EVE Search - Hammerhead: Facts on missiles like you wanted

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Hammerhead: Facts on missiles like you wanted

» 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 .. 12 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
marioman	Posted - 2005.10.12 18:21:00 - [1] While overall I am happy with the missile changes, there is one instance I have come across that seems to need some work and thats Interceptors/Fast Frigs vs other Interceptors/Fast Frigs using light missiles. Here's the Senario: My Crow, with Arb std launcher (when t2 skills till applied to t1 variants) had a RoF of 7.15s with Light missile damage max of 135hp including a Domination Ballistic Control System, all missile support skills at lvl 4 Other ship is a Dare Devil frigate which was faster than my crow by about 500m/s. Now While orbiting me w/o MWD on I did fair amount of dmg ~100 or so, then he kicked on the MWD and that was all she wrote, 0.5 and 0.6 damage all the way. Taking that with RoF we come up with a DPS of 0.25...yes you read right 0.25 DPS not counting flight time. Tbh it seems the new missiles are gear much more towards NPCs considering if you look at light missiles with skill lvl 4 it only has an explosion Velocity of 1400m/s. Now as far as I'm concerned every frigate I fly goes 2000m/s or faster and I'm sure with PvP most players out there who fly frigates go pretty damn fast too. Also another problem seems that Speed is taken into account after signiture b/c he had a 1400m +/- sig radius on that ship (using Gistii MWD with 661% sig penalty) so it seems like the way things are calculated that it would have taken my full damage since his sig is WAY over 40m then the speed he was going just reduced it down to almost nothing, maybe it should work the other way around speed is taken off then whatever little damage is left over the sig penalty gets added to that so you might get a bit more damage, cant say for sure as i dont know the exact formulas. Anyway, you wanted hard evidence, here it is, Crow sux dmg wise against anything smaller than a destroyer. (But yes! it is good vs NPC's lol)
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2005.10.12 18:26:00 - [2] How do rockets + web do? Light and Heavy missiles are crap, I will attest to that. ------ If Captain James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock embracing one another, in a bath tube, nude, in space, is wrong, I don't want to be right.
marioman	Posted - 2005.10.12 18:29:00 - [3] Edited by: marioman on 12/10/2005 18:29:20 Well in our mock up battle they would work, but in reality it wouldnt b/c he was faster than me staying outside of web range also w/o web rockets time out b/c they cant get anywhere near him. EDIT: man i cant type today lol
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.10.12 18:30:00 - [4] "How do rockets + web do?" They're okay'ish. Sort of like 125mm rails antimatter damage and range wise, but no tracking problems, no cap use and way way easier to fit. Probably even too good all things considered, tbh. Lights are good when shooting anything small but interceptors, given their range (though some boost to explosion velocity would be nice)
marioman	Posted - 2005.10.12 18:40:00 - [5] Originally by: j0sephine Lights are good when shooting anything small but interceptors, given their range (though some boost to explosion velocity would be nice) I believe thats all the whole problem comes down to, small boost in explosion velocity (say maybe 3000-4000m/s and give rockets explo velocity of 5000-6000m/s or something like that) Now I haven't got a chance to test out heavy missiles against a fast cruiser, might do that tonight and get my corpmate in a stabber or something and see what goes down against my caracal. I'll try to post a followup on that tomorrow or early tomorrow morning.
Malthros Zenobia	Posted - 2005.10.12 18:47:00 - [6] what I don't get is why they don't factor in the force of impact and things like that. For example, if you're flying 3000m/s and get hit head-on by a heavy missile, you can outrun the blast speed, sure, but the fact remains that you're going face-first into alot of inertial force. It'd be like sprinting into a large wave at the beach. Sure the faster you mov,e the easier to get through it, but you have a base impact that is harder hitting than at a slow speed. Ofcourse if the missile hits you in the ass while you're flying away, my above point is dead in the water. Ofcourse my idea also means that a cruiser flying face-first into a torp would probably end up in hull, assuming they don't already.
Zaintiraris	Posted - 2005.10.12 18:52:00 - [7] I think its more appropriate to look for easy solutions. Proposing to the powers that be that we make the missiles be affected by angle of attack is bad stuff, because lately all they've been trying to do is optimize code, not complicate it. Having something like that would be a few more calculations than they seem inclined to add to their formulae. --- Originally by: CCP Hammer This game was so much better back before people knew math.
keepiru	Posted - 2005.10.12 18:58:00 - [8] Since we're on about facts: here's 1 of the reasons why heavy missiles suck: The damage/signature ratio is all screwed up. Allow me to elaborate: Light missiles do 75hp on 50m explosion base. Thats 1.5hp/m. As valid weapons against frigates (which they are and arent) they are much better than cruise missiles which do: 300hp for 300m, giving you a 1hp/m base ratio. Now youd expect heavy missiles, being cruiser weapons, to be somewhere in the middle, right? Wrong. 150hp for 150m :/ Given the same skills, a cruise and a heavy missile will do the same damage to a target of frigate or destroyer size. Any performance difference is merely a function of launcher rof. Since the problem with light missiles performance vs. mwd frigates is related to explosion speed, I shall consider in my proposition that explosion radius will remain as it is now. Given that any dps inbalance (such as the arguably low dps of most launchers apart from torpedoes) can be rectified by modifying the rate of fire, a solution is now apparent, provided we accept that light/cruise missile hp/m values are valid. Simply increasing the base damage of heavy missiles until its hp/m ratio falls somewhere in the middle of light and cruise missiles. The ideal value for this is 187.5hp - giving 1.25hp/m base and 2.083hp/m with max skills - but anywhere between 180 and 200 would do the job. Decreasing the base explosion radius to 140m and increasing ase damage to 175hp is another option, and gives nice round numbers on the info page. :) Here's a nifty table that shows you how right i am ;p all values in hp/m Base Max Skills Rocket 1.25 1.5265 Light 1.5 2.5 Proposed 1.25 2.083 Heavy 1.0 1.6* Cruise 1.0 1.6* Torpedo 1.125 1.40625 Discuss :p ------------- WTB: a Faction Micro Smartbomb :P
Hllaxiu	Posted - 2005.10.12 19:03:00 - [9] Originally by: Malthros Zenobia what I don't get is why they don't factor in the force of impact and things like that. Well, I'd imagine that a large antimatter round travelling at relativistic speeds would deal more "damage" in this sense than a missile going a comparatively puny 6km/sec.
xenorx	Posted - 2005.10.12 20:00:00 - [10] Originally by: keepiru Since we're on about facts: here's 1 of the reasons why heavy missiles suck: The damage/signature ratio is all screwed up. Allow me to elaborate: Light missiles do 75hp on 50m explosion base. Thats 1.5hp/m. As valid weapons against frigates (which they are and arent) they are much better than cruise missiles which do: 300hp for 300m, giving you a 1hp/m base ratio. Now youd expect heavy missiles, being cruiser weapons, to be somewhere in the middle, right? Wrong. 150hp for 150m :/ Given the same skills, a cruise and a heavy missile will do the same damage to a target of frigate or destroyer size. Any performance difference is merely a function of launcher rof. Since the problem with light missiles performance vs. mwd frigates is related to explosion speed, I shall consider in my proposition that explosion radius will remain as it is now. Given that any dps inbalance (such as the arguably low dps of most launchers apart from torpedoes) can be rectified by modifying the rate of fire, a solution is now apparent, provided we accept that light/cruise missile hp/m values are valid. Simply increasing the base damage of heavy missiles until its hp/m ratio falls somewhere in the middle of light and cruise missiles. The ideal value for this is 187.5hp - giving 1.25hp/m base and 2.083hp/m with max skills - but anywhere between 180 and 200 would do the job. Decreasing the base explosion radius to 140m and increasing ase damage to 175hp is another option, and gives nice round numbers on the info page. :) Here's a nifty table that shows you how right i am ;p all values in hp/m Base Max Skills Rocket 1.25 1.5265 Light 1.5 2.5 Proposed 1.25 2.083 Heavy 1.0 1.6* Cruise 1.0 1.6* Torpedo 1.125 1.40625 Discuss :p If I understand your proposal a heavy missile with all the new missile skills maxed out would do 312.45 hps. 150*2.083= 312.50. This is pretty much where I had been thinking they should be too. I just never had been able to put my finger on the "why" as you have done. Of course it would still be subject to the reduced damage to smaller/faster targets but would put it more in tune with the DoT of turrets when used on cruiser/BS size targets. Is the racial damage bonus figured into your "max skill" figures? For example a Cerberus with max skills firing heavies would hit for 312.50 using non racial heavy missiles while hitting for 390.56 using kinetic?
Stepping Razor	Posted - 2005.10.12 20:10:00 - [11] I'm told tech II rocket launchers on a crow are totally devastating with decent skills. I've had accounts from the winning and losing side of this and it's all been to the effect that it's quite good. Can't claim personal experience yet, tech II launchers are low priority training for me right at the moment. Razor
xenorx	Posted - 2005.10.12 20:20:00 - [12] Originally by: Stepping Razor I'm told tech II rocket launchers on a crow are totally devastating with decent skills. I've had accounts from the winning and losing side of this and it's all been to the effect that it's quite good. Can't claim personal experience yet, tech II launchers are low priority training for me right at the moment. AFAIK the only advantage to a T2 Rocket launcher over an Arbalast Rocket launcher is the 2% RoF. Granted that would work out to a 10% boost to DoT assuming the rocket launcher specialization skill was maxed at lvl 5. Most ppl I have talked to are happy with the results on rockets. I think most ppl tend to get pear shaped when it comes to heavy missiles and to some extent light missiles. For the most part cruise and torps are fine.
Ithildin	Posted - 2005.10.12 20:22:00 - [13] Now. Could they please add in Heavy Rockets? -- Neat sig, huh? Can you figure out what it says?
keepiru	Posted - 2005.10.12 20:57:00 - [14] Originally by: xenorx If I understand your proposal a heavy missile with all the new missile skills maxed out would do 312.45 hps. 1502.083= 312.50. This is pretty much where I had been thinking they should be too. I just never had been able to put my finger on the "why" as you have done. Of course it would still be subject to the reduced damage to smaller/faster targets but would put it more in tune with the DoT of turrets when used on cruiser/BS size targets. Is the racial damage bonus figured into your "max skill" figures? For example a Cerberus with max skills firing heavies would hit for 312.50 using non racial heavy missiles while hitting for 390.56 using kinetic? Actually incorrect. 187.51.25 = 234.375 *1.25 = 292.96875 for kin fired from cerberus, over 112.5m gives you 2.6hp/m. which gives you roughly 75hp against your typical frigate. Thats base light missile damage, with a considerably slower rof and much more affected by target speed. I think thats what we should be aiming for in heavy missile performance agsint frigates. Of course, these are merely 1-shot values adjusted so as to have heavy missiles be worse against frigates than light but better than cruise. Considering there are no heavy rockets or anything of the sort, heavy missiles can be considered the only main weapon for missile cruisers, unless CCP decided to boost assault rof so much that it becomes a high-damage short-range weapon. Adding to that the fact that flight time acts like long-distance ammo damage penalty in most pvp engagements, i would argue that once this is in place heavy launcher dps could be adjusted up, by means of rof. They are frankly sub-par compared to long-range weapons, let alone the short-range weapon which they also must serve as in lieu of an alternative. ------------- WTB: a Faction Micro Smartbomb :P
keepiru	Posted - 2005.10.12 21:07:00 - [15] That still leaves the problem of missile explosion velocity, in regards to making rockets and light missiles somewhat viable towards interceptors. One must remember that once past the explosion velocity threshold, there is a 1500m/s "long" speed-damage falloff, follwing a gaussian curve like turret falloff it would appear. I am as of yet unclear weather its a double-value giving 50% damage after 1500m/s and 0% at 3000m/s past threshold, or 0% damage 1500m/s past threshold. Certainly 1000m/s base explosion speed on light missiles is too low. Experience shows that while a rail fitted inty with a web is capable of fighting other inties, a light missile crow is.. well.. gimped. This also affects secondary weapon systems on the raptor and ares and other inties with launchers, compounding the 1st 2 ship's problems and certainly not helping the others, let alone creating a lack of effective anti-interceptor weapons for missile ships of other classes. ------------- WTB: a Faction Micro Smartbomb :P
Serret	Posted - 2005.10.12 21:12:00 - [16] Originally by: Hllaxiu Well, I'd imagine that a large antimatter round travelling at relativistic speeds would deal more "damage" in this sense than a missile going a comparatively puny 6km/sec. 1. The missile goes at 6km/s; the explosion of the missile goes much faster. 2. Who said anything about rail guns firing slugs at 'relativistic' speeds?
keepiru	Posted - 2005.10.12 21:29:00 - [17] Edited by: keepiru on 12/10/2005 21:30:00 Originally by: 250mm Railgun Description Cruiser-sized large barrel turret. Railguns use magnetic rails to fire solid chunks of matter at hypersonic speed. Not relativistic. Exactly how fast is "hypersonic"? Wikipedia gives me: Quote: In aerodynamics, hypersonic speeds are speeds that are highly supersonic. In the 1970s the term generally came to refer to speeds of Mach 5 and above. Of course, a "mach" is related to airspeed and changes with air temperature and humidity, as well as chemical composition. So how does the term apply in a vacuum? ------------- WTB: a Faction Micro Smartbomb :P
Ithildin	Posted - 2005.10.12 21:39:00 - [18] Originally by: keepiru Of course, a "mach" is related to airspeed and changes with air temperature and humidity, as well as chemical composition. So how does the term apply in a vacuum? Assume standard levels, of course. That means the altitude would be sea level at Earth. Don't know what the standard temperature would be exactly, but... In every day speech, the speed of sound is a constant, not a variable. wheat barley kill anything? are you oats of your mind? I corn belive you just said that, rice I'm off to bed
keepiru	Posted - 2005.10.12 21:41:00 - [19] Right so... Quote: At standard sea level conditions, Mach 1 is 1,225 km/h (765.6 MPH) in the atmosphere. so hypersonic railgun would go about.. uhhh.. 6km/s ------------- WTB: a Faction Micro Smartbomb :P
Menelak Faf	Posted - 2005.10.12 21:46:00 - [20] I would just like to say that games were more fun before anyone knew math =P Also, heavy missiles are relatively borked as are assault launchers (dps wise.)
keepiru	Posted - 2005.10.12 22:04:00 - [21] Well, taking Heavy Missile base damage do 187.5 would give a net 25% dps increase. You might even have to slightly slow down rof in that case. Id work on some figures but im tired of forum-whoring. Assault launchers need a LARGE rof boost. ------------- WTB: a Faction Micro Smartbomb :P
Hoshi	Posted - 2005.10.12 22:20:00 - [22] Originally by: keepiru I am as of yet unclear weather its a double-value giving 50% damage after 1500m/s and 0% at 3000m/s past threshold, or 0% damage 1500m/s past threshold. The cruve look like this: Target speed above explosion velocity, damage reduction 800m/s 25% 1250m/s 50% 1750m/s 75% 2250m/s 90% 3250m/s 99%
keepiru	Posted - 2005.10.12 22:32:00 - [23] thats very steep. id say aim for 50% damage @ 4km/s with max skills, but i have to defer to people with more experience in interceptors here. ------------- WTB: a Faction Micro Smartbomb :P
Hoshi	Posted - 2005.10.12 23:47:00 - [24] I think the largest problem is that the curve look exactly the same for all missiles, it's just displaced a bit. I would prefer a formula that gave small missiles a flat curve and large missiles a steep one. As it is now speed effects all missiles exactly the same, only thing that differs is at what speed this effects starts to take place.
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2005.10.12 23:57:00 - [25] @ OP you were fighting against a faction frigate with officer kit? Is this a balanced scenario? Originally by: keepiru The damage/signature ratio is all screwed up. Why is this ratio significant, exactly? @ "Hypersonic", in SF terms that generally translates as "RFF", or "Really Very Fast"...
Moridan	Posted - 2005.10.12 23:59:00 - [26] Thing is only range saves an MWDing inty from light turrets. But, a MWD inty is basically immune from missles if going above 3km/s. I think light missles should hit much harder than they do now against the MWD inty. The stat to tweak is explosive radius. Roughly decrease explosive radius of lights by 1/4 to 1/2 (make them more accurate). This would only effect their damage against high speed oponents. Same could be argued that heavy missles need a boost too. "Speak quietly and carry a big torpedo."
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.13 00:03:00 - [27] Originally by: keepiru thats very steep. id say aim for 50% damage @ 4km/s with max skills, but i have to defer to people with more experience in interceptors here. Yes, if you want everyone to use them. Against interceptors, maybe missiles SHOULDN'T be good? Otherwise they'll smash T1 ships. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
keepiru	Posted - 2005.10.13 00:11:00 - [28] Originally by: Joerd Toastius @ OP you were fighting against a faction frigate with officer kit? Is this a balanced scenario? Originally by: keepiru The damage/signature ratio is all screwed up. Why is this ratio significant, exactly? @ "Hypersonic", in SF terms that generally translates as "RFF", or "Really Very Fast"... There's no equivalent in turret terms or pre cold war missiles. Best way i can think of it is a "versatility index". The higher the number, the better the missile is at damaging targets smaller than its explosion radius. A low ratio is how CCP have been able to "fix" the torp as a BS-BS enagagement weapon. It also one of the properties of missiles that together make up the equivalent of "tracking", the other part being the explosion velocity, though its an imperfect comparison at best. As things stand right now, its practical effect is that heavy missiles and cruise missiles are equally good at fighting frigates. Or should i say, equally bad, because cruise arent very good at it. It stands to reason that a cruiser weapon should be more effective agaisnt frigates than a BS weapon, and that's what i was aiming for with that proposal. ------------- WTB: a Faction Micro Smartbomb :P
keepiru	Posted - 2005.10.13 00:18:00 - [29] Originally by: Maya Rkell Originally by: keepiru thats very steep. id say aim for 50% damage @ 4km/s with max skills, but i have to defer to people with more experience in interceptors here. Yes, if you want everyone to use them. Against interceptors, maybe missiles SHOULDN'T be good? Otherwise they'll smash T1 ships. How would it make a difference regarding t1 ships? Not talking of changing the damage. Talking of changing the explosion velocity. Most mwd'ing t1 frigates already get smashed by max-skill missiles, just like they get smashes by max-skill railguns. Something wrong with that? I dont think so >_> The difference is you can hit a real inty in a 15-20k orbit with max-skill small turrets, hard enough to make it go away. Now try doing the same with missiles. See the problem now? ------------- WTB: a Faction Micro Smartbomb :P
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.13 00:20:00 - [30] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 13/10/2005 00:20:51 I think I want some of your turrets. Because I sure don't get hit at that sort of range in my inty. (280's, frex, just MISS entirely). So no, I don't see anything but people whining because they can't instapop frigs now. Again. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: 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.