|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
0
   |
Posted - 2013.05.01 21:38:00 -
[1] - Quote
I guess I sort of have an issue with the way we've been the missile 'problem.' We've tried looking at it from a formula viewpoint but I'd like to take a step back from that a bit. What should we expect from missiles in general?
Here is what I consider to be a reasonable expectation for missiles as a starting point:
* Rockets and light missiles should do full damage to stationary frigate sized targets
* Heavy missiles and HAMs should do full damage to stationary cruiser sized targets
* Torpedoes and cruise missiles should do full damage to stationary battleship sized targets
* Citadel torpedos and cruise missiles should do full damage to stationary capital sized targets and modest damage to BS sized targets
* This should apply to all T2 variants as well
My suggestions:
* Standardize explosion radius and explosion velocity for each tier of missiles (for example rockets and light missiles have the same precision stats). Let them differ on range, rof, and damage. The longer range variant should always do less DPS.
* Reduce the explosion radii of light missiles, torpedoes, and citadels. The explosion radii of citadel weapons almost need to be halved.
* Increase the explosion velocity of most missiles a small amount or slightly soften the damage falloff curve for moving targets. Again citadel weapons will likely need a large increase in this stat.
* Introduce scriptable modules that modify a missiles explosion radius and explosion velocity while also introducing a counterbalancing ewar module (AFAIK there are no modules that reduce signature radius - this could be a good time to introduce one).
* These changes could put some missiles in a over-powered state - raw damage could be adjusted to compensate.
I realize a few of my ideas (like modules that give bonuses) have already been mentioned quite a bit, but I wanted to put forth my ideas nonetheless. |
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 23:13:00 -
[2] - Quote
Gimme more Cynos wrote:Trolly McForumalt wrote:
Here is what I consider to be a reasonable expectation for missiles as a starting point:
* Rockets and light missiles should do full damage to stationary frigate sized targets
* Heavy missiles and HAMs should do full damage to stationary cruiser sized targets
* Torpedoes and cruise missiles should do full damage to stationary battleship sized targets
* Citadel torpedos and cruise missiles should do full damage to stationary capital sized targets and modest damage to BS sized targets
* This should apply to all T2 variants as well
So everyone (no matter which size he's in) should be able to mitigate a lot of dmg from missiles just because he double-clicked in space, and everyone beeing shot with bigger missiles should take literaly no dmg at all? This would happen if you change it that way while keeping the current formula.. The tough question in here is: how much damage should a missile do?
Uh... I never said anything like that... at all. I *was* saying that cruiser sized missile systems, including T2 variants like Rage, should do full damage to stationary cruiser-sized targets. Currently, they do not. The current signature radius part of the damage equation is probably fine. The velocity portion of the equation needs to be less harsh. I have no idea where you got what you wrote. |
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 00:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:
EDIT: @Trolly
Since when do you shoot at a stationary target with missiles or turrets? I bet you that is an extremely rare occurrence. Therefore, that shouldn't be used as the baseline for damage-applied. Turrets are not affected by a moving target as long as it is able to be tracked and within their optimal range. This puts turrets at an unfair advantage in actual Eve scenarios compared to missiles in a mechanic sense. CCP has continually suggested just increasing base-damage to compensate. Doing that 'works' in terms of on-paper. However, it doesn't do anything for the other glaring issues with missiles: absurdly delayed-alpha as distance increases within effective range, for example.
Well some baseline has to be used and if there is a scenario where full damage is applied, it would be stationary. I'm not saying the damage falloff for unmodified velocity (ie no prop mods) should be as steep as it is.
Also, the turret 'chance to hit' equation seems way more complicated than what you presented (though I understand the need to gloss over stuff when making a point). Turret shots won't do full damage on every shot even when in range and tracked (though some will do triple damage). |
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 14:01:00 -
[4] - Quote
Roime wrote:That's always possible, would be cool. Without ship bonuses, V skills.
450mm II / AM / 29+24 / 40dps
Cruise Missile Launcher II / Mjolnir Cruise / 65.8 45dps
Tachyon II / Multif. / 26+20 / 46dps
450mm II / Spike / 130+3 / 27dps
Tachyon II / Aurora / 119+25 / 30dps
Cruise Missile Launcher II / Mjolnir Fury / 105.8 / 63dps
Uh, why don't you compare Fury with Javelin and Gleam instead there chief? You wouldn't want people to think you were picking stats to support your predetermined conclusion would you? ;)
OR.... you could just not be bad and use faction ammo as a comparison, ya know, since missiles have exactly ZERO analogues with T2 turret ammo.
Fact: Cruise missiles/launchers were WAY underpowered and needed a considerable buff. |
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 14:38:00 -
[5] - Quote
Samas Sarum wrote:Trolly McForumalt wrote:Roime wrote:That's always possible, would be cool. Without ship bonuses, V skills.
450mm II / AM / 29+24 / 40dps
Cruise Missile Launcher II / Mjolnir Cruise / 65.8 45dps
Tachyon II / Multif. / 26+20 / 46dps
450mm II / Spike / 130+3 / 27dps
Tachyon II / Aurora / 119+25 / 30dps
Cruise Missile Launcher II / Mjolnir Fury / 105.8 / 63dps
Uh, why don't you compare Fury with Javelin and Gleam instead there chief? You wouldn't want people to think you were picking stats to support your predetermined conclusion would you? ;) OR.... you could just not be bad and use faction ammo as a comparison, ya know, since missiles have exactly ZERO analogues with T2 turret ammo. Fact: Cruise missiles/launchers were WAY underpowered and needed a considerable buff. I don't think he was cherry picking, he was picking the long-range ammo equivalent. It wouldn't make sense to compare a 105.8km Fury with a 17+25km Gleam. That would be cherry picking on YOUR part.
BZZT
He is comparing dps values so the relevant stat here is damage. Fury is the high dps missile whereas the the other two are low dps ammos - remember I *said* missiles and turrets don't have T2 equivalents.
ALSO - fury has a lower flight time with the same velocity (hence smaller range) than T1 so I KNOW his numbers are wrong. |
|
|
| |
|