EVE Search - Can someone explain to me WHY missiles need an overhaul?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Can someone explain to me WHY missiles need an overhaul?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kaeten	Posted - 2005.05.07 20:22:00 - [31] This is how it works now. Torps = Close Range Cruise = Long Range It's like comparing torps to blasters and cruise to 425mm's. Let's say an inty is orbiting my megathron and I've got blasters/425mm's fitted. Will I hit it? NO. TomB is changing torps/cruise so that they are more like turruts. But ravens do still have the upper hand because torps HIT intys, maybe not for much but it sure id alot more that a miss from my blasters/425mm's. ___________________________________ Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante
Serret	Posted - 2005.05.07 20:48:00 - [32] Edited by: Serret on 07/05/2005 20:48:47 Originally by: Kaeten This is how it works now. Torps = Close Range Cruise = Long Range It's like comparing torps to blasters and cruise to 425mm's. Ravens do still have the upper hand because torps HIT intys, maybe not for much but it sure id alot more that a miss from my blasters/425mm's. It seems that you've never heard of a Stasis Webifier. Let me ask you then: What if a missile is at 80km. Can it kill a frigate? No. Can it kill a battleship with cruise missiles? No. Can your railgun ship kill the frigate? Yes. Can they kill a battleship? Much more likely than cruise. Can your blasters kill anything at all? No.
Vilserx	Posted - 2005.05.07 20:48:00 - [33] Originally by: Kaeten This is how it works now. Torps = Close Range Cruise = Long Range It's like comparing torps to blasters and cruise to 425mm's. Let's say an inty is orbiting my megathron and I've got blasters/425mm's fitted. Will I hit it? NO. TomB is changing torps/cruise so that they are more like turruts. But ravens do still have the upper hand because torps HIT intys, maybe not for much but it sure id alot more that a miss from my blasters/425mm's. You've got the problem of ammo cost though. At 350isk per torp, taking 30 torps+ to take down a frigate, the cost isn't worth the reward is it? --------------------------- VSX EVE Design
xaioguai	Posted - 2005.05.07 20:50:00 - [34] Originally by: Vilserx Maybe the problem is not the Raven, but the other BSs not being good enough. are you proposing all BS size weapon should wftpwn everything as long as your can get a lock on? well....how about suggesting CCP to intruduce a smartbomb so big it can destroying everything including concord within the radius of 40km and have a rof of 18 second. oh...and make it so easy to use so that every noob with 3mil of SP can fit tons of them on their BS.
Kaeten	Posted - 2005.05.07 20:55:00 - [35] Originally by: Serret Edited by: Serret on 07/05/2005 20:48:47 Originally by: Kaeten This is how it works now. Torps = Close Range Cruise = Long Range It's like comparing torps to blasters and cruise to 425mm's. Ravens do still have the upper hand because torps HIT intys, maybe not for much but it sure id alot more that a miss from my blasters/425mm's. It seems that you've never heard of a Stasis Webifier. Let me ask you then: What if a missile is at 80km. Can it kill a frigate? No. Can it kill a battleship with cruise missiles? No. Can your railgun ship kill the frigate? Yes. Can they kill a battleship? Much more likely than cruise. Can your blasters kill anything at all? No. hmm. You clearly haven't been testing these things. I cant hit intys at 80km while they r flying at a squint direction. Cruise kill bs's? Dude, I'm having more troble killing ravens with cruise missles than with torps, so what your stating there is bull. ___________________________________ Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante
Vilserx	Posted - 2005.05.07 20:55:00 - [36] Originally by: xaioguai Originally by: Vilserx Maybe the problem is not the Raven, but the other BSs not being good enough. are you proposing all BS size weapon should wftpwn everything as long as your can get a lock on? well....how about suggesting CCP to intruduce a smartbomb so big it can destroying everything including concord within the radius of 40km and have a rof of 18 second. oh...and make it so easy to use so that every noob with 3mil of SP can fit tons of them on their BS. Why should frigates be able to easily hold their own against a Battleship (which will happen with these proposed changes)? Hits of 10dmg per torp are ridiculous. --------------------------- VSX EVE Design
Kaeten	Posted - 2005.05.07 20:56:00 - [37] Originally by: Vilserx Originally by: xaioguai Originally by: Vilserx Maybe the problem is not the Raven, but the other BSs not being good enough. are you proposing all BS size weapon should wftpwn everything as long as your can get a lock on? well....how about suggesting CCP to intruduce a smartbomb so big it can destroying everything including concord within the radius of 40km and have a rof of 18 second. oh...and make it so easy to use so that every noob with 3mil of SP can fit tons of them on their BS. Why should frigates be able to easily hold their own against a Battleship (which will happen with these proposed changes)? Hits of 10dmg per torp are ridiculous. My 425mm rails wont hit frigs? or my blasters for that so why should torps. Also, have you ever heard of a web or nos or even maybe drones? ___________________________________ Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante
Vilserx	Posted - 2005.05.07 21:03:00 - [38] Originally by: Kaeten Originally by: Vilserx Originally by: xaioguai Originally by: Vilserx Maybe the problem is not the Raven, but the other BSs not being good enough. are you proposing all BS size weapon should wftpwn everything as long as your can get a lock on? well....how about suggesting CCP to intruduce a smartbomb so big it can destroying everything including concord within the radius of 40km and have a rof of 18 second. oh...and make it so easy to use so that every noob with 3mil of SP can fit tons of them on their BS. Why should frigates be able to easily hold their own against a Battleship (which will happen with these proposed changes)? Hits of 10dmg per torp are ridiculous. My 425mm rails wont hit frigs? or my blasters for that so why should torps. Also, have you ever heard of a web or nos or even maybe drones? That's why I said that the problem maybe the other BSs rather than the Raven itself. --------------------------- VSX EVE Design
xaioguai	Posted - 2005.05.07 21:13:00 - [39] Originally by: Vilserx Originally by: xaioguai Originally by: Vilserx Why should frigates be able to easily hold their own against a Battleship (which will happen with these proposed changes)? Hits of 10dmg per torp are ridiculous. If you think thats ridiculous, guess firing **** loads of ammo out from my 425 and not able to scratch an orbiting cruiser is ridiculous as well... and i have at least 3 times gunnery SP than your missile skills. and if you so insist that BS should own in all area, hate to say this but perhap eve is not your game, maybe you can try some other sigle player game and download the god mode/cheat code from the internet.
Vilserx	Posted - 2005.05.07 21:16:00 - [40] Originally by: xaioguai Originally by: Vilserx Originally by: xaioguai Originally by: Vilserx Why should frigates be able to easily hold their own against a Battleship (which will happen with these proposed changes)? Hits of 10dmg per torp are ridiculous. If you think thats ridiculous, guess firing **** loads of ammo out from my 425 and not able to scratch an orbiting cruiser is ridiculous as well... and i have at least 3 times gunnery SP than your missile skills. and if you so insist that BS should own in all area, hate to say this but perhap eve is not your game, maybe you can try some other sigle player game and download the god mode/cheat code from the internet. Which is why I suggested bringing the other ships in line with the Raven... And of course it doesn't own in all areas, but to suggest a frigate should be able to beat a BS is silly. --------------------------- VSX EVE Design
Prothos	Posted - 2005.05.07 21:38:00 - [41] The way missle are now give the raven a role in fleet battles. Kill the fast close range ships. When the changes go in Ravens won't be needed. Step back and look at what the mosted used ship in pvp is. Maybe that ship needs nerfed and the rest made better. The change is going to put caldari ships in the junk yard.
DrunkenOne	Posted - 2005.05.07 21:55:00 - [42] Edited by: DrunkenOne on 07/05/2005 21:55:44 Originally by: Vilserx Quote: Which is why I suggested bringing the other ships in line with the Raven... And of course it doesn't own in all areas, but to suggest a frigate should be able to beat a BS is silly. Hi, I'm your friend mr heavy nos.
Kaeten	Posted - 2005.05.07 22:46:00 - [43] Originally by: Vilserx Originally by: Kaeten Originally by: Vilserx Originally by: xaioguai Originally by: Vilserx Maybe the problem is not the Raven, but the other BSs not being good enough. are you proposing all BS size weapon should wftpwn everything as long as your can get a lock on? well....how about suggesting CCP to intruduce a smartbomb so big it can destroying everything including concord within the radius of 40km and have a rof of 18 second. oh...and make it so easy to use so that every noob with 3mil of SP can fit tons of them on their BS. Why should frigates be able to easily hold their own against a Battleship (which will happen with these proposed changes)? Hits of 10dmg per torp are ridiculous. My 425mm rails wont hit frigs? or my blasters for that so why should torps. Also, have you ever heard of a web or nos or even maybe drones? That's why I said that the problem maybe the other BSs rather than the Raven itself. I'll agree with you the day all the other bs's get 6 missles hardpoints. ___________________________________ Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante
ALPHA12125	Posted - 2005.05.07 23:50:00 - [44] Originally by: Prothos The way missle are now give the raven a role in fleet battles. Kill the fast close range ships. When the changes go in Ravens won't be needed. Step back and look at what the mosted used ship in pvp is. Maybe that ship needs nerfed and the rest made better. The change is going to put caldari ships in the junk yard. ehhmmm maybe i am totally wrong here. but a raven still can kill every inty and cruiser. the reason it worked so well was 6 missle slots and the [cough]godlike[/cough] torpedoes. The missle changes only change the missles not the ship. You still have 6 missle slots. Only now u cant fry em with torpedoes. Just use light,heavy and cruise missles. There is no inty that will live long enough if you spam it with small missles.Or do am I missunderstanding something here.
Jim Steele	Posted - 2005.05.08 00:15:00 - [45] Originally by: Isonkon Serikain What I need is more of a top level view, not arguments like"missiles could own frigates yadda yadda", because I know all of these. Because a character with 500k in missiles can do lvl 4 mission easier than someone with 6 million in gunnary. Some might call this un-balanced. Something needed to change for missiles to a) become usefull in pvp, and b)so they dont own frigates. Death to the Galante
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2005.05.08 00:57:00 - [46] Originally by: Citizen Angstrom This 'instakill of a frigate' thing, that you say Ravens are capable of... How are they capable of it at greater than, say, 25km currently? Blind frigate pilots? Gate-camping pirates too busy squabbling over the 'phat lewt' they got from the last BS or two they trashed in their Interceptors? The debate above is critically flawed, because we are talking about two totally separate games occupying the same servers: PvP is utterly different from PvE. For all I know (being a carebear PvE expert ), maybe torps and missiles do need a speed increase and corresponding nerf when in PvP. But I don't do that - I do PvE. And let me tell you, there is no need for these proposed changes in PvE. My god, I just want to slap with a dirty tampon or something. A raven has a 20-30km field around it that makes any frigate die within that field if it stays too long. You can't orbit even at 40km since missiles started intercepting your path instead of chasing. That makes using a NOS slightly more irrelevant, which means even if you put a 200mil isk disruptor on your frig to hold target at 29km, you'd still be forced to mwd away or warp off. Second, there may be PVE and PVP but its still one game. Battleship weapons hitting frigate-sized ships for full damage is wrong. It makes raven the ultimate npc hunting ship, as there is virtually no risk of dying before you can warp out. _____________________________________ Perpetually driven, your end is our beginning. "Can I be a consultant for EVE II?" - WhiteDwarf
Serret	Posted - 2005.05.08 00:59:00 - [47] Originally by: Kaeten You clearly haven't been testing these things. I cant hit intys at 80km while they r flying at a squint direction. Cruise kill bs's? Dude, I'm having more troble killing ravens with cruise missles than with torps, so what your stating there is bull. Against a modern sniper BS, the lock and fire can occur before the inty even gets up to speed in any direction. Cruise missile ravens? ~200 dps is like cruiser damage. If any enemy bship can't return fire greater than this, I don't know what to tell you. But hey, if you think I haven't pvp'ed enough to have tested these things, that's okay. You might want to go back and redo the Eve tutorial, too.
Deileon	Posted - 2005.05.08 02:12:00 - [48] 100% hit ratio and very few skills required. Done L4 missions much? Anyway, I think the missile changes might go too far. But nerfs usually do. We shall see. They say bananas are a dish best served cold...
Nomen Nescio	Posted - 2005.05.08 02:56:00 - [49] They wont ever balance missles because: Everyone wants missles to be different, not like guns. Caldari best ships are supposed to be missles only, but everyone expects them to be at least as good as gallente Both A and B forces any missle system to be based on guns stats, but yet act not like guns From patch to patch either "be different" or "caldari missle based ships should not suck" is getting ahead Either non caldari or caldary ppl get uber, others whine, next patch follows To "fix" missles all you need is make caldari ships to be rails mainly and add some missles to all others. Missles should be designed like drones = secondary DIFFERENT weapon, but caldari should be a bit better with this SECONDARY weapon the way gallente is better with drones.
U'puauht	Posted - 2005.05.08 02:57:00 - [50] Edited by: U''puauht on 08/05/2005 03:02:10 Originally by: Lorth 3: Missiles take a long time to get to thier target. Which means in large, or even mid sized groups, ravens suck. They need to be made faster in order for the ships that use them to be effective in large scale opperations. What I completely fail to understand is why a missile should be "fast" in comparison to a projectile/hybrid/laser weapon. If you transfer a bit of realism onto this subject, there's no reason at all to make missiles faster than they are right now. Quite the opposite is the case, at least in my opinion. Cruise missiles don't go much faster than 800m/s (in real life, that is), for projectiles (bullets) that's a regular (some go up to 1500m/s V(0)). Differences between missiles and projectiles should display in lower speed but higher range for missiles, higher damage VS small targets (which would actually make sense if you applied logic), instead of what TomB's blog implies. Why should a missile have longer range, but less speed? The speed issue I explained above, the range issue is (again) applied realism: with a gun, you can successfuly hit targets up to ranges of 2km. With missiles, your range increases by lots; Cruise missiles being able to fly hundreds (even thousands) of kilometers. Why should a missile do more damage to smaller targets? Obvious: think of a handgrenade used against a tank. Now think of the same handgrenade used against a truck, against a car, against a bike. See my point? And in regards to all those who say "Ravens instapwn frigs": wrong. A Raven's locktime on a frigate is between 10 and 30 seconds (if you sacrifice slots for Sensor Boosters instead of something that's actually useful in an overall sense). 10 seconds is a lot of time for a frigate to react (not to mention the 30s); a frigate's locktime on a Raven is a lot faster, and most frigates (in PVP) are being used in tackler/EW roles (at least that's my impression and experience), so disturbing a Raven's locking attempts should be no big deal at all; and that's only one option. Edit: IMHO, Missiles are being nerfed because Ravens are too efficient ('³ber', 'omgwtfbbw' or whatever) in PVE/lvl4 Agent missions. Maybe those missions should get nerfed instead...? (And obviously I don't mind getting quick ISK by doing lvl4 kill missions, but it gets kinda boring after a day...) ______________________________________________________ Deep Space Services : Risk is our business, security our service.
Nomen Nescio	Posted - 2005.05.08 03:07:00 - [51] Edited by: Nomen Nescio on 08/05/2005 03:08:02 Everyone who says "because in real life" should be banned from forums. But anyway, in "real life" there is absolutely no reason why missle flying in voids of space should have less speed then projectile. Moreover, if you want "real life" then there is no way a projectile can hit INSTANTLY at 150km, because even if you have such propellant the acceleration of 150km/s would instantly crush your shell to dust.
xaioguai	Posted - 2005.05.08 03:36:00 - [52] Originally by: U'puauht Why should a missile do more damage to smaller targets? Obvious: think of a handgrenade used against a tank. Now think of the same handgrenade used against a truck, against a car, against a bike. See my point? Quote: If a handgrenade is thrown INTO a tank, 100% of its energy is obsorbed by the tank ineterior structure. If a handgrenade is thrown toward a bike, only fraction of its energy released is used against the bike because bike is somewhat a hollow stracture. If a handgrenade is thrown to a person and the person quickly dock and seek cover, possably he will not get hurt at all PS. missiles in eve are not impact detonate. it explode before hitting the target, or we should have kinetic damage on all missiles.
Khrystoff	Posted - 2005.05.08 05:32:00 - [53] Edited by: Khrystoff on 08/05/2005 05:33:14 I've drawn up this loverly visual aid to shut down any of the "WhyTF would a frigate take less damage from the same missile than a battleship does!?!?" my rational explanation is this. It has to do with surface areas (in-game read this as Sig-Radius) Say a large ship has a sig-radius of 50m, and a smaller ship has a radius of 25m Say that the missile explodes at a distance from the ship (it's relative and doesn't matter, This is common missile behavior to compensate for imperfect tracking accuracy) the damage goes flying out from the missile in a sphere, lessening the further you are from point zero because the same amount of energy is being spread over an ever increasing surface area. Now the missile will detonate the same distance away from frigates and battleships alike, so the determining factor in the amount of damage they receive is now completely based on their signature radii. the ship with sig-radius of 50m will receive 100 damage (100 is arbitrary) the ship with sig-radius of 25m will only receive 25 damage! a ship with a 50% reduction in radius, will receive a 75%(!!) reduction in damage. "but oh! the frigate can't take as much damage as the battleship, so it would end up equal!!" not necessarily true, if the base shield resistances are equal, then the frigate would receive even less damage in proportion to the battleship, same goes for armor. here's a picture to clear it up even more Visual Aid - Figure 1-1
Reatu Krentor	Posted - 2005.05.08 08:01:00 - [54] Because CCP says they do ? well I think myself they need an overhaul, cause when you compare the effectiveness of missiles to a turret, the missiles are effective in all situations, whereas a specific turret might be good long range but poor short range, on top of that its easier to avoid damage from a turret than from a missile currently, right now only ships that can outrun a cruise are frigates with mwd, with overhaul a frigate with an ab could even be enough. It might not outrun the missile but it would get quite a bit of reduced damage. So in the future, Raven pilots might have to resort to smaller missiles if they want to take down frigates faster. Now if there would be some more launchers, that would be great, like heavy assault launcher (with heavy missiles) for bs and some improvements to assault launcher to increase damage somewhat. ------------------------------------------ The ammatar are not the enemy, they are the smoke and mirrors of the amarr.
Serret	Posted - 2005.05.08 08:48:00 - [55] Originally by: Reatu Krentor well I think myself they need an overhaul, cause when you compare the effectiveness of missiles to a turret, the missiles are effective in all situations, whereas a specific turret might be good long range but poor short range, on top of that its easier to avoid damage from a turret than from a missile currently I also believe that missiles need an overhaul, but I think CCP should be reminded of all the issues actually affecting their use in-game (if they aren't already aware) so that they can do it right. That's why I keep replying when I read incomplete generalizations such as this, especially when people don't seem to read the preceding parts of the thread.
Gungankllr	Posted - 2005.05.08 10:12:00 - [56] It would be nice if Ravens were changed to 6 missile + 6 turret slots. That way, if missiles turn out to be silly nerfed, Raven pilots have some options open to them. You could mount 6 Large Turrets + 2 launchers, or 6 Large Launchers and 2 Turrets. TBH I don't see it as much of a balance problem, but then again I don't have a huge amount of experience with turreted battleships, so I'll leave that opinion up to folks that do. And yes, there are people who will say "Get a Megathron", but I like my Raven. I've only flown Caldari Ships since I started (except shuttles) www.hadean.org
keepiru	Posted - 2005.05.08 10:20:00 - [57] Originally by: Gungankllr It would be nice if Ravens were changed to 6 missile + 6 turret slots. That way, if missiles turn out to be silly nerfed, Raven pilots have some options open to them. You could mount 6 Large Turrets + 2 launchers, or 6 Large Launchers and 2 Turrets. TBH I don't see it as much of a balance problem, but then again I don't have a huge amount of experience with turreted battleships, so I'll leave that opinion up to folks that do. And yes, there are people who will say "Get a Megathron", but I like my Raven. I've only flown Caldari Ships since I started (except shuttles) the only problem I can see is that 6 turrets are really quite worthless without a bonus.. look at the apoc, it's got 8 with no bonus and its damage still isnt v good... but then if you give the raven a turret bonus you have to take out a missile bonus... ------------- Originally by: Gnauton It was purely accidental. We really don't have a sense of humour at all.
U'puauht	Posted - 2005.05.08 14:15:00 - [58] Originally by: Nomen Nescio But anyway, in "real life" there is absolutely no reason why missle flying in voids of space should have less speed then projectile. Thanks for pointing that out, I had totally forgotten about this aspect. Forget what I wrote. And in regards to that "get a clue" reply: would be nice if you pointed out why an idea is crap instead of just showing that holier-than-you attitude. ______________________________________________________ Deep Space Services : Risk is our business, security our service.
Crusher166	Posted - 2005.05.08 16:17:00 - [59] CCP should just get rid of predictive tracking on the missiles. I think that would solve alot of problems cos it will mean the frigs can orbit faster than the cruise missiles unless webbed/nossed which is all good. Or CCP could give us back dual mwd/ab cruisers again so cruisers could be used as tacklers because they have more HP so they can take more hits and be useful again. Realisticly I know these wont happen so i will agree with Hyey. Crusher - Sybrite Inc.
Serret	Posted - 2005.05.08 22:33:00 - [60] Originally by: Crusher166 CCP should just get rid of predictive tracking on the missiles. I think that would solve alot of problems cos it will mean the frigs can orbit faster than the cruise missiles unless webbed/nossed which is all good. I believe that the issue with this was that, even if the 'perfect prediction' is removed, CCP cannot boost the speed of missiles to be adequate for long-ranged battleship combat without also making them too fast for any frigate to outrun, prediction or not.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: 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.