Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gierling
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 03:19:00 -
[1]
Can we make Missille speed related to signature radius.
That way interceptors frigs and cruisers would have ample time to deal with missilles, but theyre not nerfed against battleships.
Also it would make target painting even more usefull.
You could also tie damage to sig radius too, but Im not sure if that would work. You could have speed determined by radius and damage determined by mass.
Bastards we are lest Bastards we become. |
Hyey
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 04:09:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Hyey on 14/04/2005 04:09:43 NO, if I web and nos a frig I want it to die like a good little ship
Relating damage to mass is completely stupid. If I hit your car with a nuclear bomb, it wont do less damage to the car then an aircraft carrier because the car has less mass ~~ Hyey
I just payed 15 dollars this month just to be able to respond on the forums... stupid cancellation error.
|
Nikolai Nuvolari
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 04:54:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Hyey
If I hit your car with a nuclear bomb, it wont do less damage to the car then an aircraft carrier because the car has less mass
That was the most pointless and irrelevent analogy I've read in the past hour. The only reason that it would do the same damage is that with either one, a nuke is enough to vaporize the whole thing. Anything big enough to completely annhilate Object X is going to completely annhilate anything smaller than Object X too. Take your same analogy, but replace the nuke with a bazooka/rocket launcher/RPG/small explosive of your choice. It would totally waste the car if it's something like a Kia Rio or a Cooper Mini. If it's a really heavy-duty truck, like maybe an armored Humvee or something, it might stand a chance at surviving. If it's an aircraft carrier, your weapon will probably just bounce back and hit you in the face. And I'll laugh heartily. ___________________________________________ ^^^***---All things serve the Beam---***^^^ |
Sadist
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 05:46:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Nikolai Nuvolari
Originally by: Hyey
If I hit your car with a nuclear bomb, it wont do less damage to the car then an aircraft carrier because the car has less mass
That was the most pointless and irrelevent analogy I've read in the past hour. The only reason that it would do the same damage is that with either one, a nuke is enough to vaporize the whole thing. Anything big enough to completely annhilate Object X is going to completely annhilate anything smaller than Object X too. Take your same analogy, but replace the nuke with a bazooka/rocket launcher/RPG/small explosive of your choice. It would totally waste the car if it's something like a Kia Rio or a Cooper Mini. If it's a really heavy-duty truck, like maybe an armored Humvee or something, it might stand a chance at surviving. If it's an aircraft carrier, your weapon will probably just bounce back and hit you in the face. And I'll laugh heartily.
If its irrelevant and pointless, why do you agree with it? _______________________________________________
|
Rex Martell
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 06:47:00 -
[5]
What makes you think that missiles should do less damage to frigates. Or for that matter that missiles should mover slower when fired at frigates.
Quote: That way interceptors frigs and cruisers would have ample time to deal with missilles
Why should they have ample time to deal with missiles. When/If a frigate/Interceptor pilot first notices that a salvo of missiles have been launched, that pilot then has a choice bug out and warp away or take their chances with tanking the damage or out running the missiles. It is a split second desicion and should be so, only the fastest frigates and intereceptors get to make this choice.
But I do love the insight in to the minds of those who really belive that frigates should be invincible. Reality check its a FRIGATES. "The object of war is not to die for your corp, but to make the other b@##@#d die for his" |
Lygos
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 07:12:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Lygos on 14/04/2005 07:16:35 I had been toying with some models that related damage to ship mass. The thinking being that the impact was a disruptive one, the relative inertia of the components of the ship would produce relative sheer forces.
It's the difference of hitting a clod of dirt and a rubber ball with the same baseball bat.
The trouble is that I'm not clever enough in the algebra department to manipulate it in a desirable way leaving only one variable to manipulate. If I make torps scaled down damage to frigs, which would still be higher than rockets, I need another variable to avoid a larger multiplier of rocket damage to battleships.
|
Ante
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 09:29:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Ante on 14/04/2005 09:38:56 There is no good reason why torps or cruise missiles should do less damage based on the size of the target. If you honestly think there is put down your arguments or hush.
I have had an idea actually. What if tracking was introduced on missiles, BUT the tracking was based on the targets position relative to the ship the missile was fired from? Effectively if an interceptor flew straight past a Raven then the missile would not be able to track. After that change just tweak the speeds of missiles so light missiles will hit frigs and intys and BAM! Fixed missiles.
EDIT: To clarify: if a Raven fired a torp north, and an interceptor flew south west and past the tracking point of the Raven the torp just continues on until it runs out of fuel. If the Raven turned so that the target was once again the arc of tracking the missile would once more start tracking the target.
|
Darkwolf
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 09:47:00 -
[8]
What a silly idea...
Why should a missile fly slower just because it's homing in on a smaller target? It's daft. Anyway, please don't forget that a frigate would still require a football field sized hangar bay, so these things aren't exactly flies on the wall.
No, since the EVE engine doesn't support PROPER missile agility, let's just have reduced damage against smaller targets to cut the effective DoT, and can it with the pseudo-science, and make it so for the sake of gameplay.
|
Darkwolf
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 09:49:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Ante There is no good reason why torps or cruise missiles should do less damage based on the size of the target. If you honestly think there is put down your arguments or hush.
I have had an idea actually. What if tracking was introduced on missiles, BUT the tracking was based on the targets position relative to the ship the missile was fired from?
The problem is that the EVE engine doesn't support adding tracking to missiles, or adjusting missile maneuverability in any meaningful way. The devs have tried it, and failed. And as such, the only really workable alternative is to cut their damage against smaller targets.
Anyone who seriously believes an RPG would do less damage to a kiddie in a pram than it would to a tank needs to go and try this principle with a 9mm.
|
Seramis
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 10:57:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Nikolai Nuvolari ... Take your same analogy, but replace the nuke with a bazooka/rocket launcher/RPG/small explosive of your choice. It would totally waste the car if it's something like a Kia Rio or a Cooper Mini. If it's a really heavy-duty truck, like maybe an armored Humvee or something, it might stand a chance at surviving. ...
The only reason for that (cooper mini gets destroyes, heavy truck not) is the difference in size. Your rocket/bazooka/whatever do the same damage. But in a heavy truck u have more stability, u r better protected. That is exactly the reason why a battleship has more Shield/Armor/Structure than a frigate.
|
|
hitech redneck
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 12:33:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Hyey Edited by: Hyey on 14/04/2005 04:09:43 NO, if I web and nos a frig I want it to die like a good little ship
Relating damage to mass is completely stupid. If I hit your car with a nuclear bomb, it wont do less damage to the car then an aircraft carrier because the car has less mass
Its not that stupid its the truth. People keep saying nerf missles. Why?. They cost more, they are slower, and do less dagamge than beams, hybirds and such. I have been hunting. bs rats in 0.0 me in raven friend in apoc. The rats are dead or almost dead before my first torp hits them. Also missle take up more space in cargo than other ammo's. The only thing missle need is a speed bosst and correct so they miss like the other weapons. To be honest i see more geddons, appoc's, throns in pvp than i do ravens why not yell nerf those.
|
LUKEC
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 12:36:00 -
[12]
still, raven is hitting small ships too well.
Why not put 6 hybrids to it? with some bonuses.
|
Elemmakil
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 13:26:00 -
[13]
Do not nerf missiles, they should be a special weapon, just limit the amount of launchers to 2 or 3 max in BSs. New Caldari weapon or hybrid bonuses for raven.
6 missile slots just don¦t work, too strong against NPCs and they suck for fleet battles.
Maybe add cap use to missile launchers, the way they are now is overpowering, raven just uses his cap to tank.. that¦s not fair.
|
Bad'Boy
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 13:27:00 -
[14]
this is my 2 cents: N0!!!!111oneone!111
B.A.D.B.O.Y.: Biomechanical Android Designed for Battle and Online Yelling
"Bad Boys,Bad Boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when WE come for yoU"
|
Darkwolf
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 13:44:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Elemmakil Maybe add cap use to missile launchers, the way they are now is overpowering, raven just uses his cap to tank.. that¦s not fair.
You mean like how Tempests use their cap to tank, and how Apocs have enough cap to both shoot and fully tank and still regen cap?
|
theRaptor
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 13:59:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Hyey Edited by: Hyey on 14/04/2005 04:09:43 NO, if I web and nos a frig I want it to die like a good little ship
Relating damage to mass is completely stupid. If I hit your car with a nuclear bomb, it wont do less damage to the car then an aircraft carrier because the car has less mass
Actually it will. If you ignore the heat, the blast will just blow in the windows and flip the car a few times. But it will buckle the aircraft carriers hull. The bigger the targets surface area the more energy it will absorb.
And relating to real life missiles, the smaller the target is the less the explosion will hit it, because air-to-air missiles don't explode on contact. They explode when close to the target like a grenade and are supposed to do damage with shrapnel. --------------------------------------------------
|
B'laze
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 14:08:00 -
[17]
we only need to make cruise missiles faster , other changes ARE NOT needed. Frigs can outrun missiles anyway (if setup properly) so where's the problem?
|
Grut
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 14:51:00 -
[18]
Originally by: B'laze we only need to make cruise missiles faster , other changes ARE NOT needed. Frigs can outrun missiles anyway (if setup properly) so where's the problem?
because frigates only outrun them while heading directly away from their target which makes oh so usefull
currently cruise are an I win button against close frigs, they need to a hell of alot fast (3x +) to make them of any use in bs pvp, which would make them an I win button against frigs at long range.
And ffs anyone who thinks bs should be able to munch frigs like smarties needs to go find an mmog where their lvl 100 char can beat the crap out of lvl 80s to their hearts content. Having an uber bs anti frig platform makes assault friggies and cruisers useless and even the complete carebears who troll these forums must realise that having 100% bs fleets like we do currently is boring as hell.
Mostly harmless |
Karl Borhman
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 14:51:00 -
[19]
Originally by: theRaptor
Originally by: Hyey Edited by: Hyey on 14/04/2005 04:09:43 NO, if I web and nos a frig I want it to die like a good little ship
Relating damage to mass is completely stupid. If I hit your car with a nuclear bomb, it wont do less damage to the car then an aircraft carrier because the car has less mass
Actually it will. If you ignore the heat, the blast will just blow in the windows and flip the car a few times. But it will buckle the aircraft carriers hull. The bigger the targets surface area the more energy it will absorb.
And relating to real life missiles, the smaller the target is the less the explosion will hit it, because air-to-air missiles don't explode on contact. They explode when close to the target like a grenade and are supposed to do damage with shrapnel.
Well since this isn't real life your analogies mean squat.
If you're daft enough to think that bigger targets don't fair better for an equal amount of damage then check the statistics of car wrecks (say SUV's vs. compacts). In theory, a small, manueverable car can avoid an accident a good percentage of the time. But what happens when you don't see the accident coming? KAPOW!! Your compact is totaled and you are dead.
Your assessment that a smaller target doesn't get hit as badly as a larger target is not only asinine, its wrong. It's not based on any principles of thermodynamics, dynamics or mechanics of structures that I'm familiar with.
Any explosion has a certain amount of energy that needs dissapated. If the amount of energy can't be dissapated, then that's the end of your butt - end of story. A small target doesn't help dissapate the damage (energy). If that were true people in compacts would fair just as equally as those in large SUV's when they ran into each other.
A large explosion on a small target will just envelope and obliterate a target. It's equivalent to smacking a fly with a sledgehammer vs. a fly swatter. In either case the fly gets killed. With the sledgehammer, he just gets killed more completely.
__________________________________
Mining ... the other white meat. __________________________________ |
Karl Borhman
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 14:57:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Grut
Originally by: B'laze we only need to make cruise missiles faster , other changes ARE NOT needed. Frigs can outrun missiles anyway (if setup properly) so where's the problem?
because frigates only outrun them while heading directly away from their target which makes oh so usefull
currently cruise are an I win button against close frigs, they need to a hell of alot fast (3x +) to make them of any use in bs pvp, which would make them an I win button against frigs at long range.
And ffs anyone who thinks bs should be able to munch frigs like smarties needs to go find an mmog where their lvl 100 char can beat the crap out of lvl 80s to their hearts content. Having an uber bs anti frig platform makes assault friggies and cruisers useless and even the complete carebears who troll these forums must realise that having 100% bs fleets like we do currently is boring as hell.
Well DUH! Do you think a single frigate should be able to tackle and destoy a battleship on it's own?
The solution is not that missiles need nerfed. The solution is to open up your mind and use it.
Assuming you have friends, create a killing team of 5-8 frigates or destroyers and you'll get the victories you're seeking.
But in no way should a single frigate be able to ever take out a BS on it's own. __________________________________
Mining ... the other white meat. __________________________________ |
|
Grut
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 15:08:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Grut on 14/04/2005 15:09:07
Originally by: Karl Borhman
Originally by: Grut
Originally by: B'laze we only need to make cruise missiles faster , other changes ARE NOT needed. Frigs can outrun missiles anyway (if setup properly) so where's the problem?
because frigates only outrun them while heading directly away from their target which makes oh so usefull
currently cruise are an I win button against close frigs, they need to a hell of alot fast (3x +) to make them of any use in bs pvp, which would make them an I win button against frigs at long range.
And ffs anyone who thinks bs should be able to munch frigs like smarties needs to go find an mmog where their lvl 100 char can beat the crap out of lvl 80s to their hearts content. Having an uber bs anti frig platform makes assault friggies and cruisers useless and even the complete carebears who troll these forums must realise that having 100% bs fleets like we do currently is boring as hell.
Well DUH! Do you think a single frigate should be able to tackle and destoy a battleship on it's own?
The solution is not that missiles need nerfed. The solution is to open up your mind and use it.
Assuming you have friends, create a killing team of 5-8 frigates or destroyers and you'll get the victories you're seeking.
But in no way should a single frigate be able to ever take out a BS on it's own.
Do you even play this game? who gives a crap about 8v1, aslong the 8 has a clue their gonna pop the 1 regardless of what their flying. By balance i meant *BALANCE* not gankage as in a fleet made 100% of bs would lose to a *BALANCED* fleet of similar numbers with mixed bs/cruisers/frigs. Not due to frigs being able to destroy a bs but by their role as a tackler. If two mixed fleets engage you have tackle frigs being countered by assualts/cruisers while the bs pound away on eachother, making things alot more tactical. Its alot more fun and fun = good in a game mmmkay
currently if you take a 100% bs up against a mixed fleet your fine. Turret ships do enough damage that they can kill ships without scrambling and missile boats kill support fast enough that they dont have to worry about being tackled themselves. With 100% bs fleet alot of blobage occurs slowing the game down no end leading to alot less fun and no fun = bad mmkay.
WTS 1 clue Mostly harmless |
B'laze
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 15:14:00 -
[22]
why is your frig that close to a BS (i'd jus use a SB on ya) And my friends (b4 u say anything do have decent skills) couldnt hit a inty with missiles , so go and refit ya frig(if u got the skills) and try again . Try using missiles and find the weakness they have , i love flying my frigs but i own a raven (planning to sell as they have a major weakness)and dont see any real probs.
|
Gierling
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 16:50:00 -
[23]
I like the speed related to sig radius idea.
You can say that the missilles need to slow down to maintain target lock with thier small sensor suites.
Also, ecm burst should make all missilles in space that have you targetted lose lock.
Bastards we are lest Bastards we become. |
Karl Borhman
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 21:51:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Grut Edited by: Grut on 14/04/2005 15:09:07
Originally by: Karl Borhman=Grut
Well DUH! Do you think a single frigate should be able to tackle and destoy a battleship on it's own?
The solution is not that missiles need nerfed. The solution is to open up your mind and use it.
Assuming you have friends, create a killing team of 5-8 frigates or destroyers and you'll get the victories you're seeking.
But in no way should a single frigate be able to ever take out a BS on it's own.
Do you even play this game? who gives a crap about 8v1, aslong the 8 has a clue their gonna pop the 1 regardless of what their flying. By balance i meant *BALANCE* not gankage as in a fleet made 100% of bs would lose to a *BALANCED* fleet of similar numbers with mixed bs/cruisers/frigs. Not due to frigs being able to destroy a bs but by their role as a tackler. If two mixed fleets engage you have tackle frigs being countered by assualts/cruisers while the bs pound away on eachother, making things alot more tactical. Its alot more fun and fun = good in a game mmmkay
currently if you take a 100% bs up against a mixed fleet your fine. Turret ships do enough damage that they can kill ships without scrambling and missile boats kill support fast enough that they dont have to worry about being tackled themselves. With 100% bs fleet alot of blobage occurs slowing the game down no end leading to alot less fun and no fun = bad mmkay.
WTS 1 clue
What you just discussed has ZERO to do with what you were b*tching about. You specifically were lamenting of the no longer useful frigate since it must run when facing a larger more superior foe 1 on 1.
I simply pointed out to you that there are ways around the differences in frigs and other ships. Provided of course, you have the brainpower to discover them.
Apparently, farting must be a taxing thing for you mentally, since you don't understand the concept of tactics and would prefer to complain that CCP has nerfed your game. __________________________________
Mining ... the other white meat. __________________________________ |
Destroyer Draxx
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 21:55:00 -
[25]
So I dont get whats wrong with missiles? They do less dmg than most guns in game and are not instant dmg like rest of guns. Furthermore 1 of the 2 ships that use them has been rendered useless. N now missiles should slow down or do less dmg to frigs?! From my personal experience only cruise missiles hit a ceptor orbiting at 15km...Torps n heavies are too slow to keep up. If you get hit by a torp in ceptor u r afk or plain stupid ffs. Drones are not caldari's strong point, so say that cruise missiles are nerfed : Case 1 : Cruise missiles do less dmg. A frig will what, get hit by six cruises n survive???? Might as well remove cruises from game. Case 2 : Cruise missile slows down = Caldari BS has no defence, what so ever against frigs - No experienced ceptor pilot will come closer than 10 km (exept taranis pilots maybe) A corp m8 told me that in next patch CCP plans to give armor plates double bonus...So there u go missiles vs frigates problem solved, unless all u frig pilots think u should be able to get out of a BS encounter without a scratch.
So Far So Good....So What |
Hyey
|
Posted - 2005.04.15 03:27:00 -
[26]
Seriously, the main problem is that a raven = antifrig/bs killer with one setup. CM's to cruise launchers and torps to siege launchers and thats one mindless fitting problem solved.
Next make CM's the anti frig weapon of choice, shave down their damage a little but make their speed increase.Can make them more skill intensive if you want.
Torps are fine as they are, any frigate/interceptor that gets killed by a torp is either AFK or a bad pilot. If you are in an INTY and get shot down by a torpedo you suck at flying them ~~ Hyey
I just payed 15 dollars this month just to be able to respond on the forums... stupid cancellation error.
|
Grut
|
Posted - 2005.04.15 17:15:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Grut on 15/04/2005 17:16:41
Originally by: Karl Borhman
What you just discussed has ZERO to do with what you were b*tching about. You specifically were lamenting of the no longer useful frigate since it must run when facing a larger more superior foe 1 on 1.
I simply pointed out to you that there are ways around the differences in frigs and other ships. Provided of course, you have the brainpower to discover them.
Apparently, farting must be a taxing thing for you mentally, since you don't understand the concept of tactics and would prefer to complain that CCP has nerfed your game.
Please read what I have typed, not once have I metioned 1v1's, being forced to warpout/die when faced with a missile boat ,ie most situations where their facing a fleet, renders frigates ineffective. You stated that a dedicated team of frigates can take on a bs true, but vs multiple bs they are unable to support their own bs team.
How is it more tactical that with the exception of covert ops, only bs are required for pvp ignoring the other ship classes?
Please insult me, dont bother reading my posts and complain about my lack pvp experience, ive only been one of the games top pvp corps for 6 months, you've been?.......
My concern is that having an easy way to destroy frigates in bs means that their is not much point to them. Pvp balance to me means what composition of ships would be most effective vs another fleet of equal numbers. Currently a fleet composed of 99% bs with a few covert ops is most effective, this is not good nerfing missiles will help balance this. Mostly harmless |
DayVV4lkEr
|
Posted - 2005.04.15 18:51:00 -
[28]
Edited by: DayVV4lkEr on 15/04/2005 18:53:30 All this so called balancing Stuff is just leading to one point. Caldari ships will get worthles (at least caldari BS).
Caldari BSs are Missile-Ships they can hardly kill a Sniping Ship (the Sniping-Ship kills the Raven or warps away) so the only Thing that Ravens can do is killing NPCs (and they do that much better then the most other Ships, ok) and kill ppl that get to close to them.
If u want to fight a Caldari BS just don't get near them that is nerfing enough. Interceptor-Pilots just don't get near a Raven (stay away at least 25 km because of NOS means don't attack them Solo at all)
Ok a Frig can scramble a Apoc or a Mega but this Ships with right Skills and the right fitting will always kill a Raven if the stay at a given distance (i.e. 150 km NO Problem for such a Ship). The Problem most ppl have atm they don't want to fit siege launchers on there apoc's, arma's, mega's tempest's and so on, because they would do less damage to other BSs when they lose a turret or two, but they could kill frigs just as easy as the Raven can with Sieges. Use this advantage. And a Raven isn't doing as much Damage as an Apoc does with 6 Turrets and 2 Siege Launchers (maybe i'm wrong)
I think, that an Interceptor shouldn't be able to scramble a BS to hell at all. There should be a defence-modul to avoid this and that are Missiles.
All in all i think Missiles don't need a nerf, u just have to know how to handel them.
|
Hyey
|
Posted - 2005.04.15 23:40:00 -
[29]
Originally by: DayVV4lkEr Edited by: DayVV4lkEr on 15/04/2005 18:53:30 All this so called balancing Stuff is just leading to one point. Caldari ships will get worthles (at least caldari BS).
Caldari BSs are Missile-Ships they can hardly kill a Sniping Ship (the Sniping-Ship kills the Raven or warps away) so the only Thing that Ravens can do is killing NPCs (and they do that much better then the most other Ships, ok) and kill ppl that get to close to them.
If u want to fight a Caldari BS just don't get near them that is nerfing enough. Interceptor-Pilots just don't get near a Raven (stay away at least 25 km because of NOS means don't attack them Solo at all)
Ok a Frig can scramble a Apoc or a Mega but this Ships with right Skills and the right fitting will always kill a Raven if the stay at a given distance (i.e. 150 km NO Problem for such a Ship). The Problem most ppl have atm they don't want to fit siege launchers on there apoc's, arma's, mega's tempest's and so on, because they would do less damage to other BSs when they lose a turret or two, but they could kill frigs just as easy as the Raven can with Sieges. Use this advantage. And a Raven isn't doing as much Damage as an Apoc does with 6 Turrets and 2 Siege Launchers (maybe i'm wrong)
I think, that an Interceptor shouldn't be able to scramble a BS to hell at all. There should be a defence-modul to avoid this and that are Missiles.
All in all i think Missiles don't need a nerf, u just have to know how to handel them.
At one point after you get a certain amount of support gunnery skills and chosen gun skills to lvl 4 (not even including tech 2 guns) they become much much more damaging than a missile will. At a certain point ( i believe around 4mil~~ gunnery sp (which isnt that uncommon with vet type players.) missiles become totally inferior to guns.) ~~ Hyey
I just payed 15 dollars this month just to be able to respond on the forums... stupid cancellation error.
|
xenorx
|
Posted - 2005.04.16 02:42:00 -
[30]
Like many out there I am tired of nerf this and nerf that posts. Especially missiles! I have read all the arguments and suggestions and canÆt find anything I really like.
The frigate pilots want to be immune so they want reduced damage and slower missiles. Missile users say that missiles should be faster because they are useless for anything other than short range fighting. Missile haters say that missiles hit for 100% damage and never miss. Missile users say that turrets have a higher DOT and hit instantly and cannot be shot down. Both sides of the argument have legit points and there are no easy solutions. CCP cannot alter the agility of missiles without causing more lag and no one wants more of that! From a RP standpoint reading the race background info and some story line the missiles was intended to be long range weapons. However, in their current state they cannot fill that role. I have some thoughts on the subject and will put them down here.
Treat missiles somewhat like other ammo with a twist. Turret users have Short, Medium, and Long range ammo. Long range ammo typically does less damage than short range ammo. Ammo used outside of its intended ranges becomes useless thus the turret user has to reload with the appropriate ammo for the range they need to hit at.
I would suggest a Short, Medium, and Long range variant to each missile class. Each missile range slot would go FASTER than the previous range missile and do MORE damage. The damage would be totally opposite from current turret ammo damage of longer range yeilds less damage. To prevent someone from using the fastest missile for shorter ranges I would use a warhead activation delay. The activation delay would not stop a long range missile from hitting its intended target at 0 meters. It would just do 0.0 damage. The safeties would be on and prevent detonation. Since cruise missiles are everyoneÆs favorite missile to pick on I will use them for my examples.
Cruise missiles in their current state have a base speed of 1600m/s and a flight time of 60 seconds. This gives them a base range of 96 km. They have a base damage of 300 and hit for 300 regardless of range. These figures are not factoring in skills and ships bonuses as that will vary from player to player. Here is how it would work.
Short Range Cruise Missile: Base speed of 1500m/s and a flight time of 17 seconds. This gives a max range of 25.5 km. Base damage of 200.00 with no activation delay. This missile will only cause damage at 0-25.50 km.
Medium Range Cruise Missile: Base speed of 3000m/s and a flight time of 17 seconds. This gives a maximum range of 51.0 km. Base damage of 250.00 with a activation delay of 8.33 seconds. This gives a minimum range of 25 km. This missile will only cause damage in the 25-51 km ranges
Long Range Cruise Missile: Base speed of 5650m/s and a flight time of 17 seconds. This gives a maximum range of 96.05 km. Base damage of 300.00 with a activation delay of 9 seconds. This missile will only cause damage in the 50.85-96.05 km ranges.
A system like this would encourage missile users to operate at longer ranges to get their best damage while not making missiles totally useless at shorter ranges. It would reduce the damage on frigates and cruisers in the short and mid range slots and still give good damage to long range users. It would also reduce and flatten the time to target so missiles can hit at mid and long range just as well as short. The short range ones would just do less damage. The missile user would have to change missile types to fit the target range just like a turret user does now. No more ammo for all ranges.
These figures are just suggestions for illustration purposes as I realize these speeds and damage would need to be balanced.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |