EVE Search - Sticky:[Odyssey] Cruise Missiles

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Odyssey] Cruise Missiles

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 .. 25 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
Gypsio III Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 693	Posted - 2013.04.30 18:04:00 - [541] - Quote Hagika wrote: Bucca Zerodyme wrote: Edit: Try to think of some situations, where you guns are out tracked and missiles still do Full DMG. I dont think there are many of them. There actually isnt any. Wrong again Hagika. Try thinking about your own ship's movement.
Morrigan LeSante The Lost and Forgotten Troopers 261	Posted - 2013.04.30 18:30:00 - [542] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: Hagika wrote: Bucca Zerodyme wrote: Edit: Try to think of some situations, where you guns are out tracked and missiles still do Full DMG. I dont think there are many of them. There actually isnt any. Wrong again Hagika. Try thinking about your own ship's movement. But...they dont move in EFT
Bucca Zerodyme Good For Nothing Corporation Union of Independence 20	Posted - 2013.04.30 18:34:00 - [543] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: Unfortunately there are far too many people who truly believe that they should be doing 100% of their EFT DPS to their targets in pretty much all situations. I don't understand whether it's an absurd form of entitlement syndrome, or whether they just can't understand how to use the correct combination of weapons and modules in the appropriate circumstances. I mean, look at Bucca's post on the previous page. It's just a series of statements about whether or not full damage is applied in a series of artificial situations. There's no mention of the actual % damage or the actual damage numbers, no discussion of the realism of the situations, no discussion of the synergy with the launch platform and combat environments and no comparisons to other ships in the class. It's just so lazy, so stupid. If you really want some numbers i can give you some later.
Dr Ted Kaper Patriot Security Services 16	Posted - 2013.04.30 19:10:00 - [544] - Quote Mirel Dystoph wrote: When do you rebalance the ****** up missile skilltree? ^this^
Enya Sparhawk State Protectorate Caldari State 7	Posted - 2013.04.30 21:26:00 - [545] - Quote Kenshi Hanshin wrote: But you like the idea of ships accelerating right? Missiles are essentially no different in terms of physics. If CCP made use of that fact it could/would help a lot in the balancing of weapon systems. That said, if I really want to be an ******* and technically so, bullets also are affected by acceleration. However, that would make things far more complicated than necassary. Exactly, why make something more complicated (for the player or the system) when it doesn't need to be in the first place... I disagree because factoring an acceleration/deceleration will only slam a wedge between already different weapon systems further separating the divide... When the goal here is trying to make them all fair and feasible in game... I realize you are trying to find a solution to the amount of time it takes to apply damage but unfortunately that is the trade off for hitting 100% of the time with a weapon... I like the idea of ships accelerating because I can fly them... lol F+¡orghr+í: Gr+í na f+¡rinne D+¬an g+íire...Tiocfaidh +ír l+í
Enya Sparhawk State Protectorate Caldari State 7	Posted - 2013.04.30 21:41:00 - [546] - Quote MrDiao wrote: What I'm actually asking is: why should the missile damage reduction curve be smoother? It changes all missiles. Why should ccp changes all missiles just because the cruise and/or torpedo has problem? Therein lies the dilemma... What solution creates a fair system to all class of missles over all ranges of ship sizes? The answer can't be something shoehorned into a solution. F+¡orghr+í: Gr+í na f+¡rinne D+¬an g+íire...Tiocfaidh +ír l+í
elitatwo Congregatio 81	Posted - 2013.04.30 22:25:00 - [547] - Quote And the answer is... drums Comment all missile tracking code from the missiles that came 6 years ago out and missiles are fixed. You're welcome!
Josilin du Guesclin University of Caille Gallente Federation 23	Posted - 2013.05.01 00:42:00 - [548] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: I said when jammed out. How are you shooting an unlocked target...I don't recall FoF rounds for anything but missiles. They might suck compared to regular rounds but they're a VERY rude shock for an ECM tanked falcon/rook. Except that the Falcon/whatever is going to be 30-50km out, and his friends are almost certainly much closer. Who do you think the FoF missiles go for?
MrDiao SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 19	Posted - 2013.05.01 00:43:00 - [549] - Quote Bucca Zerodyme wrote: You cant prove, that my solution is better then the current mechanics and vice verse. I already provided a possible solution and showed some results, now you should pick whatever you feel is the best solution. ................... If you are worried about the other missiles then i can tell you thats not the issue, you can always adjust some values. I understand what you saying as: "I'm not sure if this change can lead to a good consequence, nor I can prove that." "This change will affect all the other missiles, but ccp should spend time to re-balance them (again) to adjust them to suit my formula" So you are just asking for a change that has global consequence without justifying its usefulness? It recalls me something similar before Bucca Zerodyme wrote: Plz dont sell me this, i know missiles sucks, dont try to sell something bad as good. Dont post rare cases where missiles work. Whats your usually encounter with a drake or caracal fleet? ECM is **, if you still using it, then you do something wrong. If just one ship is messing with your tactics, then just kill the Scorpion or jam it. What do you mean with preparation? What do you fit for you missiles boats and which ships do you want to fight? Caracal fleet and drake fleet are fine and very popular now, so do the talwar fleet, corax fleet and even hawk fleet. Light missile and rocket are powerful in either solo and gang pvp, Plz dont sell us things like "all missile sucks", because it's simply not real. Kenshi Hanshin wrote: MrDiao wrote: Kenshi Hanshin wrote:** All missiles have a problem. Not just the cruise, torps etc. I'm totally agree that rocket, light missile, heavy missile and heavy assault missile are absolutely fine at the moment. If you think the missiles need an overall change, then it should be in a separate topic. You need to improve your reading and comprehension skills... I said, "All missiles have problems". Thus the sentence that you agree and then state certain missiles are fine, doesn't work. This is a missile thread and I am perfectly founded to post critics of CMLs and every other missile here. Since i know the devs actually might read the criticisms. ........... You need to improve your sense of humor actually And this is a cruise missile thread. not a missile thread, not not a weapon re-balancing thread, not not not a "how to make eve better" thread.
Josilin du Guesclin University of Caille Gallente Federation 23	Posted - 2013.05.01 00:52:00 - [550] - Quote Enya Sparhawk wrote: I disagree because factoring an acceleration/deceleration will only slam a wedge between already different weapon systems further separating the divide... When the goal here is trying to make them all fair and feasible in game... I realize you are trying to find a solution to the amount of time it takes to apply damage but unfortunately that is the trade off for hitting 100% of the time with a weapon... And here was me thinking that the tradeoff was that while missiles always hit they seldom hit for full damage, and are more sensitive to target size than guns are. In particular this means that missiles' alpha is rather lower than EFT/EVE in-game numbers suggest.
Hagika LEGI0N 54	Posted - 2013.05.01 02:16:00 - [551] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: Hagika wrote: Bucca Zerodyme wrote: Edit: Try to think of some situations, where you guns are out tracked and missiles still do Full DMG. I dont think there are many of them. There actually isnt any. Wrong again Hagika. Try thinking about your own ship's movement. If im orbiting at any decent speed, yes my battleship guns can be affected, but if im moving fast enough, when it comes to torps and cruise, they will be doing reduced damage as well. Now if you are tagging me with a painter and web then i wont exactly be moving much and my sig will be mice and hi. For smaller missile system then yes its possible.
Kenshi Hanshin Karl XII's Dragoner Apocalypse Now. 59	Posted - 2013.05.01 05:16:00 - [552] - Quote Enya Sparhawk wrote: Kenshi Hanshin wrote: But you like the idea of ships accelerating right? Missiles are essentially no different in terms of physics. If CCP made use of that fact it could/would help a lot in the balancing of weapon systems. That said, if I really want to be an ******* and technically so, bullets also are affected by acceleration. However, that would make things far more complicated than necassary. Exactly, why make something more complicated (for the player or the system) when it doesn't need to be in the first place... I disagree because factoring an acceleration/deceleration will only slam a wedge between already different weapon systems further separating the divide... When the goal here is trying to make them all fair and feasible in game... I realize you are trying to find a solution to the amount of time it takes to apply damage but unfortunately that is the trade off for hitting 100% of the time with a weapon... I like the idea of ships accelerating because I can fly them... lol Unless I was mistaken you have been advocating that missiles be different throughout the thread. So on that ground, changing the missile mechanics for range and flight would be fine. And what you are missing is that the present missles are not fair and feasible in game. Unless you are PL or Goons or Test that use a swarm of hundreds. Ever heard the concept of "Quantity has a Quality all its' own" -Stalin. In terms of Eve if you put enough people in a sub-par ship with sub-par weapons, it will work anyway just due to numbers. As long as the numbers has reached or broken past that critical point. Missiles don't hit 100% of the time. Inty's and some Faction Frigs can out-run missiles. Sufficient speed and small enough sig radius compared to explosion velocity and explosion radius nullify damage. In short, doesn't matter if you "hit 100%" if there is zero to paint-scratching damage. Missiles need mechanics changed. There is no reason that missiles can't be changed. Hell, I would even take reducing damage if the application was better. Keep in mind that I protested the HML damage nerf. As it would affect my effectiveness severely at the skill-level at that point in time. I wouldn't care if missiles dealt damage in a pinpoint fashion that mimicked turrets. I want missile systems to be as effective at damage application as turrets. Only when missiles can apply damage as efficiently as turrets will they be on even-ground. Till then they are not! The mechanic change that I proposed wouldn't make it more complicated for the player. Definitely not for the sysem! I bet that having a freaking ball of drone-death puts far more strain on the servers. With the smart-tip tool as of last patch, all the player needs to see is range, damage, DPS, damage-type and number of rounds in magazine. To be honest, I bet you that it would less complicated for a newer player. Acceleration is an easy comcept. If they can't, that is their problem and probably wouldn't have lasted in Eve anyway. Footnote: I would argue that doing mental math for optimal, falloff and tracking is a hell lot more tiring. Then having to do that for every single type of ammo you load. Even if it is easier like for lasers and hybrids (where damage-type stays constant).
Morrigan LeSante The Lost and Forgotten Troopers 262	Posted - 2013.05.01 06:41:00 - [553] - Quote Josilin du Guesclin wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: I said when jammed out. How are you shooting an unlocked target...I don't recall FoF rounds for anything but missiles. They might suck compared to regular rounds but they're a VERY rude shock for an ECM tanked falcon/rook. Except that the Falcon/whatever is going to be 30-50km out, and his friends are almost certainly much closer. Who do you think the FoF missiles go for? God forbid you fly your ship. That'd be heresy The point remains missiles are different and their existing feature set is at odds with them matching turrets in the way you want them to whilst remaining balanced. I may be wrong, perhaps CCP can magic something up without a fundamental change - but I seriously doubt it. I've already attempted to explain why this is, but I dont think you get it. Quote: but if im moving fast enough, when it comes to torps and cruise, they will be doing reduced damage as well Since I must assume you are talking about your velocity and your missiles.....this actually couldnt be more wrong. Or do you not understand the point you quoted? I'm actually not sure which is better......
Hagika LEGI0N 56	Posted - 2013.05.01 06:52:00 - [554] - Quote The irony in todays technology compared to Eve is that a railgun will fire a projectile at 7x the speed of sound, yet the fastest missile can go 23x the speed of sound. Grant it the missile takes a little time to build up to that speed, the fact of the matter is, in game, the missile should be faster, but since the build up of speed is in order, I think it would be fair that a missile at max range should take only a couple seconds longer to hit than a round from a gun. While technically Amarr weapons are the only ones that should hit almost instantly. Though i would be willing to make the exception that missiles at long range should be about the 2 second mark and at close range, instant.
terzho StarFleet Enterprises Red Alliance 270	Posted - 2013.05.01 07:09:00 - [555] - Quote Remove travel time for missiles and make damage instant. **** logic problem solved.
Hagika LEGI0N 56	Posted - 2013.05.01 07:32:00 - [556] - Quote terzho wrote: Remove travel time for missiles and make damage instant. **** logic problem solved. I would be all for it but, you will never hear the end of it from turret users.
Gypsio III Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 694	Posted - 2013.05.01 07:55:00 - [557] - Quote Instant-hitting missiles are called turrets. We already have them. You don't have to like it, but you do have to accept it.
Hagika LEGI0N 60	Posted - 2013.05.01 14:58:00 - [558] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: Instant-hitting missiles are called turrets. We already have them. You don't have to like it, but you do have to accept it. I have no problem if they arent instant hitting, but I doubt CCP will find the balance for them. Where they actually work well. We can not snipe with them, and people claim, how the range on cruise are too far, yet even at 14 seconds with max skill, they are not a sniping weapon. At this point, it would be better to make them like artillery, give them serious hitting power and shorten the range alot. Give them a base of like 120km. Drop the travel time and increase flight speed so they hit within like 2-3 seconds of firing.
Gypsio III Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 694	Posted - 2013.05.01 16:05:00 - [559] - Quote Missile flight time is simply not a problem solo or in small gang. It's only a problem in a mixed fleet with turret boats; but not only does Caldari have a top-notch fleet BS and ABC, but as Drake/Tengu spam showed, missile spam works in a pure missile fleet also. You're not going to get 40 km/s missiles, be realistic. If you find yourself needing instant damage, use a turret boat - that's what they're there for.
Hagika LEGI0N 61	Posted - 2013.05.01 16:24:00 - [560] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: Missile flight time is simply not a problem solo or in small gang. It's only a problem in a mixed fleet with turret boats; but not only does Caldari have a top-notch fleet BS and ABC, but as Drake/Tengu spam showed, missile spam works in a pure missile fleet also. You're not going to get 40 km/s missiles, be realistic. If you find yourself needing instant damage, use a turret boat - that's what they're there for. Small gang is close up, and turrets will still preform better than missiles. Top notch fleet BS? Tier 3 battle cruisers are beating it. As for Drake and Tengu spam, yes it worked because Goon threw hundreds of people in a noob friendly ship and the ship had a large enough tank get reps in time. To which people complained how it was too over powered because they were too lazy to do the counter. So the missile sstem was nerfed to hell when it has not been touched in years. Thats the problem, someone finds a way to make a poor weapon system usable and then turret users complain. They also make up the huge majority of the game because missiles in general suck. I dont see a problem with having a fast missile system considering our modern day missiles can fly 8km/s and are actually faster than all turret weapons aside from lasers. So it seems futuristic technology applies to all but the missile system.
Gypsio III Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 694	Posted - 2013.05.01 19:05:00 - [561] - Quote Hagika wrote: Gypsio III wrote: Missile flight time is simply not a problem solo or in small gang. It's only a problem in a mixed fleet with turret boats; but not only does Caldari have a top-notch fleet BS and ABC, but as Drake/Tengu spam showed, missile spam works in a pure missile fleet also. You're not going to get 40 km/s missiles, be realistic. If you find yourself needing instant damage, use a turret boat - that's what they're there for. Small gang is close up. You need to do more small gang.
Trolly McForumalt Republic University Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2013.05.01 21:38:00 - [562] - 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.
Kenshi Hanshin Karl XII's Dragoner Apocalypse Now. 62	Posted - 2013.05.01 22:38:00 - [563] - Quote Technically you all know that is correct! Projectiles wouldn't be instant. Hybrids would also not be instant. The only one that would truly be anything close to instant over 200-km would be lasers. Though just to be a bit of a jerk: lasers would actually take 667.13 microseconds to hit. Hybrids firing at ~1/4 the speed of light would take 2.67 milliseconds. Projectiles would be significantly longer than hybrids due to limitations in the speeds attainable via the technology cited. Now, I think that you gents and ladies don't want to push the "realistic" concept now. Cause, if you do, CCP please input the travel times for the respective weapons in via a physics engine. I will know if you cheat on the projectiles, hybrids or lasers. Since I can figure out and run capture on shots at 200 km and double-check. Also, due to the energy-density limitations on projectile-tech cited in lore, the damage for all projectile turrets also needs to be severely reduced (kinetic-damage value predominately). Also, while I am on a roll of realism critics: lasers need to do primary and secondary damage due to sublimation of target material. Meaning that initially the laser would deal the EM and Thermal damage. However, material would be flash-converted (sublimation) to plasma and do secondary explosive and kinetic damage. Hybrids would also do some secondary explosive damage after impact due to expansion of melted/vaporized material. Projectiles would actually be more limited to a little kinetic and mostly secondary effects of the warhead: shock-waves from explosive charges, thermal heat from incendiary etc. Get cracking CCP, you got a lot of work cut out for you! Since I am reasonably certain now that you will show some sense and drop that stupidly pathetic "realistic" argument for instant-hitting turrets. Assuming that you are capable of realizing that, I will move on. If not, then I would suggest you all need to repeat all the physics and chemistry classes you ever took... Hopefully, you gents and ladies have more sense than to need that. Back to missiles: I agree in principle with Hagika that missiles need to have a fixed and constant damage-delay : 3-4 seconds max. It needs to be more than one second so as to be a noticeable difference from turrets. As has been mentioned before acceleration would be one way to do that. The other thing that should be changed with missiles is the damage application. Since at present it is rather pathetic against any moving target. I can think of two possible solutions to the damage application: 1) Use the concept presently used in many modern RL missiles: uni-directional detonation. Most modern missiles when detonating send all the damage-causing fragments forward in a cone-like dispersion. This could be used in concept by Eve Online. The explosion radius could be changed to a distance value. The Explosion Range value would communicate the distance within the dispersion-cone that damage could be applied. The other part of the equation would be the explosion velocity values. The two values would work together to calculate the damage-applied value. In game this would still result in a fast moving frigate to take less damage than a cruiser. Which is how it presently is and would be logical. Larger ships which are slower would be hit harder. Such a change to missile mechanics wouldn't need any change in the graphics. In Retribution the missiles were made to actually track the target ship as would be expected. To counter missiles I think there are several ways we can go about it. One would be an ECM type module that interferes with missile tracking while in-flight. Another way would be a mid or top slot mounted energy-based anti-missile system akin to a smartbomb but not omnidirectional. Third, there could be a specialized disruption script for missiles for the TD or SB (whichever makes more sense). An extension of this proposal could mean the elimination of the confusing and inaccurate "guided" and "unguided" nomenclature. Instead the terms "long-range" and "short-range" could be applied. This would clarify to the pilot (new and old) the missile's intended philosophy-of-use (POU) and range. In addition, it would be similar to that of turrets and aid learning via familiarity.
Enya Sparhawk State Protectorate Caldari State 7	Posted - 2013.05.01 22:54:00 - [564] - Quote Kenshi Hanshin wrote: Unless I was mistaken you have been advocating that missiles be different throughout the thread. So on that ground, changing the missile mechanics for range and flight would be fine. I want missile systems to be as effective at damage application as turrets. Only when missiles can apply damage as efficiently as turrets will they be on even-ground. Till then they are not! I'm with you on the effective/efficient point here, 100%... To be honest, I wasn't really advocating anything other than that one fact... sorry if it sounded that way... I'm pretty sure I mentioned this isn't a programming solution but a mathematical one (in relation to the damage calculation formula which is unbalanced to the full spectrum)... a few times I might have even gotten off of topic with other possible suggestions to the system. (though I always mention that it would be something I would do after the actually damage calculation formula was redressed)... a further redefining of their roles in combat... If I disagree with you, I'm not calling you wrong... I'm just expressing an opinion... We have the same endgoals afterall... - Ens F+¡orghr+í: Gr+í na f+¡rinne D+¬an g+íire...Tiocfaidh +ír l+í
Kenshi Hanshin Karl XII's Dragoner Apocalypse Now. 62	Posted - 2013.05.01 23:02:00 - [565] - Quote Enya Sparhawk wrote: I'm with you on the effective/efficient point here, 100%... To be honest, I wasn't really advocating anything other than that one fact... sorry if it sounded that way... I'm pretty sure I mentioned this isn't a programming solution but a mathematical one (in relation to the damage calculation formula which is unbalanced to the full spectrum)... a few times I might have even gotten off of topic with other possible suggestions to the system. (though I always mention that it would be something I would do after the actually damage calculation formula was redressed)... a further redefining of their roles in combat... If I disagree with you, I'm not calling you wrong... I'm just expressing an opinion... We have the same endgoals afterall... - Ens No worries! I am glad that you clarified. I apologize that I didn't seem to have communicated necessarily well myself. Lol! Funny how hard it is to convey complicated concepts via text.. i would want to hear your opinion as you have been objective in what you have said in this discussion. I agree with you on that damage calculation formula needs to be redressed. The issue that I am having is not knowing what the formula exactly is. If I don't know what it is, it is hard for me to correct it, mathematically. What I have been trying is to think of reasonable ways to address the issue. Yet, it may require a rewriting of the damage-calculation formula. The question that I think I would like to figure out is if the end result would be better. I take you sadly don't have that damage-calculation formula for missiles would you? That said, what do you think of the idea I mentioned above?
Gimme more Cynos Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 10	Posted - 2013.05.01 23:04:00 - [566] - Quote 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?
Trolly McForumalt Republic University Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2013.05.01 23:13:00 - [567] - 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.
Kenshi Hanshin Karl XII's Dragoner Apocalypse Now. 62	Posted - 2013.05.01 23:18:00 - [568] - 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? You are assuming that the present damage-calculation formula is balanced. Which has been proposed to be a false assumption. Target velocity should have a mitigating effect on missile damage applied. That is not unreasonable. The question is the factors used to determine that. Under the present formula, the explosion radius and explosion velocity values play that role. Sig radius is compared to explosion radius. Target velocity is compared to explosion velocity. The highest explosion velocity (unskilled/unbonused) is that of light missiles at 170 m/s. Since we all know that frigs can orbit at extremely high speeds comparatively (~1 km/s). The result is a very large reduction from that one ratio to damage-applied. Light missiles also have the smallest explosion radius (\|\|) at 50 m. Compare this to the 'average' frig sig radius of around 40 m. This results in a further nerf to applied damage for light missiles of four-fifths. End result is a very large nerf to the applied damage. To offset that, CCP has had to increase the base damages of missiles to make it remotely worthwhile. There are already at least two proposals in this topic that detail a better way to calculate damage-applied by missiles. Both proposals would require a change in missile mechanics from present. I would rather have the mechanics changed and the code re-written than try and 'balance' the present and deeply flawed system that makes parity borderline impossible.
Trolly McForumalt Republic University Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2013.05.02 00:16:00 - [569] - 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).
Kenshi Hanshin Karl XII's Dragoner Apocalypse Now. 62	Posted - 2013.05.02 00:49:00 - [570] - Quote Trolly McForumalt wrote: 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). Agreed! I will admit that I simplified the turret damage equation for the sake of not going into a lot assumption statements. As I figured that you wouldn't appreciate the list of 'assumptions' and the accompanying math. The issue I have with the present system is as I said: the equation and application. My personal opinion is that the issue would be too difficult to fix via the present equation. As certain values are just absurdly low (explosion velocity). Others are just technically wrong on physics principles of bodies in motion (explosion radius). I understand that as a Developer you want to simplify things for ease of implementation. However, there is a limit that you can do that without breaking how the object works. In a game live Eve Online that for the most part makes use of physics, it wouldn't be unreasonable to apply it to say missiles. I went into some depth of applying that in that long post above. As long as the present system uses a fixed and instantaneous maximum flight velocity, the results will be gimped. Especially so if that flight velocity has no bearing on damage applied. Maybe there is an easier way than I suggested to implement the characteristics I explained. Yet my opinion and position is that the present mechanics for missiles will prevent being able to truly balance them to turrets. As it will be too easy to either nerf them to be sub-par (present) or buff them to OP comparatively. The goal is parity between the effectiveness and efficiency of the weapon systems. Turrets right now are well balanced except for some issues with powergrid, cap-use and cpu for beam lasers. Drones need their controls and ease-of-use be improved, at least. Drones are good at damage-application at present. Missiles have problems with damage-application and mechanics. Missile-damage suffers from severe and unreasonable damage reduction (need 2 TP and 2 Webs to be able to deal full-damage even to a 'stationary' target). Missile range factors result in the absurdly long flight-times as distance increases within effective range. Then there is the delayed-alpha: flight time and launcher ROF. Delayed-alpha issue is directly responsible for the lousy dps of missiles (compared to turrets/drones) and thus the relegation to fail in pvp. All these issues that I summarize here are due to the existing formula and mechanics for missiles.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 .. 25 :: 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.