| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tovarishch
   |
Posted - 2006.07.09 21:48:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Tovarishch on 09/07/2006 21:49:42
I'll begin this post by saying that contrary to popular belief there are many Caldari/missile specialists who are very interested in keeping the game balanced. In my opinion EVE has never been as well-balanced as it stands currently... even in light of the whining regarding the Raven being a popular mission running ship. I'm not going to touch other topics in this discussion... as that is not only a can of worms... but the majority of my combat knowledge in this game is centered around missiles and EW.
One of the important nuances regarding missiles that is lost on most people is the fact that while missiles are indeed a 'low-maintanence' weapon... there is no way for a pilot to navigate or position his/her ship that is going to increase missile damage. The analog to this would be the ability that turret users have to pilot or position their ship in space to increase turret damage (reducing transversal). Missiles pilots don't have this ability... which isn't necessarily a bad thing... as it's a double-edged sword. Advantages and disadvantages in this arena largely cancel each other out.
I am a firm believer that not everything in EVE should be balanced according to a baseline. Early in the game I turned to missiles because they are a 'different' weapon. In fact, much of the allure of EVE for me is the fact that many portions of the game are allowed to be their own thing. The devs do not always feel the need for everything to be analogous.
However, this brings me to one of the advantages that missile users enjoy. There is currently no effective defense system that specifically targets missiles (tracking disruptors being the module for which there is no missile equivalent). Defenders are largely ineffective. I know Tux and others are looking into this fact. Regardless, I wanted to drop a quick idea on the forums in order to begin a small discussion that might assist in solving this problem.
The primary problem with balancing this module is directly linked to my statement above - that missile users have no way to increase missile damage through ship navigation. Turret users who realize that they are having their having their tracking disrupted can drop transversal in order to reduce the effect of the penalty... therefore increasing their DPS. There is no escaping the fact that missile users will have no equivalent to this advantage... as missle damage calculations are entirely passive (for lack of a better term). By this I mean that no active/dynamic statistic of the ship firing the missile is going to effect the missiles damage. (Again... this is both an advantage and disadvantage).
Because of this I would propose a substitute for Defender missiles. Introduce a module that simply decreases any fired missiles explosion radius by a certain amount that would have an equivalent negative effect on DPS as a tracking disruptor has on turrets. (Along with a skill akin to Turret Destabilization that will increase this effect).
Any ideas? Suggestions?
Only two things in life are certain... and Mercenary Coalition doesn't do taxes. |
Stamm
|
Posted - 2006.07.09 21:53:00 -
[2]
Would this be something that I put on my ship, and it affected missiles hitting me, or would it be something I put on my ship, targetted a raven and activated it?
|
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2006.07.09 21:54:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Ithildin on 09/07/2006 21:54:09
I've seen a module in the database that looks like an anti-missile smartbomb. Range is twice that of the ordinary smartbomb of the same size, and they damage missiles proportionally to their size. Fitting is slightly easier.
Example:
XLarge Anti Ballistic Defense System I
Possition: High slot
Powergrid: 2,000
CPU: 100
Area: 10km
Activation time: 15s
Cap need: 320
Damage: 3,000 EM
Damage-only-missiles: Yes
New sig coming soonÖ
By "soon" I do not necessarily mean "this year" |
Tovarishch
|
Posted - 2006.07.09 21:56:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Stamm
Would this be something that I put on my ship, and it affected missiles hitting me, or would it be something I put on my ship, targetted a raven and activated it?
I am proposing an activated module that effects only a targeted ship. A passive module providing this effect would not only not be analgous to a tracking disruptor.... but it would function even if you were target jammed, etc.
Only two things in life are certain... and Mercenary Coalition doesn't do taxes. |
Nebuli
|
Posted - 2006.07.09 22:05:00 -
[5]
Made a long post, and the forum ate it, this forum is getting annoying....
To cut it short as I didnt copy it before hitting enter...
Make tracking disruptors effect missiles in some way, maybe a reduced ROF, made this suggestion ages ago and met with alot of flames but also alot of people agreeing (actualy most disagreeing were mainly the same couple of people).
As it stands Amarr has the only EW system that doesnt effect every ship it will encounter, painting, ECM and Damps effect all ships, tracking disruptors effects only turret ships, make it a weapon disruptor imo.
CEO - Art of War |
Stamm
|
Posted - 2006.07.09 22:08:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Nebuli
Made a long post, and the forum ate it, this forum is getting annoying....
To cut it short as I didnt copy it before hitting enter...
Make tracking disruptors effect missiles in some way, maybe a reduced ROF, made this suggestion ages ago and met with alot of flames but also alot of people agreeing (actualy most disagreeing were mainly the same couple of people).
As it stands Amarr has the only EW system that doesnt effect every ship it will encounter, painting, ECM and Damps effect all ships, tracking disruptors effects only turret ships, make it a weapon disruptor imo.
As an Amarr I'd very much like this... perhaps it could affect the explosion velocity etc of the missile, but it does seem very powerful...
|
Lisento Slaven
|
Posted - 2006.07.09 22:09:00 -
[7]
I would prefer to see a flak/defender missile system that actually works as I think the idea and how it looks/"should look" would be awesome.
But if the defender missile situation can't be fixed and the flak idea can't be implemented I guess I could settle for something like that.
I'm just used to watching BSG and seeing them put up a huge web of cannon fire to destroy incoming torpedos...it looks awesome =(
---
Lisento Slaven wants to be a Space Whaler in EVE.
Put in space whales!
|
Marcus Starr
|
Posted - 2006.07.09 22:24:00 -
[8]
Changing the tracking disruptor to a weapon disruptor would be nice. It would decrease the explosion velocity of missiles so that the missile did little to no damage. XX percentage decrease per module to explosion velocity? It could also work on other weapons like smartbombs, nos, and neuts. Cut their range in half?
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2006.07.09 22:56:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 09/07/2006 23:03:57
Originally by: Marcus Starr
Changing the tracking disruptor to a weapon disruptor would be nice. It would decrease the explosion velocity of missiles so that the missile did little to no damage. XX percentage decrease per module to explosion velocity? It could also work on other weapons like smartbombs, nos, and neuts. Cut their range in half?
The issue with mods effective against everything is that, they are very difficult to get right, and you might end up with:
* a weak module always effective: underpowered, as people will find something that works better to patch a weakness or a more specialized mod for their circumstances, given the overall weakness of the mod;
* a strong module always effective: overpowered, as it's too often better than anything else that you could use instead.
That's why, I think, the game should rather get away from the "anti-everything" kind of mods (even if their effect under most circumstances is weak overall). Specialized mods are easier to balance as they lack the versatility that generally cause mods to be overpowered.
Hence I'd rather propose a lot of specific counters instead of a few generic counters. That would even allow to give more ships more mid slots, if needed. Also, all those mods do not have to be mid slot mods.
For instance, the current few "generic" forms of EW could be split into:
* various anti-EW EW (a chance of disabling EW mods, a chance of breaking a lock, or jamming the drone link with various effects on drones behavior);
* various anti-turrets EW (decreasing optimal, tracking, rof even... or having a chance of disabling turrets);
* various anti-missiles EW (decreasing explosion velocity, increasing explosion radius, speed... or having a chance of disabling launchers).
Obviously, those mods shouldn't be too specialized either... and, they could do with a positive effect on the ship using it even when not countering anything, so that "the logic" when fitting a ship is not always very linear (kind of like, "i'm fighting a scorpion so i'll be only fitting anti-EW and anti-missile mods").
NB.
|
Cade Morrigan
|
Posted - 2006.07.09 23:04:00 -
[10]
Make sure y'all advocate an overall increase in missile dps if you're going to be adding modules that reduce their dps. Thanks!
-= Save the Gila! Fix its grid and cpu! =-
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.07.09 23:12:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 09/07/2006 23:12:27
Originally by: Nebuli
Make tracking disruptors effect missiles in some way, maybe a reduced ROF
Then their effectives against turrets would have to be slashed to balance it out. And that's...meh.
They're NOT underpowered right now.
Armour tankers don't have an active all-resists booster like shield tankers do, and that's because they're different.
Well, shock, different forms of ECM work in different ways, and might not affect everything. That's because they're different.
Cade Morrigan, yep, hence screwing over all the ships who don't fit it, which means... can of worms we DON'T need to open. It's fine as it is.
|
Malena
|
Posted - 2006.07.09 23:12:00 -
[12]
My suggestion for potential missile defense is this:
Create a new gang skill, plus a new module that can only be used on command ships that can shoot down incoming missiles. Make the base chance of a shoot down be 25%, and have the skill increase that chance by 10% per level. Have it be tied to the defender skill for speed.
It should absolutely be able to target missiles that are not necessarily aiming for you, but are aiming for anyone in your gang.
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2006.07.09 23:19:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 09/07/2006 23:19:55
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Cade Morrigan, yep, hence screwing over all the ships who don't fit it, which means... can of worms we DON'T need to open. It's fine as it is.
... or, instead of changing base dps, merely add modules that work as tracking computers/enhancer, but for missiles, and can a) be useful in modifying explosion radius, explosion velocity, and even speed; b) counter the counter-modules to some extent.
I think there's room for at least a few ideas and why not, a few tests... I know that I have a few ship setups that could do with such mods (improving launchers or countering them) and I'd appreciate to have options for that.
NB.
|
Tovarishch
|
Posted - 2006.07.09 23:35:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Naughty Boy
That's why, I think, the game should rather get away from the "anti-everything" kind of mods (even if their effect under most circumstances is weak overall). Specialized mods are easier to balance as they lack the versatility that generally cause mods to be overpowered.
I very much agree with this sentiment... which is why I'm proposing such a module. I enjoy piloting myself into situations where I very well may not have a certain tool available to counter something. It's one of those moments where you say, 'Damn, I wasted a slot on this tracking disruptor' when you are facing a Cerberus. I enjoy the challenge of setting up my ships to fill a specific purpose or role... instead of trying to come up with a ship that can 'do it all'.
Only two things in life are certain... and Mercenary Coalition doesn't do taxes. |
Cade Morrigan
|
Posted - 2006.07.10 00:05:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Cade Morrigan, yep, hence screwing over all the ships who don't fit it, which means... can of worms we DON'T need to open. It's fine as it is.
Yes I agree it is fine as it is. I just like to interject "if you're going to do something to reduce xxx you need to make sure xxx really needs nerfing before you do it" whenver I can.
-= Save the Gila! Fix its grid and cpu! =-
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.07.10 00:19:00 -
[16]
Introduce tech 2 destroyers that are specificly designed to use a number of special Defender launchers. When turned on these launchers would automaticly fire defender missles at Incoming enemy missles and enemy drones.
|
Karandor
|
Posted - 2006.07.10 01:58:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Lisento Slaven
I would prefer to see a flak/defender missile system that actually works as I think the idea and how it looks/"should look" would be awesome.
But if the defender missile situation can't be fixed and the flak idea can't be implemented I guess I could settle for something like that.
I'm just used to watching BSG and seeing them put up a huge web of cannon fire to destroy incoming torpedos...it looks awesome =(
That is like a phalanx cannon on a modern naval vessel. Shoots a "phalanx" (large spread) of small projectiles at an extremely high fire rate in order to shred incoming missiles.
I suppose they could put something like this in EVE have it target a vessel and it would track them and fire when it detected incoming missiles. Could use small ammo and hold like 1000 rounds. Would be interesting if it could also be used as frig/int defence on a battleship. The problem is it would have to take a high slot and this would only really be feasable on battleship and bigger ships. Would be pretty cool though.
|
Tovarishch
|
Posted - 2006.07.10 16:18:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Tovarishch on 10/07/2006 16:18:45
Originally by: Jerick Ludhowe
Introduce tech 2 destroyers that are specificly designed to use a number of special Defender launchers. When turned on these launchers would automaticly fire defender missles at Incoming enemy missles and enemy drones.
Point defense cruisers that function as you proposed have been discussed by CCP in the past. As long as there were different varieties (some designed to disrupt turrets, while others would target missiles) I think they would make a nice addition to a game that is currently in need of alternatives to simply increasing damage output.
Only two things in life are certain... and Mercenary Coalition doesn't do taxes. |
Gorgons
|
Posted - 2006.07.10 16:46:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Marcus Starr
Changing the tracking disruptor to a weapon disruptor would be nice. It would decrease the explosion velocity of missiles so that the missile did little to no damage. XX percentage decrease per module to explosion velocity? It could also work on other weapons like smartbombs, nos, and neuts. Cut their range in half?
Well if the tracking disruptor should work on missiles and decrease the explosion velocity, we would need a module to counter this. By this I mean that turrets can somewhat counter tracking disruptors by using tracking links, tracking computers or tracking enhancers, there are no modules aiding the explosion radius or explosion velocity on missiles.
I also find it somewhat overpowered that this module would effect every single highslot module. I'm more into a flak module of some sort. 
----------------------------------
It says Snippy.
E-mail us with any questions. -ReverendM
OMG! what does it say... |
welsh wizard
|
Posted - 2006.07.10 17:52:00 -
[20]
Edited by: welsh wizard on 10/07/2006 17:53:43
With the exception of a couple of ships we're already the least damaging race.
If an effective missile counter measure came out then I think any intentions of operating solo in a cheapish Caldari ship will finally die.
Like you said Tovarishch, the game is as balanced as its ever been, Caldari are the oddball race in terms of weapon systems and we walk a knife edge. Too much boost or nerf either way and we instantly become too effective or not effective enough. More so than the other races.
Missiles are currently the best they've ever been while the game has had some semblance of balance with regards weapon systems.
I think perhaps the "Well every other race can have its weapons disrupted so in the name of order so should Caldari" argument is often used without really thinking of the repercussions with regards to game balance for a Caldari pilot.
We're different... So what?
edit: I do like the sound of an anti-missile platform though. At least this way an opposing pilot is forced to sacrifice the firepower of another damage dealer in order to make a Caldari pilots life a misery. I think the idea of a defensive ship class should be looked at.
|
Tovarishch
|
Posted - 2006.07.10 18:49:00 -
[21]
Originally by: welsh wizard
Edited by: welsh wizard on 10/07/2006 17:57:02
With the exception of a couple of ships we're already the least damaging race.
If an effective missile counter measure module came out then I think any intentions of operating solo in a cheapish Caldari ship will finally die.
Like you said Tovarishch, the game is as balanced as its ever been, Caldari are the oddball race in terms of weapon systems and we walk a knife edge. Too much boost or nerf either way and we instantly become too effective or not effective enough. More so than the other races.
Missiles are currently the best they've ever been while the game has had some semblance of balance with regards weapon systems.
I think perhaps the "Well every other race can have its weapons disrupted so in the name of order so should Caldari" argument is often used without really thinking of the repercussions with regards to game balance for a Caldari pilot.
We're different... So what?
edit: I do like the sound of an anti-missile platform though. At least this way an opposing pilot is forced to sacrifice the firepower of another damage dealer in order to make a Caldari pilots life a misery. I think the idea of a defensive ship class should be looked at.
I don't entirely disagree. Yes, base (and specialized) missile DPS is the lowest across the board when all weapons are taken into account. Perhaps missile damage would need a small tweak if the module that I propose would indeed be introduced. I also very much agree that if this module were introduced that some counter to it (the equivalent of a tracking computer for missiles) should also be introduced.
A point defense cruiser could have bonuses that enhance the use of tracking disruptors and missile defense systems. I know of many players that would enjoy playing such a role in fights. As it stands now logistics cruisers provide little-to-no usefulness in the game. Perhaps they could assume the role of such a ship.
Only two things in life are certain... and Mercenary Coalition doesn't do taxes. |
Insan Ity
|
Posted - 2006.07.10 19:23:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Insan Ity on 10/07/2006 19:24:19
Proposed new modules:
Laser|Rail|Autocannon Point Defense Turret
Skill: Gunnery->Point Defense->Laser|Rail|Autocannon Spec
Slot: Hi
MW150
Optimal range: 5000m
Accuracy falloff: 2000m
Damage: 5
Cap usage: 2/shot
ROF: 1 sec (base)
Ammo/Crystal type: Drone or Missile
Will automatically target incoming missiles and/or drone depending on the ammunition type available and fire as long as active or targets are available.
Basically, you turn these on in an engagement and let them plink at incoming missiles. You'd have to tweak the damage so that they had a reasonable chance to take out a missile which would increase with the # of launchers.
Counteracting skills:
Missile Pathing - Reduces the signature radius on missiles making them harder to target with point defense
Missile Hardening - Increases the armor on missiles requiring more point defense damage to disable
Thoughts?
Insanity
|
Grey Area
|
Posted - 2006.07.10 21:50:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Cade Morrigan
Make sure y'all advocate an overall increase in missile dps if you're going to be adding modules that reduce their dps. Thanks!
I'm glad SOMEone saw this as a problem. Original poster says Eve has "never been as balanced as now" and THEN goes on to reduce the DPS of missiles.
Other than that, the OP's post was well thought out, and highlighted the difference between missile and turrets well - missiles give defined damage which is more controlled by the target than the firer, turrets give a wide range of damage which can be influenced by both target AND firing ship.
Now with that difference in mind, here is my suggestion (or at least the bare bones of it).
1. Keep a separate "turret defence" and "missile defence".
2. Fitting the turret defence makes you more vulnerable to missiles. Fitting the missile defence makes you more vulnerable to turrets. Fitting both would cancel each other out.
My suggestion would be to keep the Turret Disrupter largely as is, except give it a penalty to the sig radius of the ship using it - the way the stats work it would still be effective against turrets because of the tracking reduction, but missiles would hit for MORE damage.
For a missile defence, I'd prefer a decoy to anything else - the missiles would target IT rather than IT having to target THEM (meaning it would be effective at any range above zero, unlike defenders). Using it would mean slowing down your ship to a crawl (by which I mean MANUALLY - you could CHOOSE to go faster, but then your decoy would deactivate). Of course by going slower, you reduce your transversal and become more vulnerable to turrets.
I'd make it so you couldn't fit BOTH, or, if you had both fitted the Power and CPU costs of both modules increased by a large (300%?) amount (call it a phase conflict or something), thus crippling whatever else you tried to fit.
I just thgink that by making the modules effectively "self balancing", it coul make for some interesting game play.
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Stamm
|
Posted - 2006.07.10 21:54:00 -
[24]
I think the biggest hindrance missiles have is them doing 100% of whatever damage type they like.
Any increase in damage is going to equate straight into easier NPCing/mission running. Unless they get a nerf that specifically affects that.
I'm not opposed to a modest increase in missile damage if they got made a bit more complicated - different damage types, different ranges, etc.
Right now everybody complains about them doing 100% damage type, and missile users frequently complain about them being boring.
Let's spice it up with tracking disruptors hurting missiles a bit, and missile users having some choices about which missile they use.
|
Tovarishch
|
Posted - 2006.07.10 22:25:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Tovarishch on 10/07/2006 22:30:34
Originally by: Grey Area
I'm glad SOMEone saw this as a problem. Original poster says Eve has "never been as balanced as now" and THEN goes on to reduce the DPS of missiles.
Please read my later post where I say...
Originally by: Tovarishch
I don't entirely disagree. Yes, base (and specialized) missile DPS is the lowest across the board when all weapons are taken into account. Perhaps missile damage would need a small tweak if the module that I propose would indeed be introduced. I also very much agree that if this module were introduced that some counter to it (the equivalent of a tracking computer for missiles) should also be introduced.
Also, to address Stamm's comment -
Originally by: Stamm
I think the biggest hindrance missiles have is them doing 100% of whatever damage type they like.
People need to get over this weird, twisted misconception that missiles do '100%' damage. They can do full damage... but it's rare... and normally when it's being done it's a smaller (respectively lower DPS) missile than the target being shot at (frigate vs. cruiser), etc. It is perfectly analogous to smaller turrets shooting larger targets.
Choosing to do one damage type is as much a penalty as it is an advantage. Yes, missile users can choose to do any of the four types of damage. However, all Caldari 'damage' bonuses are kinetic only... and reload times are incredibly slow. In a PVP situation it is nearly always counterproductive to bother swapping missiles mid-fight... particularly since Caldari only get the aforementioned kinetic only damage bonus. If you can talk the devs into introducing some mixed-damage missiles (or even a missile that does all four types of damage in low quantities) then you can color me orgasmic... along with the rest of the missile specialists in this game.
If you are trying to balance ships according to NPCing/missions you are making two serious mistakes. The first is that if combat in EVE were balanced according to a PVE baseline there would be HUGE discrepancies in overall balance. The second is that if you are arguing that missile users have the advantage of 'choosing' their damage type... everyone chooses the most advantageous damage type to deliver in PVE situations by choosing which rats and mission NPCs they go up against. Pick the mobs that you do full or near full damage to and 'Voila!'... you've chosen your damage type.
Only two things in life are certain... and Mercenary Coalition doesn't do taxes. |
Grey Area
|
Posted - 2006.07.11 18:36:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Tovarishch
Please read my later post where I say...
I did...in fact I went on to say your original post was well thought out - sorry if it didn't come across that way.
What do you think of the principle of a turret defence making you more vulnerable to missiles and vice versa? I think it would be a pretty good way to balance the modules against each other...
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.07.11 18:41:00 -
[27]
..If you don't want either used, yes. Any combat above 1v1 is going to see a mix with most ship combinations.
Moreover, weapon disruptors are balanced as-is, and a sig increase dosn't just make them more vulnrable to missiles, it makes them more vulnrable to ANYONE else.
"you had both fitted the Power and CPU costs of both modules increased by a large (300%?) amount (call it a phase conflict or something), thus crippling whatever else you tried to fit."
Why should there be a special mechanism for it? If a module needs new mechanics like that invented, then it simply dosn't fit!
By making modules "self-balancing", you make them useless for anything but certain PvE.
I'm not seeing the original "problem" whatsoever, still.
|
Romale
|
Posted - 2006.07.11 18:47:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Romale on 11/07/2006 18:47:49
I disagree, while missile dont miss from transversal, there damage is effected by speed, i dont know about anyone else but i can fly fast enough so only precision lights and heavies do any damage to me
|
Malthros Zenobia
|
Posted - 2006.07.11 18:51:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Insan Ity
Thoughts?
Insanity
You'd completely remove any and all use of a missile ship in a long range fight with a few of those.
Or you'd fit an apoc/mega/roc/temp with a few and just turn several people's DPS into 0.
No thanks.
|
Grey Area
|
Posted - 2006.07.11 18:52:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
I'm not seeing the original "problem" whatsoever, still.
Now then, since we normally argue about EVERYthing Maya, I want to take this nice and slow...
By saying the above are you implying/accepting that;
1. Turret Disrupters are not overpowered
2. Defenders are not broken (and I mean PLAYER defenders...it's pretty damned obvious there's not a lot wrong with NPC defenders)
3. Missiles and Turrets are actually balanced at the moment
'cos if you are, we agree.
PS: Good point about the sig radius making you open to more damage from everything other than the target you had the disrupter on. Must admit hadn't thought that through...
...and expanding on that the "decoy" system would be much more powerful (potentially) than the turret disrupter, because it would affect ALL incoming missiles from multiple attacking ships...
...that said some way of making a ship MORE vulnerable to turret fire if it fits a missile defence (and vice versa) is STILL worthy of discussion I think - just need to find a better way of doing it.
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |