| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bigben
   |
Posted - 2005.09.06 18:09:00 -
[61]
how can you say they are better???
before the nerf a torp could wipe out anything what stands in its path!!!
manchester united's best ever fan!
|
Vilserx
|
Posted - 2005.09.06 18:14:00 -
[62]
 Originally by: Bigben
how can you say they are better???
before the nerf a torp could wipe out anything what stands in its path!!!
He said aside from the reduction vs. smaller ships.
Mind you that's a pretty big exception.
---------------------------
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.09.06 18:16:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Bigben
how can you say they are better???
before the nerf a torp could wipe out anything what stands in its path!!!
yes before the 'nerf' a single torpedo could rip through three apocalypses, and straight up a jovian motherships tailpipe and destroy it instantly.
man they just ruined missiles, sigh.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Bigben
|
Posted - 2005.09.06 18:24:00 -
[64]
yes they did.
i think they may of done it to make players train up other skills to try and take the place so really just expanding player methods of killing ect...
manchester united's best ever fan!
|
Skyscorcher
|
Posted - 2005.09.06 18:55:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Bigben
before the nerf a torp could wipe out anything what stands in its path!!!
And maybe that's why they nerfed it?
I'm confused. :(
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.09.06 19:32:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Bigben
yes they did.
i think they may of done it to make players train up other skills to try and take the place so really just expanding player methods of killing ect...
there are still issues with missiles but the current system is okay it just needs tweaking
it is very much better than the old system if you ask me
caldari ships need some love bonus-wise and some tweaks here and there and missiles are perfectly fine.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
VeNT
|
Posted - 2005.09.06 19:39:00 -
[67]
you know whats dumb?
I can't FIT a kessie with 4 standard launchers an AB and a shild booster
how STUPID is that
I can fit a punisher with an out and out setup equiv to that, but not a kessie
also ferox, wtf? turrit bonus? ITS A MISSLE BOAT! sure it works well as turrit ship, but why did you GIVE it 5 launcher slots?
|
Vilserx
|
Posted - 2005.09.06 20:51:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Jim Raynor
Originally by: Bigben
yes they did.
i think they may of done it to make players train up other skills to try and take the place so really just expanding player methods of killing ect...
there are still issues with missiles but the current system is okay it just needs tweaking
it is very much better than the old system if you ask me
caldari ships need some love bonus-wise and some tweaks here and there and missiles are perfectly fine.
Not many (reasonable people) disagree that a nerf was needed and the system is currently far improved from the previous one. However, as you said, there are certainly some tweaks needed to the Caldari race as a whole - but imo tweaks are also needed to the missile system itself.
Simple things like 0 velocity = full damage (including structures) etc.
---------------------------
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.09.06 21:35:00 -
[69]
Edited by: j0sephine on 06/09/2005 21:37:10
"I can't FIT a kessie with 4 standard launchers an AB and a shild booster
how STUPID is that"
Ehh..?
You might need some training done in Engineering, Electronics, Energy Grid Upgrades and Weapon Upgrades to fit that setup... but it appears to fit quite nicely with either 2x tech.1 RCU or single Auxiliary Power Core.
Now, squeezing MWD in there is another story, but afterburner is much easier... o.O;;
(mind you i think the small launchers could use a tiny bit of grid requirement reduction, since they go on ship that tend to be very tight grid-wise... but that particular problem you mention doesn't seem to exist)
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.09.06 21:41:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Vilserx
Originally by: Jim Raynor
Originally by: Bigben
yes they did.
i think they may of done it to make players train up other skills to try and take the place so really just expanding player methods of killing ect...
there are still issues with missiles but the current system is okay it just needs tweaking
it is very much better than the old system if you ask me
caldari ships need some love bonus-wise and some tweaks here and there and missiles are perfectly fine.
Not many (reasonable people) disagree that a nerf was needed and the system is currently far improved from the previous one. However, as you said, there are certainly some tweaks needed to the Caldari race as a whole - but imo tweaks are also needed to the missile system itself.
Simple things like 0 velocity = full damage (including structures) etc.
i agree, i mean i was hitting a small control tower the other day with torpedoes and it was stupid.. 150m sig radius on that HUGE tower? how is a caldari dread using citadel torps gonna damage that thing with such a small sig radius? sure you can put 20 target painters on it but why should you have to, to hit a HUGE STATIONARY OBJECT?
------
FERRET DEMOCRACY |
|
|
Vilserx
|
Posted - 2005.09.07 16:21:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Jim Raynor
Originally by: Vilserx
Originally by: Jim Raynor
Originally by: Bigben
yes they did.
i think they may of done it to make players train up other skills to try and take the place so really just expanding player methods of killing ect...
there are still issues with missiles but the current system is okay it just needs tweaking
it is very much better than the old system if you ask me
caldari ships need some love bonus-wise and some tweaks here and there and missiles are perfectly fine.
Not many (reasonable people) disagree that a nerf was needed and the system is currently far improved from the previous one. However, as you said, there are certainly some tweaks needed to the Caldari race as a whole - but imo tweaks are also needed to the missile system itself.
Simple things like 0 velocity = full damage (including structures) etc.
i agree, i mean i was hitting a small control tower the other day with torpedoes and it was stupid.. 150m sig radius on that HUGE tower? how is a caldari dread using citadel torps gonna damage that thing with such a small sig radius? sure you can put 20 target painters on it but why should you have to, to hit a HUGE STATIONARY OBJECT?
Meanwhile guns are getting great hits without target painters
---------------------------
|
Wrayeth
|
Posted - 2005.09.07 16:25:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Wrayeth on 07/09/2005 16:25:51
I wrecked on a (EDIT: moving) frig for 1100 damage with a 1400 not too long ago. *pop*
-Wrayeth
|
Savion Mercarte
|
Posted - 2005.09.07 17:20:00 -
[73]
I agree that a stationary target should take full missle damage.
As far as velocity goes I don't see any difference in damage taken in missles regardless of how fast I'm going. If I'm going 1.5 km/s I take as much as if I'm not moving in my interceptor. If I'm in a mission fighting pure missle users I just stop moving because orbitting them is only hurting my accuracy.
I do notice that I take full damage from missles outside of a certain range, then when I get inside of it the damage is reduced. Not all of this really makes sense.
|
Grey Area
|
Posted - 2005.09.07 17:50:00 -
[74]
Range shouldn't affect missiles.
There is a "threshhold value" for speed before it starts to take effect (and for sig radius actually) which depends on the missile being fired at you. Unless you get above that threshhold, you won't see any reduction in damage.
Activating a MWD increases your sig radius, but at that point the speed boost you get overwhelms the sig radius part of the calculation anyway and you SHOULD see a large reduction in the damage you take.
Electr0freak has shown the damage formula. It's quite complex, but I think it helps to think of it in two parts as follows;
Damage = warhead strength x sig radius factor x speed factor
Sig radius factor is easy, it's the target's sig radius divided by the missile's explosion radius, up to a maximum of one. (expressed in Excel as "=MIN($C10/D6,1)" where C10 is target sig radius, D6 is missile explosion radius (after skills))
This means a small target takes less damage from a big missile, but a big target doesn't take more damage from a smaller missile.
Speed factor is more complex as it's an exponential equation - I'll just paste the Excel form, "=EXP(-1*(MAX($C11-D8,0)^2)/(1500^2))", where C11 is target speed, D8 is missile explosion velocity (again, after skills))
If you calculate these separately you can see what effect speed and sig radius are having on your damage.
Personally I think any stationary target should take full warhead damage, and the overall effect of sig radius is overdone...it results in a base damage for Torps of only 7% of the warhead strength on Interceptors (NOT including the speed part) and Torps are not affected by Guided Missile Precision skill so this cannot be improved. Target painters adding 25% to sig radius only increase the damage to 8.8% of the warhead strength.
I think a doubling this figure would put it about right - Interceptors would still only take about 60 damage when moving at 1000 m/s, which is still pretty poor for a large weapon, but would be a better balance against turrets which can wreck at optimal, but won't hit at all at very close range.
=========================================
* I'm ALLOWED to cheat. I'm a STARSHIP. *
========================================= |
Vilserx
|
Posted - 2005.09.07 19:50:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Grey Area
I think a doubling this figure would put it about right - Interceptors would still only take about 60 damage when moving at 1000 m/s, which is still pretty poor for a large weapon, but would be a better balance against turrets which can wreck at optimal, but won't hit at all at very close range.
I disagree.
I'd be quite happy to exchange zero damage for decent damage at high ranges (ala tracking).
Alternatively, why not 'swap' the importance of velocity and sig radius in the damage formula? That way if a frig is travelling at 1 m/s we won't be getting ridiculously small hits.
---------------------------
|
Trelennen
|
Posted - 2005.09.08 01:09:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Vilserx
Alternatively, why not 'swap' the importance of velocity and sig radius in the damage formula? That way if a frig is travelling at 1 m/s we won't be getting ridiculously small hits.
Would be fair to me, as long as you don't need to go 1,5km/s faster than the explosion velocity to see noticeable damage reduction. Light missiles have base 1000 explosion velocity (without skills or ship bonuses), which means you need to fly at over 2,5km/s to see a noticeable damage reduction with velocity, which is plainly wrong.
And don't forget that changes are applied to NPC too, and at the moment, missiles are the real threat for a frig against NPC... That's why the hardest level 2 mission in frig (at least T1 except punisher or other great tank) is silent the informant, just because of the 4 missiles NPC which fire at you at 40km at the same time. But nearly all turrets NPC will do you no harm when you orbit them at 10km with 700m/s of transversal velocity. Sig radius should have a lesser impact on damage taken, but velocity a much bigger one, with noticeable reduction at 500m/s and 1km/s against light missiles.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.09.08 01:47:00 -
[77]
"Sig radius should have a lesser impact on damage taken, but velocity a much bigger one, with noticeable reduction at 500m/s and 1km/s against light missiles."
... which would make pretty much any frigate capable of using MWD nearly immune to ships firing light missiles (because while the signature increase from mwd wouldn't influence the already small explosion radius of light missile, the damage reduction from speed would)
If the light missiles aren't supposed to be weapon of choice against small crafts as far as missiles go, then what should..? >>;;
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |