
Guided Missile Precision needs to apply to unguided missiles... this currently is the same as if Motion Prediction didn't apply to short range guns. It's silly.
Also, +5kms range on Torps seems reasonable. |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries Alliance not Found
64
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:38:00 -
[7] - Quote
As I've already gone into the issue elsewhere I'll just link to the thread.
Linky linky
TL;DR: Short range systems have higher absolute accuracy but long range systems tend to have much higher effective tracking when operating at their intended range - therefore missiles, with the long range system having the higher effective tracking, are in keeping with this trend.
RTL;DERT: Working as intended. |
Exploited Engineer
Creatively Applied Violence Inc.
86
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:49:00 -
[8] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:[quote=Zhilia Mann]Explosion radius is a much bigger factor in damage application than Explosion Velocity. There is a reason why Level 4 Ravens fit rigors rather than flares.
Err ... the real reason is that 1/0.9 is greater than 1.1 ...and that explosion radius vs. sig radius determine the maximum damage you'll ever do to the target with a missile, even when the target is not moving at all. |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
139
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:03:00 -
[9] - Quote
Jacob Holland wrote:As I've already gone into the issue elsewhere I'll just link to the thread. Linky linkyTL;DR: Short range systems have higher absolute accuracy but long range systems tend to have much higher effective tracking when operating at their intended range - therefore missiles, with the long range system having the higher effective tracking, are in keeping with this trend. RTL;DERT: Working as intended.
The problem is that short range missiles don't even have higher absolute accuracy than its longer range counterpart.
Its like saying that short range turrets are fine even though they don't get bonus from motion prediction that long range turrets are.
What do you have to say about that?
Do you not see a flaw in your reasoning? |
half of eve
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:45:00 -
[10] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote: The problem is that short range missiles don't even have higher absolute accuracy than its longer range counterpart.
Its like saying that short range turrets are fine even though they don't get bonus from motion prediction that long range turrets are.
What do you have to say about that?
Do you not see a flaw in your reasoning?
There is no flaw here. Longer range turrets have better effective tracking than shorter range ones, since tracking is affected by range. If you were to balance missiles despite their "tracking" not being affected by range, you could do so by either making the close range OR the long range better at applying their damage, because in the end either can be justified quite easily.
That said, you do seem to ignore a few key factors in missile balancing: DPS/range before bonuses (max skills, t1 ammo) of the 4 main large weapon types:
800mm AC II: 43 / 3km Mega Pulse II: 48 / 15km Neutron Blaster II: 59 / 4.5km Torp launcher II: 62 / 20km
And I know from your other posts that you want to include falloff in range, which is fine, but then we also have to take into account the reduced damage from fighting in falloff (which averages out to full DPS at optimal, and half dps anywhere from optimal+1m to 2X falloff) so I'll throw those numbers out there, mostly because I'm bored:
Average DPS of each main BS weapon from 0 - optimal + 2X falloff: 800mm AC II: 23.7 / 51km Mega Pulse II 34.3: / 35km Neutron Blaster II: 33.85 / 30.5km Torp launcher II: 62 / 20km
Less total range (though counting range as optimal+2X falloff is hilariously stupid to begin with) but MUCH more DPS applied. This also ignores damage types and cap use.
The point I'm trying to make here is that you can't just point out the flaws of a weapon system and claim that it's unbalanced because of that. All weapons have drawbacks, that's how they're supposed to be. If you want to show that something is underpowered, prove that it's ADVANTAGES are crap.
EDIT:
Soon Shin wrote: TC and TE will NOT fix the issue that long range missiles will have superior "tracking" and "damage application" than short range missiles; due to the fact that only guided missiles can get reduction in exp radius from skills and rigs
Trading damage application for raw DPS is arguably the most important aspect of balancing any weapon system in any game ever. This is working as intended.
Soon Shin wrote: Neither will it address the issue that Torpedoes still have the same range as HAMs. Why do every Larger weapon have more range than its shorter range counterpart, except for Torpedoes.
So why buff torps instead of nerfing HAMs?
Hams themselves aren't bad, the reason they see little use is that heavies are hilariously OP. |
|
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
142
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:23:00 -
[11] - Quote
half of eve wrote:EDIT: Soon Shin wrote: TC and TE will NOT fix the issue that long range missiles will have superior "tracking" and "damage application" than short range missiles; due to the fact that only guided missiles can get reduction in exp radius from skills and rigs
Trading damage application for raw DPS is arguably the most important aspect of balancing any weapon system in any game ever. This is working as intended.
Are you stupid? Do you not hear the words coming out of your mouth. Tell me why do Autocannons, Blasters, and Pulse lasers do more dps AND have more tracking than their long range variants, its because they sacrifice range for it.
HAM's and other unguided missiles however have to sacrifice BOTH TRACKING AND RANGE for more damage.
If we have to adapt to your argument then we must nerf tracking of all short range guns to be less than their longer range variants.
Ladies and Gentleman -"working as intended"
You argument is wrong and invalid.
Get out of here NPC alt. |
half of eve
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:49:00 -
[12] - Quote
EDIT: you changed your post on me :( Will edit mine accordingly
Soon Shin wrote: If we have to adapt to your argument then we must nerf tracking of all short range guns to be less than their longer range variants.
Ladies and Gentleman -"working as intended"
You argument is wrong and invalid.
Get out of here NPC alt.
I'm going to suggest you try a little experiment, since you seem unaware of the difference between tracking and effective tracking:
Grab a ship, toss some railguns and some blasters (or some pulses + beams or ACs + arty) Have a friend orbit you at the optimal range in of the close range guns in an undersized ship, then have them orbit you at the optimal range of the long range gun. See which tracks better.
The difference here is that missile tracking doesn't get affected by range, so you could make an argument that missiles SHOULD track better at close range (looking at base tracking) or that they shouldn't (looking at effective tracking)
That said, I like how you completely ignored the bulk of my post to pick at one of the smaller points (and one that's irrelevant no less; even if you conclusively PROVE that, say, HAMs are underpowered compared to heavies, you would then need to prove that it's the HAMs that need changing, rather than the heavies (instead of making HAMs apply their DPS more easily, why not make HMs worse at applying their damage?)
But again, these are small points compared to the real issue at hand (that you can't just look at the drawbacks of a weapon to determine if it's OP, see my last post for more on that)
Oh and come back with a less scrubby KB if you're going to dismiss people for being alts |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
142
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 20:02:00 -
[13] - Quote
half of eve wrote: Blah Blah Blah, you're a scrub and I'm a tough guy that hides behind an NPC alt
You're correct in saying that longer range turrets have better "relative tracking" than shorter range turrets.
But shorter range turrets have better "absolute tracking". Look at the tracking of autocannons vs artillery and you will see that it is a completely truth.
HAMs however it is not the case. They may have higher explosion velocity, but have the same base explosion radius as guided variants.
HAM: 125 exp rad. 101 exp vel. Heavy: 125 exp rad. 81 exp vel.
However HAM does not receive the bonus from Guided Missile Precision that Heavy missiles gains from.
HAM: 125 exp rad. 101 exp vel. Heavy: 94 exp rad. 81 exp vel.
Explosion radius is that factor of the maximum damage you can do to the target based on their sig radius, regardless of velocity.
If the explosion radius is much smaller than the target, the explosion velocity does no difference unless the target is moving ridiculously high speed that it overcomes the explosion radius and sig radius ratio.
Explosion velocity is a factor, but even if the target is moving slower than the explosion velocity, the damage is limited by its explosion radius/sig radius ratio.
Conclusion: Explosion Radius is a far bigger factor in missile "tracking" than explosion velocity.
With Guided missile precision skill HML has a better absolute tracking than HAM's.
HAM's do reduced damage to cruisers, while HML do full damage because of GMP. HAMs have no ability to reduce the explosion radius. Even with the TC and TE changes, as long as HAM's and other unguided do not receive benefits from GMP, they will continue to have inferior "tracking" than their long range guided variants.
|
half of eve
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 20:09:00 -
[14] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:Passive aggressive jab goes here.
From my last post:
Half of eve wrote: The difference here is that missile tracking doesn't get affected by range, so you could make an argument that missiles SHOULD track better at close range (looking at base tracking) or that they shouldn't (looking at effective tracking)
Also aren't most cruisers in the 125m sig radius anyway?
Oh and it's also worth noting that heavy missiles are laughably OP, and have been for ages, arguing that HAMs are worse than heavies doesn't really mean anything when the same can be said of literally every single medium weapon system in the game, both close AND long range, but then I already mentioned that, had you bothered to read my last post. |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
144
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 20:50:00 -
[15] - Quote
half of eve wrote:Soon Shin wrote:Passive aggressive jab goes here.
From my last post: Half of eve wrote: The difference here is that missile tracking doesn't get affected by range, so you could make an argument that missiles SHOULD track better at close range (looking at base tracking) or that they shouldn't (looking at effective tracking)
Also aren't most cruisers in the 125m sig radius anyway? Oh and it's also worth noting that heavy missiles are laughably OP, and have been for ages, arguing that HAMs are worse than heavies doesn't really mean anything when the same can be said of literally every single medium weapon system in the game, both close AND long range, but then I already mentioned that, had you bothered to read my last post.
There is no reason why rigs and the precision skill shouldn't apply to unguided missiles.
The issue with HAM's is that there is no way to reduce its exp radius. But other guided missiles can.
Against a 125m cruiser that typically moves at 200+ ms without prop mods, you're going to be losing a lot of damage just by having the target move.
You're going to need dual webs to guarantee full damage application. Meaning you will not have an space left in the mids to fit TC's.
If GMP applies to HAM's this will reduce the sig radius to 94 which will allow it to do better applied dps to cruisers. |
half of eve
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 21:18:00 -
[16] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote: You're going to need dual webs to guarantee full damage application. Meaning you will not have an space left in the mids to fit TC's.
If GMP applies to HAM's this will reduce the sig radius to 94 which will allow it to do better applied dps to cruisers.
You haven't actually explained why any of this is BAD. All you're doing is making that claim that heavy assault missiles are worse than heavy missiles.
You know what? So are medium blasters, rails, pulses, beams, ACs and artillery, let's boost all of them \o/.
Needing webs to apply damage to targets is not a big deal, and is in no way indicative of HAMs needing a buff. You're also ignoring the other (MUCH more used) half of the medium weapon spectrum, namely BCs, to which you should have no problem applying full DPS. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 21:27:00 -
[17] - Quote
I posted this in Features and Ideas:
Eckyy wrote:I think the entire missile system needs a rework.
Small - Rockets (unguided) Medium - Heavy Large - Cruise XL - Torps (unguided)
When the game was released, there was no such thing as short- and long-range missiles. The largest and smallest missiles (rockets and torps) were considered "unguided" and not all skills and modules applied to them. In the early days, it seems CCP went out of its way to make sure there was no symmetry in any aspect of the game (including ship aesthetics).
However, somewhere along the line CCP decided to introduce some symmetry and made torpedos a hard to fit, close range weapon system for battleships (and improved their DPS), which left cruise an easier to fit, long range weapon system. They also introduced HAMs which follow a similar pattern - long range weapons are easier to fit, and short range are harder to fit.
With frigate-sized weapons, this is still backward. Rockets are more like turrets, in that they are close-range weapons that do more damage and are easier to fit, which allows "brawling" ships to fit the extra tank they need to survive. Ships like the Drake received a tanking bonus perhaps in compensation for the general backwardness of missile fitting requirements.
In the early days, missiles tended to have higher base damage than other weapon systems. Ships that used them as a primary weapon system tended to either have fewer launchers than turret ships and a damage bonus to compensate, OR had the same number of turrets and no damage bonus. This allowed missiles to function as a secondary weapon system and not totally useless as supplementary DPS. Recently CCP has started giving missile ships a full rack of missiles and damage bonuses, and is now concerned with their DPS. By hitting missile DPS directly, CCP stands to damage them as a secondary weapon system.
In short, the whole missile tree is a mess.
Some other info (approximated):
Rockets do 33% more DPS than light missiles, and have 1/4 the range Rockets require 55% less grid and 39% less CPU
HAMs do 25% more DPS than heavy missiles, and have 1/4 the range HAMs require 20% more PG and 10% less CPU
Torpedos do 83% more DPS than cruise, and have 1/8 the range Torpedos require 40% more PG and 33% more CPU
Guided missile precision only applies to long-range missiles and allows them to hit smaller targets for higher damage.
Food for thought. |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
144
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 22:26:00 -
[18] - Quote
half of eve wrote:Soon Shin wrote: You're going to need dual webs to guarantee full damage application. Meaning you will not have an space left in the mids to fit TC's.
If GMP applies to HAM's this will reduce the sig radius to 94 which will allow it to do better applied dps to cruisers.
You haven't actually explained why any of this is BAD. All you're doing is making that claim that heavy assault missiles are worse than heavy missiles. You know what? So are medium blasters, rails, pulses, beams, ACs and artillery, let's boost all of them \o/. Needing webs to apply damage to targets is not a big deal, and is in no way indicative of HAMs needing a buff. You're also ignoring the other (MUCH more used) half of the medium weapon spectrum, namely BCs, to which you should have no problem applying full DPS.
I have stated several times that HAM's have poor damage applied.
I've have made my points clear on the top. Your lack of reading comprehension and logical understanding indicates that:
1. English is not your primary language.
2. You are a moron.
If you don't get it after I have clearly shown and stated why then you are dumb. Now if you want to talk more talk on your main. Otherwise I will not listen to some NPC noob. |
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
674
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 23:44:00 -
[19] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:I have stated several times that HAM's have poor damage applied.
You have, and it's been acknowledged. In fact, I don't think anyone in the thread is contesting that point. But we also know a few more things.
First, many short range weapon systems struggle to apply damage without ancillary modules. HAMs need the same (usually in the form of a web).
Second, HAM damage application is going up in completely unknown ways. Until we know more about how TCs/TEs are going to help them it's rather hard to say what, if anything, should be tweaked about their base stats.
Third, as missiles, HAMs rely on a narrow analysis of damage application. Turrets don't. This means that while HAM damage is always reduced by a set amount relative to signature radius, they also always apply that much damage. The same cannot be said of turrets in either case.
Would you agree to any of the above? Forget arguing about what should change, would you at least accept those premises?
Soon Shin wrote:I've have made my points clear on the top. Your lack of reading comprehension and logical understanding indicates that:
1. English is not your primary language.
2. You are a moron.
If you don't get it after I have clearly shown and stated why then you are dumb. Now if you want to talk more, then talk on your main. Otherwise I will not listen to some NPC noob.
I'd suggest dropping this line. It's not going to get anyone anywhere. |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
144
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 00:08:00 -
[20] - Quote
Zhilia Mann wrote:Soon Shin wrote:I have stated several times that HAM's have poor damage applied. You have, and it's been acknowledged. In fact, I don't think anyone in the thread is contesting that point. But we also know a few more things. First, many short range weapon systems struggle to apply damage without ancillary modules. HAMs need the same (usually in the form of a web). Second, HAM damage application is going up in completely unknown ways. Until we know more about how TCs/TEs are going to help them it's rather hard to say what, if anything, should be tweaked about their base stats. Third, as missiles, HAMs rely on a narrow analysis of damage application. Turrets don't. This means that while HAM damage is always reduced by a set amount relative to signature radius, they also always apply that much damage. The same cannot be said of turrets in either case. Would you agree to any of the above? Forget arguing about what should change, would you at least accept those premises? Soon Shin wrote:I've have made my points clear on the top. Your lack of reading comprehension and logical understanding indicates that:
1. English is not your primary language.
2. You are a moron.
If you don't get it after I have clearly shown and stated why then you are dumb. Now if you want to talk more, then talk on your main. Otherwise I will not listen to some NPC noob. I'd suggest dropping this line. It's not going to get anyone anywhere.
Yes, I would agree with the premises you are saying. I believe that TC and TE will however not fix the fundamental flaws that remain with the missile systems. They will allevate those issues but the issues still remain. I believe a complete revamp is in order for all missile systems.
|
|
half of eve
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 02:32:00 -
[21] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote: Yes, I would agree with the premises you are saying. I believe that TC and TE will however not fix the fundamental flaws that remain with the missile systems. They will allevate those issues but the issues still remain. I believe a complete revamp is in order for all missile systems.
And if I were to make the claim that it's a fundamental flaw for missiles to have variable damage types, or such high raw DPS, or so much range, what then? It's not a fundamental flaw, it's a drawback; an intentional weakness in the weapon system to compensate for its advantages.
Soon Shin wrote: I have stated several times that HAM's have poor damage applied.
I've have made my points clear on the top. Your lack of reading comprehension and logical understanding indicates that:
1. English is not your primary language.
2. You are a moron.
If you don't get it after I have clearly shown and stated why then you are dumb. Now if you want to talk more, then talk on your main. Otherwise I will not listen to some NPC noob.
You're adorable You did a whole lot of comparing between HAMs and heavies, which as I've pointed out is pointless since heavies are crazy OP,
How HAMs stack up compared to heavies compared to other close/long range weapon platforms is also irrelevant, because again, heavy missiles are overpowered. Any comparison that involves heavy missiles is going to be inherently flawed, because of the lack of balance around said missiles.
You want to show that HAMs need a buff? Compare them to medium blasters, medium pulses, and medium ACs. Show that HAMs are underpowered compared to weapons of the same size and range, or stop insisting that they are based on a comparison to another type of missile that's been broken for ages.
As for the alt comment: If I post with my main, and he has more pvp experience then you, will you admit to being wrong? No? Then stop whining. |
Hagika
LEGI0N
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 08:04:00 -
[22] - Quote
half of eve wrote:Soon Shin wrote:Passive aggressive jab goes here.
From my last post: Half of eve wrote: The difference here is that missile tracking doesn't get affected by range, so you could make an argument that missiles SHOULD track better at close range (looking at base tracking) or that they shouldn't (looking at effective tracking)
Also aren't most cruisers in the 125m sig radius anyway? Oh and it's also worth noting that heavy missiles are laughably OP, and have been for ages, arguing that HAMs are worse than heavies doesn't really mean anything when the same can be said of literally every single medium weapon system in the game, both close AND long range, but then I already mentioned that, had you bothered to read my last post.
Their range may be OP but the damage? Not even close.
|
Hagika
LEGI0N
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 08:17:00 -
[23] - Quote
HML's do need a range nerf, I agree with that. Damage nerf? Just no !
Hams eat up a ton of PG and are about useless.. I see rails more common in pvp than Hams. Now lets look at the cerb.. Huge range but crap dps.. The idea of a sniping missile boat is a sick joke.. Given travel time of missiles. Something that guns dont have to worry about.
Now with the missile nerf, they are subject to all gun penalties plus more. Yet do not hit instantly, can be destroyed before impact They are affected by the sig radius of the ship do to explosion velocity. Sure heavies may hit if ship is in range, but you nullify the damage ten fold if moving fast. As for smaller ships, being hit for a few points of damage is nothing.
Hams cant even hit cruiser sized ships effectively, yet its a cruiser size weapon. Oh dont forget you cant fit them on a caracal in general and you can put them on a cerb, yet the dps suck and you have a crap tank because of the PG need.. So more PG for an inferior weapon that has short range and hitting anything smaller than BC size is more or less a laughable joke.
Funny how you say that HML's are OP, yet its only the range that people complain about, because its not the dps. |
Mishima Reika
Core Industry. Echoes of Nowhere
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 11:03:00 -
[24] - Quote
Hagika wrote:HML's do need a range nerf, I agree with that. Damage nerf? Just no !
Hams eat up a ton of PG and are about useless.. I see rails more common in pvp than Hams. Now lets look at the cerb.. Huge range but crap dps.. The idea of a sniping missile boat is a sick joke.. Given travel time of missiles. Something that guns dont have to worry about.
Now with the missile nerf, they are subject to all gun penalties plus more. Yet do not hit instantly, can be destroyed before impact They are affected by the sig radius of the ship do to explosion velocity. Sure heavies may hit if ship is in range, but you nullify the damage ten fold if moving fast. As for smaller ships, being hit for a few points of damage is nothing.
Hams cant even hit cruiser sized ships effectively, yet its a cruiser size weapon. Oh dont forget you cant fit them on a caracal in general and you can put them on a cerb, yet the dps suck and you have a crap tank because of the PG need.. So more PG for an inferior weapon that has short range and hitting anything smaller than BC size is more or less a laughable joke.
Funny how you say that HML's are OP, yet its only the range that people complain about, because its not the dps.
Was time to read true infos about this thread. Thanks to God, everyone in this game is not only from and about real tv shows generation. Gunners should experiment this to hit someone at 'optimal' with full skill for a 18 dmg when they are supposed to scratch their target sheet metal paint ...
Funny how they speak yes. |
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
675
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 18:02:00 -
[25] - Quote
Hagika wrote:Hams cant even hit cruiser sized ships effectively, yet its a cruiser size weapon. Oh dont forget you cant fit them on a caracal in general and you can put them on a cerb, yet the dps suck and you have a crap tank because of the PG need.. So more PG for an inferior weapon that has short range and hitting anything smaller than BC size is more or less a laughable joke.
Whether or not I agree with the HM changes -- and I'm currently of the mind that they're a bit too harsh -- I find it very hard to believe that people aren't seeing what a boon introducing TE/TCs to missiles is for HAMs.
Before these changes, the options to help them apply damage over range were limited to rigs (flares for damage application and the two range rigs) and targeted modules (painters and webs). Now, these did work to make HAMs viable, but the combinations required made the rest of any given fit laughable.
After the changes -- assuming they are done well -- HAMs will have a low slot module that increases both range and damage application and a mid slot module with selectable options to do one or the other or both. This solves the major problem of HAMs.
Yes, they are still tough on grid and won't fit on the current Caracal (but will on the boosted Caracal). No, they will not have the range of HMs. But -- again, assuming the changes are done effectively -- if you can't make HAMs work for you in the new environment, you are doing it wrong. |
Lester Knight Chaykin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 21:31:00 -
[26] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:Tragedy wrote:OOORRRRR nerf HAMs range. To around say 15kms. Which you could get to around 25-30 with tracking enhancers. Just like med autocannons! Then torpedos could get to 30-40 with the TEs, still better than blasters right? Right?
I like my idea better. Lex Luther says: WRONG! Neutron Blasters with T1 Antimatter: 4.5 optimal + 13 km falloff. Optimal + 2 x falloff= max range. = 31 km max range. Still does damage within this range Torpedo Launcher with T1 Mjolnir: <20.3 ~ 16-18 km based on missile acceleration. Beyond that range does zero damage. Neutron Blasters will Null: 13 km optimal + 18 km falloff. = 49-50 km max range. Torpedo Launcher with Javelin: <30.4 km ~ 26-27 km based on missile acceleration.
lol you are a noob or an idiot play the game instead of posting bull*hits like that |
Al Anders
Star Revival
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 13:24:00 -
[27] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:Tragedy wrote:OOORRRRR nerf HAMs range. To around say 15kms. Which you could get to around 25-30 with tracking enhancers. Just like med autocannons! Then torpedos could get to 30-40 with the TEs, still better than blasters right? Right?
I like my idea better. Lex Luther says: WRONG! Neutron Blasters with T1 Antimatter: 4.5 optimal + 13 km falloff. Optimal + 2 x falloff= max range. = 31 km max range. Still does damage within this range Torpedo Launcher with T1 Mjolnir: <20.3 ~ 16-18 km based on missile acceleration. Beyond that range does zero damage. Neutron Blasters will Null: 13 km optimal + 18 km falloff. = 49-50 km max range. Torpedo Launcher with Javelin: <30.4 km ~ 26-27 km based on missile acceleration. Let me introduce you to some basics of falloff mechanics/
Neutron Blasters with T1 Antimatter: 4.5 optimal (100% DPS) + 13 km falloff. (50% DPS) Optimal + 2 x falloff (10% DPS)= max range. = 31 km max range. Still scratch paint within this range
Torpedo Launcher with T1 Mjolnir: <20.3 ~ 16-18 km based on missile acceleration. Beyond that range does zero damage.
Neutron Blasters will Null: 13 km optimal(100% DPS) + 18 km falloff. (50% DPS) = 49-50 km max range(10% DPS).
Torpedo Launcher with Javelin: <30.4 km ~ 26-27 km based on missile acceleration And i haven't factored tracking. According to higher DPS of Torps your whine just silly. Now instead of TP's that damn hard to manage (and they can miss) i can fit my Golem with TC/TE's and ignore that crazy TP management. (Launch torps, paint target, wait until cycle end, etc...) And... Have anyone ever tried 4 BCU nighthawk or drake? With active/nano tanking? Without sig bloom? Try it and stop cry. That sh*t as caremobile outperforms hurr or sleip with much more range and damage application even with mjolnirs. With scourge that's butter-cutter of guristas. Sry for my bad English, not my native. |
Renier Gaden
Exanimo Inc Anger Management.
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 19:20:00 -
[28] - Quote
My understanding was that Rockets and HAMs fired faster than their longer range counterparts. So individually the short range ones do less damage, but you can fire more short range missiles in a fight than long range, with the effect that you do more damage with short range missiles if you are in range to use them than you would with long range missiles. (5 HAMs do more damage than 3 HeavyGÇÖs sort of idea.) Am I wrong on this, or is the OP missing the hits/time component in the damage calculation?
I do agree that Torpedos could use a little more range. |
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
682
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:22:00 -
[29] - Quote
Renier Gaden wrote:My understanding was that Rockets and HAMs fired faster than their longer range counterparts. So individually the short range ones do less damage, but you can fire more short range missiles in a fight than long range, with the effect that you do more damage with short range missiles if you are in range to use them than you would with long range missiles. (5 HAMs do more damage than 3 HeavyGÇÖs sort of idea.) Am I wrong on this, or is the OP missing the hits/time component in the damage calculation?
You're correct, but the OP did control for that. His numbers are DPS numbers which already have RoF factored in. His complaints are strictly about hit quality. |
Hagika
Testie Ticklers Anonymous
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 00:24:00 -
[30] - Quote
Tragedy wrote:OOORRRRR nerf HAMs range. To around say 15kms. Which you could get to around 25-30 with tracking enhancers. Just like med autocannons! Then torpedos could get to 30-40 with the TEs, still better than blasters right? Right?
I like my idea better.
Because having to take away missile dps for range and now tracking when they already do less dps than guns is really a way to improve anything.
Keep your idea to yourself., because its not about making missiles equal, its about making sure a broken and weaker weapon system worse than it already is. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |