Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arthur Aihaken
Halas Hooligans
3775
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 18:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
It is long overdue for a Ballistic Enhancer for missiles. Even drones now have low-slot enhancements, yet missile ships are continually relegated to utilizing rigs for improving missile ballistic damage application.
Ballistic Enhancer II (low slot) Explosion radius: 10% Explosion velocity: 10% Missile Velocity: 20% I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
39
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 19:00:00 -
[2] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:It is long overdue for a Ballistic Enhancer for missiles. Even drones now have low-slot enhancements, yet missile ships are continually relegated to utilizing rigs for improving missile ballistic damage application.
Ballistic Enhancer II (low slot) Explosion radius: 10% Explosion velocity: 10% Missile Velocity: 20%
20% bonus to velocity? Wat. Thats rig territory. How bout 5% velocity bonus. That would be manageable. |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
922
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 19:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:It is long overdue for a Ballistic Enhancer for missiles. Even drones now have low-slot enhancements, yet missile ships are continually relegated to utilizing rigs for improving missile ballistic damage application.
Ballistic Enhancer II (low slot) Explosion radius: 10% Explosion velocity: 10% Missile Velocity: 20% 20% bonus to velocity? Wat. Thats rig territory. How bout 5% velocity bonus. That would be manageable. Turret rigs are a straight 15% while TE2s are 20 falloff 10 optimal, 9.5 tracking
So given that we could just match them it would be explosion velocity 10 radius 9.5 Missile Velocity 20
So his numbers are good enough. THis doesnt count for things like tracking computers.
Now drone stuff follows the same as turrets now, so it stands that a missile mod would as well.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
13
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 19:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
"the other systems have it so this one should too" is never a good idea for adding something and i don't think they need a velocity bonus with it missiles already have an insane 40+km for frigs.
letting me decide if i want a BCU for more damage or a mod for better application would be great and giving more choice to the pilot is a good reason to add something(for the most part)
+1 for a mod that adds exp velocity/exp radios |
Arla Sarain
73
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 19:45:00 -
[5] - Quote
150km coraxs. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
889
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 20:17:00 -
[6] - Quote
Lowslot Ballistic Enhancer I Explosion radius: 10% Explosion velocity: 10% Missile Velocity: 15%
Ballistic Enhancer II Explosion radius: 12.5% Explosion velocity: 12.5% Missile Velocity: 20%
midslot - can be scripted Ballistic Computer I Explosion radius: 12.5% Explosion velocity: 12.5% Missile Velocity: 12.5%
Ballistic Computer II Explosion radius: 15% Explosion velocity: 15% Missile Velocity: 17.5% Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
13
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 20:23:00 -
[7] - Quote
again missile velocity would cause problems but if you couple it with a reduction in flight time then it could be useful and i think balanceable but i haven't given that much though |
Arthur Aihaken
Halas Hooligans
3775
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 20:40:00 -
[8] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:again missile velocity would cause problems but if you couple it with a reduction in flight time then it could be useful and i think balanceable but i haven't given that much though That's reasonable. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Ix Method
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
151
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 20:49:00 -
[9] - Quote
It is slightly odd that this idea (and a corresponding ewar) has been around forever, everyone seems to broadly agree its a good and blindingly obvious thing and yet its never been implemented.
Without knowing why its hard to do anything but wildly throw numbers at the wall and see what sticks (see above). Travelling at the speed of love. |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
923
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 20:50:00 -
[10] - Quote
+20% velocity -10% flight time means it goes 10% farther This also makes happy servers as faster missiles are less load and get to be instant below a certain point |
|
Arthur Aihaken
Halas Hooligans
3775
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 21:03:00 -
[11] - Quote
NEONOVUS wrote:This also makes happy servers as faster missiles are less load and get to be instant below a certain point Semi-related, but missiles could benefit from an overall velocity bonus and corresponding flight time reduction aside from any ballistic enhancements. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
ApolloF117 HUN
Trident Weapon Companies
17
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 21:20:00 -
[12] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:150km coraxs. sounds about right, 100km rail harpys :3 |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
718
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 21:22:00 -
[13] - Quote
In general, missiles are dealing with an entirely separate set of circumstances for application from turrets. I don't know that they need to have the same sort of application enhancements that turrets need.
They already have excellent projection range, and don't need a lot of help in that area. I can see allowing a trade off of range for veleocity. Fuel burns hotter, but less efficiently.
The application stats don't need enhancing in the absence of ewar to bring it down. As a total package it's probably fine, but not in pieces. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
13
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 21:23:00 -
[14] - Quote
ApolloF117 HUN wrote:Arla Sarain wrote:150km coraxs. sounds about right, 100km rail harpys :3
But harpys lose damage to get that with this the corax gains range and damage application |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
924
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 21:36:00 -
[15] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:ApolloF117 HUN wrote:Arla Sarain wrote:150km coraxs. sounds about right, 100km rail harpys :3 But harpys lose damage to get that with this the corax gains range and damage application Turret versus launcher, also destroyer versus assault frigate Try the hawk, it can do better So its actually turret versus launcher at different roles Eve isnt a multimodal game |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
13
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 22:13:00 -
[16] - Quote
NEONOVUS wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:ApolloF117 HUN wrote:Arla Sarain wrote:150km coraxs. sounds about right, 100km rail harpys :3 But harpys lose damage to get that with this the corax gains range and damage application Turret versus launcher, also destroyer versus assault frigate Try the hawk, it can do better So its actually turret versus launcher at different roles Eve isnt a multimodal game
I was pointing out that they are different and that's why a mod that affects it the same way wouldn't be balanced |
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
68
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 22:55:00 -
[17] - Quote
NEONOVUS wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:It is long overdue for a Ballistic Enhancer for missiles. Even drones now have low-slot enhancements, yet missile ships are continually relegated to utilizing rigs for improving missile ballistic damage application.
Ballistic Enhancer II (low slot) Explosion radius: 10% Explosion velocity: 10% Missile Velocity: 20% 20% bonus to velocity? Wat. Thats rig territory. How bout 5% velocity bonus. That would be manageable. Turret rigs are a straight 15% while TE2s are 20 falloff 10 optimal, 9.5 tracking So given that we could just match them it would be explosion velocity 10 radius 9.5 Missile Velocity 20 So his numbers are good enough. THis doesnt count for things like tracking computers. Now drone stuff follows the same as turrets now, so it stands that a missile mod would as well.
Turrets and missiles are not the same thing, they work entirely different. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2507
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 23:23:00 -
[18] - Quote
Ix Method wrote:It is slightly odd that this idea (and a corresponding ewar) has been around forever, everyone seems to broadly agree its a good and blindingly obvious thing and yet its never been implemented.
Without knowing why its hard to do anything but wildly throw numbers at the wall and see what sticks (see above).
CCP Rise promises there are some missile things being worked on that he can't tell us about before Rubicon ships.
Oh wait. |
Arthur Aihaken
Halas Hooligans
3776
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 00:07:00 -
[19] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Does anyone know what they were? A work-around for the 35-second ammunition swap on rapid launchersGǪ? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
352
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 00:26:00 -
[20] - Quote
Velocity is normally the killer for damage application. Even a battleship can speed tank heavy missiles. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015 T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346 LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
|
|
jiujitsutou
Outrider's Black. Sails
4
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 00:45:00 -
[21] - Quote
While i think the BE shouldnt give speed (it could very easy make things a little op i imagine 120 km ham cerbs etc), i like the idea in general . |
elitatwo
Congregatio
282
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 07:55:00 -
[22] - Quote
How about CCP ditches two attributes from all missiles and call it a day? signature |
Adrie Atticus
The Shadow Plague The Bastion
262
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 08:22:00 -
[23] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:How about CCP ditches two attributes from all missiles and call it a day?
I'd like to ditch tracking and signature radius from guns while we're at it just to balance them out. |
Ktersida Nyn'Amanyn
Querschlaeger
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 08:39:00 -
[24] - Quote
+1
There should be more options for missile ships to improve damage application via fitting like the other weapon systems have. |
ApolloF117 HUN
Trident Weapon Companies
17
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 09:39:00 -
[25] - Quote
jiujitsutou wrote:While i think the BE shouldnt give speed (it could very easy make things a little op i imagine 120 km ham cerbs etc), i like the idea in general . 120km? why not 170km?:3 http://kepfeltoltes.hu/140831/cerb_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.png |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
306
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 09:54:00 -
[26] - Quote
Ix Method wrote:It is slightly odd that this idea (and a corresponding ewar) has been around forever, everyone seems to broadly agree its a good and blindingly obvious thing and yet its never been implemented. It's never been implemented because of the rage which greeted the idea last time CCP suggested it... Which is wierd if everyone broadly agrees... |
Valkin Mordirc
167
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:52:00 -
[27] - Quote
+1
I feel it would need more hammering out, however I believe it would make missiles a more viable option, without completely making them overpowered. Psychotic Monk for CSM9
Scipio Artelius: I find your continued optimism for the outcome of the CSM vote endearing |
elitatwo
Congregatio
282
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 13:00:00 -
[28] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:elitatwo wrote:How about CCP ditches two attributes from all missiles and call it a day? I'd like to ditch tracking and signature radius from guns while we're at it just to balance them out.
I guess you would think that would make the two even as a newborn but it is not as easy as that.
Maybe I should just repeat myself, just for your consideration!
When I first entered New Eden almost eight (8) years ago, no missile had the two "tracking" attributes I am talking as long as it will take them to make them go away about.
So you can take my word for it that I already know, how different that is, not hypothetically, no for real because I was there.
Three months after my tutorial someone with an 'X' in his name thought it would be a good idea to add those two attributes.
A very, very long thread in the forums responded that is wasn't and guess what? It wasn't.
For about 6 years nobody was taking missiles into serious consideration when it came to pvp until someone made a video with a Drake in it.
Before Empyrean Age missiles used to be a very serious thread to come across and noone would have made any kind of joke about a Raven busting a gatecamp.
People just bailed in fear of ever getting cought by one.
I really do not get why it is difficult for you more simple folks to comprehend that taking away that missile tracking nonesense is going to make missiles overpowered all of a sudden?
It won't.
Missiles would just become competitive.
See, missiles are that weapon system you could compare to artillery turrets with the tiny difference that missiles would do damage at the end of the cycle instead at the beginning of the cycle, so your 60% of an arty tornado alpha would have to wait a little to do damage, if at all.
You whinematar only want your sooper-dooper alpha turret for yourself but guess what, we Caldari volley you out of existence.
Do you see the irony here?
For a whinematar, 11000 hp alpha is all goody and everything is fine but a Caldari hull with 5000 delayed alpha, it's totally overpowerded, EVE is dying, goofswarm disbanding, all nullsec conquered by Caldari faction warfare and no stopping the Caldari because you are bad at dragging the right modules for the job on your fitting screen.
Well, I can and will not help you with that.
I will stand by opinion that missiles tracking was a bad idea and it needs to go. signature |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
477
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 13:29:00 -
[29] - Quote
jiujitsutou wrote:While i think the BE shouldnt give speed (it could very easy make things a little op i imagine 120 km ham cerbs etc), i like the idea in general .
Could just be a matter of tweaking flight time some more to keep range equal. Bombers would be the only massive sticking point I see off the bat but we could look at their bonuses in the redo, if it ever happened. Which I am open too....not even going to pretend fast as hell lr torps from sb wings will not have balance issues lol.
Something is needed here thought. OP hit the 3 problem areas. Speed is one of them. I use all weapons. I get Mr speedy boat who zigs insteads of zags...traversal gods like me....blap (or they at least feel a fair amoun of pain). I get my speedy boat who zigs instead of zags against my missile boat, they can zig instead of zag all night...they just need to keep the speed up to offset damage.
Many times very prudent use of pulse active tank makes even my "always hit" a waste of ammo. Damage given is so small its repped/sb's easily. Maybe 10+ minute later we'd hit cap use issues for what I am hitting. But throw in a few friends, you aren't getting the 10 minutes to even see that capacitor use game come to fruition anyway I have found.
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
4
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 17:02:00 -
[30] - Quote
I may be guilty here of not fully understanding this but here is my two cents worth.
Tracking - a bad word to use when applied to missiles but it serves well for comparison. Gun based system suffer from a physical limitation on how fast the turrets can move, bigger guns means bigger turrets and that means more mass which equals harder to turn so the bigger the gun the bigger the tracking speed reduction. In the same way missiles have a "tracking", the limits on missiles are based on the physics of how hard it is to get and object to turn in flight. Faster and/or heavier are harder to turn than lighter and/or slower, think commercial airliner versus small private plane here.
Bullets get to targets faster than missiles in the real world so it seems appropriate to me that it would be this way in EVE. To me the speed of missiles in the game seems about right when comparing them to real world experiences between rockets/missiles and guns. So I would say no to a speed increase.
EVE is about options and which one is best for a specific situation. Change missiles so they behave like guns and why bother to have them in the game at all. No I want missiles to act like missiles, if I want the performance characteristics of guns then I use guns. In other words I want the flexibility offered by having the unique characteristics of both systems available.
With that said I do agree that it would be nice to have more options. Gun based systems seem to have rigs and modules that affect virtually every aspect of their performance while missiles get rigs and the ballistic controls. As a mission runner here are a few things I would like to see. Module to reduce explosion radius, how to balance this for PvP I will leave open for those who fly PvP. Module to increase explosion velocity. Same as above. Module to increase the "tracking" by reducing velocity back to that physics thing. Module to increase flight time, speed or maybe a combination of both balanced by a reduction in damage and a greater chance they will miss the target as range increases. These would give players a better chance to tailor the missiles performance to meet the demand or personal preferences.
|
|
Arthur Aihaken
Halas Hooligans
3778
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 19:35:00 -
[31] - Quote
I adjusted missile velocity to have a higher flight time penalty, with the net end result that range drops slightly. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Icarus Able
Revenant Tactical
469
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 19:53:00 -
[32] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:elitatwo wrote:How about CCP ditches two attributes from all missiles and call it a day? I'd like to ditch tracking and signature radius from guns while we're at it just to balance them out. I guess you would think that would make the two even as a newborn but it is not as easy as that. Maybe I should just repeat myself, just for your consideration! When I first entered New Eden almost eight (8) years ago, no missile had the two "tracking" attributes I am talking as long as it will take them to make them go away about. So you can take my word for it that I already know, how different that is, not hypothetically, no for real because I was there. Three months after my tutorial someone with an 'X' in his name thought it would be a good idea to add those two attributes. A very, very long thread in the forums responded that is wasn't and guess what? It wasn't. For about 6 years nobody was taking missiles into serious consideration when it came to pvp until someone made a video with a Drake in it. Before Empyrean Age missiles used to be a very serious thread to come across and noone would have made any kind of joke about a Raven busting a gatecamp. People just bailed in fear of ever getting cought by one. I really do not get why it is difficult for you more simple folks to comprehend that taking away that missile tracking nonesense is going to make missiles overpowered all of a sudden? It won't. Missiles would just become competitive. See, missiles are that weapon system you could compare to artillery turrets with the tiny difference that missiles would do damage at the end of the cycle instead at the beginning of the cycle, so your 60% of an arty tornado alpha would have to wait a little to do damage, if at all. You whinematar only want your sooper-dooper alpha turret for yourself but guess what, we Caldari volley you out of existence. Do you see the irony here? For a whinematar, 11000 hp alpha is all goody and everything is fine but a Caldari hull with 5000 delayed alpha, it's totally overpowerded, EVE is dying, goofswarm disbanding, all nullsec conquered by Caldari faction warfare and no stopping the Caldari because you are bad at dragging the right modules for the job on your fitting screen. Well, I can and will not help you with that. I will stand by opinion that missiles tracking was a bad idea and it needs to go.
Artillery have terrible tracking. Your argument is invalid. No missile tracking would mean Ravens killing cruisers and frigates in seconds.
You must either be a huge missile fanboy or just plain dumb
|
elitatwo
Congregatio
284
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 00:52:00 -
[33] - Quote
Icarus Able wrote:
Artillery have terrible tracking. Your argument is invalid. No missile tracking would mean Ravens killing cruisers and frigates in seconds.
So a tornado or machariel shooting ships with one shot is okay and a Raven shooting a tad harder than she does now is bad?
And what haz artillery turret tracking anything to do with missiles?? signature |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
352
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 05:49:00 -
[34] - Quote
Missile formula discussions have been done to death. If you don't understand why they're bad in their current implementation then you're a bonafide idiot. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015 T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346 LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
7
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 16:38:00 -
[35] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Missile formula discussions have been done to death. If you don't understand why they're bad in their current implementation then you're a bonafide idiot.
First off I resent your comment about me being an idiot. I use missiles and I use guns and I have no clue what you are talking about. Instead of calling people idiots because they do not share your opinion or do not understand your thoughts why not present your case in a calm and rational way. You know by supporting it with something that resembles facts, or maybe even a discussion based on the math formula that CCP uses to calculate damage applied to targets.
So missiles/rockets do not carry the fire power to Alpha strike like artillery does so what? If you want that high alpha strike then fly an artillery boat. Missiles/rockets on the other hand can easily destroy targets that artillery cannot even hit because of tracking penalties. Different tools that should be used in different situations.
All turret based weapons in the game have a chance to miss the intended target and this is how it should be. However if they hit the game generally applies the full damage to the target, this is why artillery has such a high alpha strike potential. That higher power level is balanced by a lower fire rate and a lower chance to hit. But when they do hit look out destruction ensues.
On the other hand most missiles/rockets in the game are guaranteed to hit the target dead center so they are balanced by lower overall damage, a bunch of fancy math that determines how much damage is applied to the target and the chance that some of them will be destroyed by defender missiles before reaching the target. Well defender missiles are an issue for missions. sites and complexes they may not be for PvP.
Different characteristics, different uses. No one uses a chain saw to cut bread or a bread knife to cut trees. I guess I am just weird, crazy or stupid because I value the weapons options that game offers and choose the one that is best for the task at hand. |
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
373
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 18:08:00 -
[36] - Quote
I like the idea and thought behind it.
+1 Are you sure your issues aren't elsewhere ?! |
elitatwo
Congregatio
285
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 19:41:00 -
[37] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote: First off I resent your comment about me being an idiot. I use missiles and I use guns and I have no clue what you are talking about. -snip-
This is offtopic on purpose but important to this case.
Let me start with a little background from my highschool days.
We had one language teacher that was a littler older than his collegues and due to his long years of experience and education he tought us well in the history of languages.
The word 'idiot' comes from a very, very old greek word that sounds similar and with time 'morphed' to the word 'idiot' which we all know today. Now the fact is that back in Greece around 3000 years ago that word meant 'someone who doesn't know' or 'someone who does not have a clue'.
Nowdays that is taken as an insult but really it is just an observation as you can see. It is not even meant as an insult but people that do not know a lot might take it as such.
Now back to topic after my free of charge education for you, you seem to contradict yourself.
And in response to the poeple that are trying to be cute, you really are not cute at all.
Again, when I joined New Eden no missile had an explosion radius or explosion velocity attribute and they were not really dominant that much in pvp except for small scale skirmishes.
You can argue whatever you want with your turrets being blabla balanced and whatnot, what you all seem to forget are recent changes to all of the turrets doing way more damage than they did back in 2006.
No missile recieved any kind of a damage buff, except for cruise missiles and despite the feeling of some noobs that get hurt in the process, I hate to brake it to you but I have what is called 'perfect recall memory' and I know exactly what I am talking about, wether you like it or not.
I do not have to proove any of my claimes and I do not have to make any spreadsheets because the data is already there.
Ask CCP 'X-plosion radius' what he has to say. signature |
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
27
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 19:55:00 -
[38] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:I do not have to proove any of my claimes Why do people have this attitude, when they're posting an idea for the developers to consider changing or adding to the game? "I don't have to prove why this is necessary, the developers should just do it now."
Anyway, explosion velocity and explosion radius will never be removed. Without those, a torpedo Raven will 100% of the time volley a frigate and there's nothing the frigate could ever do about it. If your response is "it's more expensive so it should be beat less expensive things," go back to WoW because Eve is about using ships to their advantages, not grabbing a ship that's perfect for every situation.
Edit: Oh, and while we're at it, Citadel Torpedos with perfect application against cruisers and battleships. I can totally see why you want explosion velocity and explosion radius removed from the game. |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
925
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 20:10:00 -
[39] - Quote
Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:elitatwo wrote:I do not have to proove any of my claimes Why do people have this attitude, when they're posting an idea for the developers to consider changing or adding to the game? "I don't have to prove why this is necessary, the developers should just do it now." Anyway, explosion velocity and explosion radius will never be removed. Without those, a torpedo Raven will 100% of the time volley a frigate and there's nothing the frigate could ever do about it. If your response is "it's more expensive so it should be beat less expensive things," go back to WoW because Eve is about using ships to their advantages, not grabbing a ship that's perfect for every situation. Edit: Oh, and while we're at it, Citadel Torpedos with perfect application against cruisers and battleships. I can totally see why you want explosion velocity and explosion radius removed from the game. This is the Phoenix *no devmagic for a pic* It kills things You will be fighting a Pandemic Legion pocket group of 80 that have slipped behind via a traitor cyno Remember to have an updated clone gents -End of briefing- |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
889
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 20:19:00 -
[40] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Donnachadh wrote: First off I resent your comment about me being an idiot. I use missiles and I use guns and I have no clue what you are talking about. -snip-
This is offtopic on purpose but important to this case. Let me start with a little background from my highschool days. We had one language teacher that was a littler older than his collegues and due to his long years of experience and education he tought us well in the history of languages. The word 'idiot' comes from a very, very old greek word that sounds similar and with time 'morphed' to the word 'idiot' which we all know today. Now the fact is that back in Greece around 3000 years ago that word meant 'someone who doesn't know' or 'someone who does not have a clue'. Nowdays that is taken as an insult but really it is just an observation as you can see. It is not even meant as an insult but people that do not know a lot might take it as such. Now back to topic after my free of charge education for you, you seem to contradict yourself. And in response to the poeple that are trying to be cute, you really are not cute at all. Again, when I joined New Eden no missile had an explosion radius or explosion velocity attribute and they were not really dominant that much in pvp except for small scale skirmishes. You can argue whatever you want with your turrets being blabla balanced and whatnot, what you all seem to forget are recent changes to all of the turrets doing way more damage than they did back in 2006. No missile recieved any kind of a damage buff, except for cruise missiles and despite the feeling of some noobs that get hurt in the process, I hate to brake it to you but I have what is called 'perfect recall memory' and I know exactly what I am talking about, wether you like it or not. I do not have to proove any of my claimes and I do not have to make any spreadsheets because the data is already there. Ask CCP 'X-plosion radius' what he has to say.
funny you say that .. because rockets, light missiles and HAMS all got damage buffs in the last missile rebalance (when they nerfed heavies).. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
|
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
28
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 20:45:00 -
[41] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:funny you say that .. because rockets, light missiles and HAMS all got damage buffs in the last missile rebalance (when they nerfed heavies).. I think we were supposed to leave that part out. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
285
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 22:12:00 -
[42] - Quote
Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:Why do people have this attitude, when they're posting an idea for the developers to consider changing or adding to the game? "I don't have to prove why this is necessary, the developers should just do it now."
Funny you ask me this.
Answer is:
I am here for eight years. Seven years ago they added those two attributes for ? reasons? BOB said so? And the Band of Developers agreed?
Reason unknown to this day.
Proove unnecessary!
And yes, you should have been here and tried one of the Gurista Mazes, where you will be shot at with zero 'tracking' citadel torpedos.
Why do you think that no NPC in EVE has missiles that haz no 'tracking'? Where do you think that comes from?
And Harvey,
you mean that tiny 'tracking' adjustment so those could hit something that wasn't a moon and that 1% damage addition to rockets?? signature |
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
28
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 22:21:00 -
[43] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Reason unknown to this day.
Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:Without those, a torpedo Raven will 100% of the time volley a frigate and there's nothing the frigate could ever do about it.
If they get removed then I want tracking speed taken out as well, so my Abaddon and Revelation won't have any trouble tracking those pesky sig-tanking interceptors. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
477
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 23:43:00 -
[44] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote: So missiles/rockets do not carry the fire power to Alpha strike like artillery does so what? If you want that high alpha strike then fly an artillery boat. Missiles/rockets on the other hand can easily destroy targets that artillery cannot even hit because of tracking penalties. Different tools that should be used in different situations.
The issue is missile meta is harder to push because of this. Some want their primary weapons system they put time into to be you know....more useful.
Missile stats being looked are what make them less loved outside of pve or some niche pvp.
Its not like there is a precedence here. Drone doctrine says hi, thank for fixing most of the things broken with us to have drone boats (beyond carriers) to be loved again. Some balance issues remain granted....but they no longer a secondary weapon system brought for coloring to the drink as it were.
Before drones it was hybrid rebalance. You see the learn other weapons arguments was used before here to. And showed to be lacking. I still have projectile and laser rokh fits in some data files somewhere. Before rebalance....they were legit outside of official ops where it was force fed "fleet fit" rules in place. Trade in my range bonus of the weapon spec'd for the ship, get other bene's for it (cap less projectiles or better damage type selection with lasers). Not sure if you have been here before....it tends to create a sense of man this is just a bit messed up.
Also worth noting the target that don't die in arty strikes can weather missiles as well. the speed they have to fake out tracking of arty also reduces missile damage. Can also throw in firewalls. And factor in missile speed and delayed hit...the damage that actually reaches them has varying chances to repped up.
I recall a match Saturday before break where the commentators were wondering why a NH was not being killed outright. It was iirc the only real souce of dps (paper anyway) left on the field for the other team. HML fit too, so ranged dps to boot. then they guessed it was because its damage was easily locally repped so the the winning team opted fo pop frigs and such instead and leave the NH for last on the clean up list. If you watched the damage bars....good assumption. Nothing on the other side was having damage bars get hit bad.
Pretty sad sign when link + long ranged dps has you last on the list still. then we look at say sieiprnir comps....usually you want the sleipnirs dead ASAP.
Worth noting logi on both sides dead at this point....whatever the NH was hitting was not going omfg, help help I am dying and local reps not holding. |
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
28
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 00:56:00 -
[45] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:I recall a match Saturday before break where the commentators were wondering why a NH was not being killed outright. It was iirc the only real souce of dps (paper anyway) left on the field for the other team. HML fit too, so ranged dps to boot By NH I assume you mean Nighthawk.
He traded raw DPS for the ability to hit at longer range and apply damage better to smaller/faster targets. A beam-fit Absolution or a rail-fit Vulture would be easily locally-tanked as well (with worse damage application). Your comparison is off because you're comparing short-range (point-blank!) autocannons on a ship that gets a total of 100% damage bonus, and long-range HMLs on a ship that gets a single damage bonus to what many regard is the most easily-resisted damage type.
If the Nighthawk could apply a Sleipnir's DPS at the 60km its heavy missiles could reach with the missiles' incredible damage application, something would be very wrong. |
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
interstellar initiative Incorporated
240
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 01:07:00 -
[46] - Quote
Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:Zan Shiro wrote:I recall a match Saturday before break where the commentators were wondering why a NH was not being killed outright. It was iirc the only real souce of dps (paper anyway) left on the field for the other team. HML fit too, so ranged dps to boot By NH I assume you mean Nighthawk. He traded raw DPS for the ability to hit at longer range and apply damage better to smaller/faster targets. A beam-fit Absolution or a rail-fit Vultures would be easily locally-tanked as well. Your comparison is off because you're comparing short-range (point-blank!) autocannons on a ship that gets a total of 100% damage bonus, and long-range HMLs on a ship that gets a single damage bonus to what many regard is the most easily-resisted damage type. If the Nighthawk could apply a Sleipnir's DPS at the 60km its heavy missiles could reach with the missiles' incredible damage application, something would be very wrong. While your assessment is not wrong, I think you are missing what he was trying to point out. I assume he was drawing attention to the fact that the damage dealt by the Nighthawk wasn't sufficient to even make a local tank sweat, which seems lacking when considering that the damage was coming from a T2 platform. A HML Nighthawk shouldn't be sweeping the field alone, but neither should it be such a non-threat that the opposing team feels secure in taking their time clearing the support frigates until they decide to take out the Nighthawk at their leisure. The issue of Caldari platforms having bonuses to what you call "the most easily easily-resisted damage type" is a separate, albeit related, issue that I hope will be looked at in the near-future. *Just my impression of someone else's post, not putting words in their mouth |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
478
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 02:06:00 -
[47] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Just my impression of someone else's post, not putting words in their mouth
You would be correct. If it had real applicable dps it be higher priority target in the off chance crap happens to give the losing side an unexpected opening. A few key boundary violations, magic can happen. This case was just written off for the NH.
Not asking for uber NH's of doom....just be nice if they in some cases were a target to be just a little bit feared. Not discounting frigs...they have done some amazing things like the uber hero tanking burst (think that was Saturday too?, took 26000ish damage over time before it finally fell). Its just in my mind would have been better if there was a reason to have the NH dropped right not right now.
TBH in this and many other threads I have offered a very fair caveat. Make missiles hit better....and I'd if the terms were agreeable accept the caveat they can miss. I do all weapons. With guns, imo, I make out better at the end of it all when I tally up the missed shots with the shots that connect hard. It be why after gun conversion...I liked them more. If we and and ccp could have this tally reflected missile side worked out....I'd be happy to get them more viable. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
296
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 08:58:00 -
[48] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:Zan Shiro wrote:I recall a match Saturday before break where the commentators were wondering why a NH was not being killed outright. It was iirc the only real souce of dps (paper anyway) left on the field for the other team. HML fit too, so ranged dps to boot By NH I assume you mean Nighthawk. He traded raw DPS for the ability to hit at longer range and apply damage better to smaller/faster targets. A beam-fit Absolution or a rail-fit Vultures would be easily locally-tanked as well. Your comparison is off because you're comparing short-range (point-blank!) autocannons on a ship that gets a total of 100% damage bonus, and long-range HMLs on a ship that gets a single damage bonus to what many regard is the most easily-resisted damage type. If the Nighthawk could apply a Sleipnir's DPS at the 60km its heavy missiles could reach with the missiles' incredible damage application, something would be very wrong. While your assessment is not wrong, I think you are missing what he was trying to point out. I assume he was drawing attention to the fact that the damage dealt by the Nighthawk wasn't sufficient to even make a local tank sweat, which seems lacking when considering that the damage was coming from a T2 platform. A HML Nighthawk shouldn't be sweeping the field alone, but neither should it be such a non-threat that the opposing team feels secure in taking their time clearing the support frigates until they decide to take out the Nighthawk at their leisure. The issue of Caldari platforms having bonuses to what you call "the most easily easily-resisted damage type" is a separate, albeit related, issue that I hope will be looked at in the near-future. *Just my impression of someone else's post, not putting words in their mouth
That is because heavy missiles are hilariously bad. They are out damaged at most useful ranges by just about everything.
Hell a mwd shield tanked cruiser doesn't even take full damage and it's not like the damage is stellar to begin with.
I did some comparisons between rails and HML and the rails utterly dunk them - at MAX transversal! |
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
769
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 09:28:00 -
[49] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:It is long overdue for a Ballistic Enhancer for missiles. Even drones now have low-slot enhancements, yet missile ships are continually relegated to utilizing rigs for improving missile ballistic damage application. I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but just in case it hasn't...
Drones deserve damage application enhancing modules because drones can be destroyed Turrets deserve damage application enhancing modules because turrets can be tracking disrupted Missiles deserve damage application enhancing modules because... ???
Please finish the sentence. Targeting, Sensors and ECM Overhaul |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 09:38:00 -
[50] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:It is long overdue for a Ballistic Enhancer for missiles. Even drones now have low-slot enhancements, yet missile ships are continually relegated to utilizing rigs for improving missile ballistic damage application. I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but just in case it hasn't... Drones deserve damage application enhancing modules because drones can be destroyed Turrets deserve damage application enhancing modules because turrets can be tracking disrupted Missiles deserve damage application enhancing modules because... ??? Please finish the sentence.
... they can't apply damage to a target sitting 0m away going 0ms even without E-war
and why not add an E-war mod to counter the proposed mod |
|
Distuth Brinalle
Wraith.Wing
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 09:40:00 -
[51] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:It is long overdue for a Ballistic Enhancer for missiles. Even drones now have low-slot enhancements, yet missile ships are continually relegated to utilizing rigs for improving missile ballistic damage application. I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but just in case it hasn't... Drones deserve damage application enhancing modules because drones can be destroyed Turrets deserve damage application enhancing modules because turrets can be tracking disrupted Missiles deserve damage application enhancing modules because... ??? Please finish the sentence.
Because Missiles can be speed tanked at a higher effectiveness than either turrets or drones. Even ships that aren't built for speed tanking do a pretty good job of it. I'd say they deserve it more than turrets because not everyone packs tracking disruption, whereas everyone packs an engine.
Also because **** you, missiles are cool. You get to make "whoosh" noises with your mouth when they leave the launcher.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 09:41:00 -
[52] - Quote
Distuth Brinalle wrote:
Because Missiles can be speed tanked at a higher effectiveness than either turrets or drones. Even ships that aren't built for speed tanking do a pretty good job of it. I'd say they deserve it more than turrets because not everyone packs tracking disruption, whereas everyone packs an engine.
Also because **** you, missiles are cool. You get to make "whoosh" noises with your mouth when they leave the launcher.
lol they can be speed tanked by a ship holding still |
elitatwo
Congregatio
285
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 10:26:00 -
[53] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:It is long overdue for a Ballistic Enhancer for missiles. Even drones now have low-slot enhancements, yet missile ships are continually relegated to utilizing rigs for improving missile ballistic damage application. I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but just in case it hasn't... Drones deserve damage application enhancing modules because drones can be destroyed Turrets deserve damage application enhancing modules because turrets can be tracking disrupted Missiles deserve damage application enhancing modules because... ??? Please finish the sentence.
And the answer here is, that was what those defender missles were for, you know back in 2003 - 2006 where missile were considered strong.
The second weapon system that can be shot down if you wish.
For those who might be guessing it wrong, I also use turrets, so my observations of those will have merit too.
But I am Caldari at heart, I was born Caldari and I will always be Caldari. signature |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
296
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 10:29:00 -
[54] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:Missiles deserve damage application enhancing modules because... ??? Please finish the sentence.
Because I can't hit a cruiser with a 1157m signature with a heavy missile (exp radius 105m) unless it is going under 700 m/s for full damage?
And if that same cruiser moves at it's max speed (2117) I'm down to 31.8% applied damage.
Cruiser weapon. Shooting a MWD shield tanked cruiser. <32% damage applied. Does that seem reasonable?
Tbh, we don't need mods - we need heavy missiles un-fubared.
And if anyone suggests web/painters I'll once again point out that these ALSO boost turret and drone systems and as such are not a great "equalizer" for missiles.
Edit: Shooting the same cruiser (caracal) with a 60% web applied and it's MWD off, the missile still only manages 74.5% damage. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
478
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 10:39:00 -
[55] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Distuth Brinalle wrote:
Because Missiles can be speed tanked at a higher effectiveness than either turrets or drones. Even ships that aren't built for speed tanking do a pretty good job of it. I'd say they deserve it more than turrets because not everyone packs tracking disruption, whereas everyone packs an engine.
Also because **** you, missiles are cool. You get to make "whoosh" noises with your mouth when they leave the launcher.
lol they can be speed tanked by a ship holding still
I used to run web or scram while I also ran paint on stations for final killing bashes to help my brothers in arms in phoenix. The web/scram was a joke (but to my credit a station has never burned off or warped away on my watch).
Sadly the target painting was not a joke. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
889
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 13:03:00 -
[56] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:Why do people have this attitude, when they're posting an idea for the developers to consider changing or adding to the game? "I don't have to prove why this is necessary, the developers should just do it now." Funny you ask me this. Answer is: I am here for eight years. Seven years ago they added those two attributes for ? reasons? BOB said so? And the Band of Developers agreed? Reason unknown to this day. Proove unnecessary! And yes, you should have been here and tried one of the Gurista Mazes, where you will be shot at with zero 'tracking' citadel torpedos. Why do you think that no NPC in EVE has missiles that haz no 'tracking'? Where do you think that comes from? And Harvey, you mean that tiny 'tracking' adjustment so those could hit something that wasn't a moon and that 1% damage addition to rockets??
light missiles got a 10% damage increase .. thus why they are so popular combined with their ability too apply damage.. when they nerfed heavies and changed the GMP skill too apply too all missiles .. they increased the damage of HAMS, torps and rockets .. and the GMP skill boosted the tracking of most of them .. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
28
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 13:12:00 -
[57] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:I assume he was drawing attention to the fact that the damage dealt by the Nighthawk wasn't sufficient to even make a local tank sweat, which seems lacking when considering that the damage was coming from a T2 platform. Right, which is a problem which is shared by other command ships fitting the long-range weapons of a particular type. Absolutions with heavy beams do about the same DPS, with much worse damage application. |
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
377
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 13:28:00 -
[58] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:I do not have to proove any of my claimes and I do not have to make any spreadsheets because the data is already there. First, if you make a positive claim about something being bad and to be removed, the burdon of proof is on you, always.
And the statement, 'well I was a moron then, I am a moron now, therefore I am right' doesn't really pull any weight either. Just because you are here now and you were 'there' 'then' has no impact no the validity of the truth in any way and does not correlate to anything good or bad in either case. Data - data - data, combined with logic and reason.
It is very simple, if explosion velocity and explosaion radius would get removed, it would make missiles so overpowered, other weapon system could not compete with it, which is even the minor issue here-¦-¦. It would make them counter-less (and don't play dump, you know what is meant).
The problem you have is not with either of the stats, it is with balancing them.
And for someone who claims to know, you understand very little. You also seem to think that being intelligent is the same as having knowledge, which is not the case either.
Are you sure your issues aren't elsewhere ?! |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
300
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 13:33:00 -
[59] - Quote
Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:I assume he was drawing attention to the fact that the damage dealt by the Nighthawk wasn't sufficient to even make a local tank sweat, which seems lacking when considering that the damage was coming from a T2 platform. Right, which is a problem which is shared by other command ships fitting the long-range weapons of a particular type. Absolutions with heavy beams do about the same DPS, with much worse damage application.
I don't think that is wholly accurate - if you're shooting at, say a shield tanked MWD caracal.
It perhaps becomes true beyond certain ranges - all of which are well passed point range. However, I'm working so short on time so the only things I fit to the attackers were 2 damage mods and full weapon rack using IN standard and CN scourge
Beams have definitely have better engagement profile in point ranges (8-38km ish) and probably (I've not fully fit one due to time so no TE/TC tested) better projection except at all but effectively unworkable ranges.
It does require ammo shuffling if ranges are flexing I'll admit, but with that being instant, that's hardly a material chore/downside.
And that's with a hull application bonus on the nighthawk. Sure, I guess I could put rigors/flares on there to help out/get near the other weapon applied DPS - but that buggers my tank options - to break even.
Rails are even harder to get near.
In fact, when I last looked, only arty can legitimately lay claim to worse application than HML - something I'm unsure of how I feel about given the instant alpha arty can project. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1231
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 16:55:00 -
[60] - Quote
Just make a mod that reduce flight time but grant better application OR more missile speed. Hell make it similar to a TC if you want with different scripts or 2 entirely different mod so a trade off has to be made at the fitting screen.
Seeker optimiser (insert fitting cost here) Missile explosion radius +10% Missile explosion velocity +10% Missile flight time -15%
Rocket engine overfeeding system <---- this name is sooooo bad (insert fitting cost here) Missile flight speed +10% Missile flight time -15% |
|
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
interstellar initiative Incorporated
241
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 18:26:00 -
[61] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: Just make a mod that reduce flight time but grant better application OR more missile speed. Hell make it similar to a TC if you want with different scripts or 2 entirely different mod so a trade off has to be made at the fitting screen.
Seeker optimiser (insert fitting cost here) Missile explosion radius +10% Missile explosion velocity +10% Missile flight time -15%
Rocket engine overfeeding system <---- this name is sooooo bad (insert fitting cost here) Missile flight speed +10% Missile flight time -15%
Working with what you have, I would like to see the top module idea as a low slot that competes with the BCS. You could fit Rigors and stack those in your lows and have a Torp Raven that can apply well to cruisers (or maybe frigs), but without the damage and ROF bonus from the BCS, or you could fit a HML Drake with 2/2 and have a versatile platform. As for the second idea, I would love to see that as a scripted mid-slot like a TC so you could either extend your flight time (rockets/HAMs/Torps), or increase your flight speed (Lights/HMLs/Cruise/Torps). These are the kinds of modules we're asking for, they come with fitting tradeoffs just like turret mods have. For example, look at an Incursion fit where they stack the lows with Gyro's/Heatsinks and then put multiple TC's in the mids and then get ReTC's from Scimi's/Oni's. A missile pilot doesn't even have the option to go super-duper overboard like that, you stack Rigors, put on 4 BCS's and that's it, that's all you can do. Besides the webs/TP's that help everyone. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1231
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 18:53:00 -
[62] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: Just make a mod that reduce flight time but grant better application OR more missile speed. Hell make it similar to a TC if you want with different scripts or 2 entirely different mod so a trade off has to be made at the fitting screen.
Seeker optimiser (insert fitting cost here) Missile explosion radius +10% Missile explosion velocity +10% Missile flight time -15%
Rocket engine overfeeding system <---- this name is sooooo bad (insert fitting cost here) Missile flight speed +10% Missile flight time -15%
Working with what you have, I would like to see the top module idea as a low slot that competes with the BCS. You could fit Rigors and stack those in your lows and have a Torp Raven that can apply well to cruisers (or maybe frigs), but without the damage and ROF bonus from the BCS, or you could fit a HML Drake with 2/2 and have a versatile platform. As for the second idea, I would love to see that as a scripted mid-slot like a TC so you could either extend your flight time (rockets/HAMs/Torps), or increase your flight speed (Lights/HMLs/Cruise/Torps). These are the kinds of modules we're asking for, they come with fitting tradeoffs just like turret mods have. For example, look at an Incursion fit where they stack the lows with Gyro's/Heatsinks and then put multiple TC's in the mids and then get ReTC's from Scimi's/Oni's. A missile pilot doesn't even have the option to go super-duper overboard like that, you stack Rigors, put on 4 BCS's and that's it, that's all you can do. Besides the webs/TP's that help everyone.
You could go like TC/TE and make a low slot passive module and a med active module too. The idea really is just to ahve the options beside rigs for application. Then if CCP see the need, they could integrate an e-war module for countering missile application but I always wonder if people would use a counter to a weapon system you only face on one out of 4 ships or so... |
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
interstellar initiative Incorporated
241
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 19:17:00 -
[63] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: Just make a mod that reduce flight time but grant better application OR more missile speed. Hell make it similar to a TC if you want with different scripts or 2 entirely different mod so a trade off has to be made at the fitting screen.
Seeker optimiser (insert fitting cost here) Missile explosion radius +10% Missile explosion velocity +10% Missile flight time -15%
Rocket engine overfeeding system <---- this name is sooooo bad (insert fitting cost here) Missile flight speed +10% Missile flight time -15%
Working with what you have, I would like to see the top module idea as a low slot that competes with the BCS. You could fit Rigors and stack those in your lows and have a Torp Raven that can apply well to cruisers (or maybe frigs), but without the damage and ROF bonus from the BCS, or you could fit a HML Drake with 2/2 and have a versatile platform. As for the second idea, I would love to see that as a scripted mid-slot like a TC so you could either extend your flight time (rockets/HAMs/Torps), or increase your flight speed (Lights/HMLs/Cruise/Torps). These are the kinds of modules we're asking for, they come with fitting tradeoffs just like turret mods have. For example, look at an Incursion fit where they stack the lows with Gyro's/Heatsinks and then put multiple TC's in the mids and then get ReTC's from Scimi's/Oni's. A missile pilot doesn't even have the option to go super-duper overboard like that, you stack Rigors, put on 4 BCS's and that's it, that's all you can do. Besides the webs/TP's that help everyone. You could go like TC/TE and make a low slot passive module and a med active module too. The idea really is just to ahve the options beside rigs for application. Then if CCP see the need, they could integrate an e-war module for countering missile application but I always wonder if people would use a counter to a weapon system you only face on one out of 4 ships or so... I agree, and your post pointed out an error in mine that I corrected with an edit. As to why have a flight speed bonus, look at the main reason that you almost never see a missile boat in an Incursion fleet: Delayed damage in a fleet with light-speed artillery. These types of modules wouldn't insta-fix anything, but they would add a new layer of versatility to missile boats as a trade off for raw damage and/or tank, which I think most people can agree is reasonable. The actual numbers may not be spot on, I for one am too lazy to crunch them, but the principle is sound. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1231
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 19:22:00 -
[64] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: I agree, and your post pointed out an error in mine that I corrected with an edit. As to why have a flight speed bonus, look at the main reason that you almost never see a missile boat in an Incursion fleet: Delayed damage in a fleet with light-speed artillery. These types of modules wouldn't insta-fix anything, but they would add a new layer of versatility to missile boats as a trade off for raw damage and/or tank, which I think most people can agree is reasonable. The actual numbers may not be spot on, I for one am too lazy to crunch them, but the principle is sound.
If missile ship trade damage potential for missile speed, they would still not get taken in incursion fleet because their dps would be to low to justify them being there. People would still need as many BCU to bring similar damage level to what gets in fleet. They would use leftover low/mid slots for application like gunnery ship do. |
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
interstellar initiative Incorporated
241
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 19:43:00 -
[65] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: I agree, and your post pointed out an error in mine that I corrected with an edit. As to why have a flight speed bonus, look at the main reason that you almost never see a missile boat in an Incursion fleet: Delayed damage in a fleet with light-speed artillery. These types of modules wouldn't insta-fix anything, but they would add a new layer of versatility to missile boats as a trade off for raw damage and/or tank, which I think most people can agree is reasonable. The actual numbers may not be spot on, I for one am too lazy to crunch them, but the principle is sound.
If missile ship trade damage potential for missile speed, they would still not get taken in incursion fleet because their dps would be to low to justify them being there. People would still need as many BCU to bring similar damage level to what gets in fleet. They would use leftover low/mid slots for application like gunnery ship do. Depends on the number of low slots, if you were able to fit 3 BCS and 2speed mods the lower, but more consistent, DPS might be desirable. It might not. Just an example of something that missiles aren't preferred for that might open up a bit. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1231
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 20:13:00 -
[66] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: I agree, and your post pointed out an error in mine that I corrected with an edit. As to why have a flight speed bonus, look at the main reason that you almost never see a missile boat in an Incursion fleet: Delayed damage in a fleet with light-speed artillery. These types of modules wouldn't insta-fix anything, but they would add a new layer of versatility to missile boats as a trade off for raw damage and/or tank, which I think most people can agree is reasonable. The actual numbers may not be spot on, I for one am too lazy to crunch them, but the principle is sound.
If missile ship trade damage potential for missile speed, they would still not get taken in incursion fleet because their dps would be to low to justify them being there. People would still need as many BCU to bring similar damage level to what gets in fleet. They would use leftover low/mid slots for application like gunnery ship do. Depends on the number of low slots and the fleet (ISN, no, but one of the entry-level fleets, maybe), if you were able to fit 3 BCS and 2speed mods the lower, but more consistent, DPS might be desirable. It might not. Just an example of something that missiles aren't preferred for that might open up a bit. That might be a bad example, probably is in fact, but it was just something off the top of my head. Overall, this makes missile fits a lot less rigid and opens the door for a much larger variety of fits based on the situation in the same way that turret weapons are tweakable to the situation.
With only speed mods, it means you still have application problems to anything not painted AND webbed while gunnery ships only need webs to be applied so you still fall short. Missile ships already gets taken in non optimal fleet so it change nothing for those and they still would not be taken by optimized fleet because vindi would still do a better job at close range and mach/nightmare would still do a better job at range.
Making missile better so they compete in incursion would break other things. Not making them better in some way mean they won't be taken by the best fleet and people will keep crying about it not being balanced.
Adding application options on the fitting of missile ships has value in it's own right even if it will not change the current incursion meta of using the best tool for the job. The idea is to make sure the module constitute a trade-off like the gunnery version do. I personally think a penalty on some stats for another benefit can be balanced without the need to add a dedicated missile e-war since you pay the slot price just like turret boat do and pay the penalty on the mod while they pay the e-war headache. |
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
interstellar initiative Incorporated
241
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 20:31:00 -
[67] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: I agree, and your post pointed out an error in mine that I corrected with an edit. As to why have a flight speed bonus, look at the main reason that you almost never see a missile boat in an Incursion fleet: Delayed damage in a fleet with light-speed artillery. These types of modules wouldn't insta-fix anything, but they would add a new layer of versatility to missile boats as a trade off for raw damage and/or tank, which I think most people can agree is reasonable. The actual numbers may not be spot on, I for one am too lazy to crunch them, but the principle is sound.
If missile ship trade damage potential for missile speed, they would still not get taken in incursion fleet because their dps would be to low to justify them being there. People would still need as many BCU to bring similar damage level to what gets in fleet. They would use leftover low/mid slots for application like gunnery ship do. Depends on the number of low slots and the fleet (ISN, no, but one of the entry-level fleets, maybe), if you were able to fit 3 BCS and 2speed mods the lower, but more consistent, DPS might be desirable. It might not. Just an example of something that missiles aren't preferred for that might open up a bit. That might be a bad example, probably is in fact, but it was just something off the top of my head. Overall, this makes missile fits a lot less rigid and opens the door for a much larger variety of fits based on the situation in the same way that turret weapons are tweakable to the situation. With only speed mods, it means you still have application problems to anything not painted AND webbed while gunnery ships only need webs to be applied so you still fall short. Missile ships already gets taken in non optimal fleet so it change nothing for those and they still would not be taken by optimized fleet because vindi would still do a better job at close range and mach/nightmare would still do a better job at range. Making missile better so they compete in incursion would break other things. Not making them better in some way mean they won't be taken by the best fleet and people will keep crying about it not being balanced. Adding application options on the fitting of missile ships has value in it's own right even if it will not change the current incursion meta of using the best tool for the job. The idea is to make sure the module constitute a trade-off like the gunnery version do. I personally think a penalty on some stats for another benefit can be balanced without the need to add a dedicated missile e-war since you pay the slot price just like turret boat do and pay the penalty on the mod while they pay the e-war headache. I agree. Making missile ships fit into the incursion meta is not high on my list of priorities and is definitely not a factor in what kind of modules I think we need, it was simply the first example of a play style where missiles are not commonly found that sprang to my mind. Although I will say that if an active mid-slot module were to be added for application it would solve that particular problem insofar as incursions, however I digress.
I do not think that there needs to be a new type of e-war even if the modules that I initially quoted were to be created, the reasoning being that you can counter long-range combat with sensor damps, you can counter any missile with Defenders, and of course any ship can mitigate partial damage just by moving faster than a certain threshold. Not all ships are able to move fast enough, but sufficient speed is enough mitigate missile damage regardless of transversal such that a ship flying directly into your missile takes just as much damage as a ship moving directly away from it at the same speed. I think that, without crunching any numbers, the counters (excluding Defenders) already in existence should be sufficient.
I, of course, agree that Defenders are just as much, if not more, in need of a rework as Heavy Missiles, especially if that is the price to pay for a balance of missiles and an introduction of new modules. Possibly even have varying sizes of Defender launchers, such that the frigate size launches a single charge per cycle, the cruiser size launches 2/cycle (with a proportionate increase in fitting), and the Battleship size launches 3/cycle. A change similar to that would allow a utility high to be used to be used effectively instead of "spitting into the wind", although if launchers are going to spit out that many charges I would be interested to see the impact if a new Defender ammo could have the effect of confusing an enemy turret.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4111
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 20:47:00 -
[68] - Quote
I think we need better analysis of the numbers.
Altering the explosion Velocity and/or Radius may have significantly different effects on missile damage application (compared to changing tracking for turret damage application).
Damage Upgrade module, T2 (such as Gyrostabilizer, Heat Sink etc): GÖª The 1st T2 Damage Upgrade module increase damage with +23.5% GÖª The 2nd T2 Damage Upgrade module increase damage with +20% GÖª The 3rd T2 Damage Upgrade module increase damage with +13% GÖª The 4th T2 Damage Upgrade module increase damage with +6.5%
Tracking Enchancer, T2: GÖª When Angular velocity = 25% of your Tracking: +9.5% more tracking is the same as +1.1% damage GÖª When Angular velocity = 50% of your Tracking: +9.5% more tracking is the same as +4.2% damage GÖª When Angular velocity = 75% of your Tracking: +9.5% more tracking is the same as +9.5% damage GÖª When Angular velocity = 100% of your Tracking: +9.5% more tracking is the same as +16.6% damage
In comparison, a 10% decrease in explosion radius has an 11% increase in damage to a slow target.
A target must be moving faster than the a threshold to receive a reduction in damage do to speed. This threshold is easily calculated as Target Size * (Missile Explosion Velocity / Missile Explosion Radius). The last two terms are both altered by by 10% with this module. A 10% increase in explosion Velocity with a 10% decrease in explosion radius is a net 22% increase, meaning ships need to travel 22% faster to reduce missile damage.
To sum up: Your module is an 11% increase in raw damage, and increases the minimum velocity to reduce damage by 22%. It doesn't stack with target painters or Ballistic Control Systems either.
I have a feeling your numbers are out of line, especially since reducing missile dps is much more difficult than reducing turret dps! |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
889
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 20:51:00 -
[69] - Quote
defenders missiles - add them too a new midslot module .. called defender launcher ...
light defenders could be fast anti drone missiles heavy defenders - designed too destroy medium missiles add super heavy defenders - designed too kill torps/cruises add comb defenders - designed too kill bombs add disruptor missiles - designed too affect a ships missile launcher - i.e. a missile tracking disruptor Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
interstellar initiative Incorporated
241
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 21:01:00 -
[70] - Quote
At a glance I would say that the numbers are arbitrary, however your point is valid and possibly the scripted module would allow you to choose an unscripted bonus of 5% to each, or scripting to receive 12% to one. In my opinion, the important thing is that people can agree on the base concept of a passive low trading speed for flight time, and an active, possibly scripted, mid that allows you to affect your application by trading tank. If players can agree on this then we can proceed to crunch numbers and present a consolidated front to CCP and push for the change as a majority. Doing so would also mean that when the changes came out they would be received much better than if CCP just ran out another RLML system fiasco.
As for Defenders, there is already a module for them so why create an entirely new one? I would much rather see the existing module/ammo fixed to take advantage of utility highs. |
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
889
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 21:32:00 -
[71] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:At a glance I would say that the numbers are arbitrary, however your point is valid and possibly the scripted module would allow you to choose an unscripted bonus of 5% to each, or scripting to receive 12% to one. In my opinion, the important thing is that people can agree on the base concept of a passive low trading speed for flight time, and an active, possibly scripted, mid that allows you to affect your application by trading tank. If players can agree on this then we can proceed to crunch numbers and present a consolidated front to CCP and push for the change as a majority. Doing so would also mean that when the changes came out they would be received much better than if CCP just ran out another RLML system fiasco.
As for Defenders, there is already a module for them so why create an entirely new one? I would much rather see the existing module/ammo fixed to take advantage of utility highs.
because people don't sacrifice high slot launchers for defender missiles ... then ofc there are ship without spare highs or launchers .. as a highslot defenders are not viable thus the reason they are unused now ..
but as a midslot people would use them Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1231
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 22:51:00 -
[72] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:At a glance I would say that the numbers are arbitrary, however your point is valid and possibly the scripted module would allow you to choose an unscripted bonus of 5% to each, or scripting to receive 12% to one. In my opinion, the important thing is that people can agree on the base concept of a passive low trading speed for flight time, and an active, possibly scripted, mid that allows you to affect your application by trading tank. If players can agree on this then we can proceed to crunch numbers and present a consolidated front to CCP and push for the change as a majority. Doing so would also mean that when the changes came out they would be received much better than if CCP just ran out another RLML system fiasco.
As for Defenders, there is already a module for them so why create an entirely new one? I would much rather see the existing module/ammo fixed to take advantage of utility highs. because people don't sacrifice high slot launchers for defender missiles ... then ofc there are ship without spare highs or launchers .. as a highslot defenders are not viable thus the reason they are unused now .. but as a midslot people would use them
Most people also don't fit TD but you think people would fit a module countering only about 1/4 of the ship you could face? |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1231
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 22:52:00 -
[73] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I have a feeling your numbers are out of line, especially since reducing missile dps is much more difficult than reducing turret dps!
It's harder to generate raw speed than angular velocity?
I'm not saying the number are balanced because they were basically chosen just to illustrate the idea at that point. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
889
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 22:56:00 -
[74] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Harvey James wrote:scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:At a glance I would say that the numbers are arbitrary, however your point is valid and possibly the scripted module would allow you to choose an unscripted bonus of 5% to each, or scripting to receive 12% to one. In my opinion, the important thing is that people can agree on the base concept of a passive low trading speed for flight time, and an active, possibly scripted, mid that allows you to affect your application by trading tank. If players can agree on this then we can proceed to crunch numbers and present a consolidated front to CCP and push for the change as a majority. Doing so would also mean that when the changes came out they would be received much better than if CCP just ran out another RLML system fiasco.
As for Defenders, there is already a module for them so why create an entirely new one? I would much rather see the existing module/ammo fixed to take advantage of utility highs. because people don't sacrifice high slot launchers for defender missiles ... then ofc there are ship without spare highs or launchers .. as a highslot defenders are not viable thus the reason they are unused now .. but as a midslot people would use them Most people also don't fit TD but you think people would fit a module countering only about 1/4 of the ship you could face?
thats the dilemma of adding missiles too TD's .. they would become very powerful omni tools ... but making defenders do things even TD's can't do (assuming missles were added too them) would make them worth using Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
elitatwo
Congregatio
285
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 23:14:00 -
[75] - Quote
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote: -snip- It is very simple, if explosion velocity and explosaion radius would get removed, it would make missiles so overpowered, other weapon system could not compete with it, which is even the minor issue here-¦-¦. It would make them counter-less (and don't play dump, you know what is meant).
The problem you have is not with either of the stats, it is with balancing them.
-before I snap-
Let's do a little experiment.
Assume for a minute or so that heavy missiles have no 'tracking'. For this experiment to work let us also assume that you and maybe three or four of your buddies are camping a gate somewhere in nullsec, let it be Syndicate.
So you have your cbuddies and I am flying a Drake fit with heavy missiles. And because you said I am stupid let us assume I have Mjolnir missiles loaded, the tech one ones. My launchers are grouped so they will launch 6 missiles at the same time. Maximum range is like 60km if nobody involved in the upcoming 'fight' is moving at all.
You and your buddies will be sitting at 50km of the gate in four or five tornados.
Now I will jump into the system you are sitting at at that perfect spot to shoot down everything that jumps in.
Aaan because I am so stupid I decloak and lock all the tornados and press fire.
You and your buddies on the other hand, smart as you are start moving away from be because I landed on the other side of the gate and my current distance is now 60km. You and your buddies lock me up and press F1 and 50.000 hp of damage hit my Drake and goes boom but not before my totally out of line-super-dooper-mega overpowered missiles lands a zero % hit of 1000 hp EM damage to a buffer tanked tornado.
Your buddy is wetting his panties now because he 'only' has 45% EM resist on his shields as that one volley is in the sky and... ooops out of range.
Okay, sound silly right?
I know gatecamps have way more ships than the five of you and let's say I managed land one hit with my Drake here but the sad thing is those now even more super overpowered missiles only did 650hp damage.
By Jupiter, what haz happened?
One tiny thing people are not taking into consideration here is that when CCP finally ditches 'tracking' from missies a 1000hp volley of damage will not even be a 1000hp damage hit on the target because the first this missiles hit will be shields or if we would be in a different situation they would hit armor.
Or imagine that I would have hams fit on my Drake and my super-omg-bbq-wtf-pwn-mobile missile launchers are our of range at 20km - 30km on my Sacrilege, assuming you are not moving.
Another thing that you are not considering is that if you had a buddy in a Carcal with an assault launcher fit with you and he had loaded Defender Missiles, only one or two missiles would have reached a target at all.
So you can not only keep out of missile range, you can stay out of range to begin with and you can shoot them down with the very weapon system you believe will be out of hand. signature |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4112
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 00:00:00 -
[76] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Fer'isam K'ahn wrote: -snip- It is very simple, if explosion velocity and explosaion radius would get removed, it would make missiles so overpowered, other weapon system could not compete with it, which is even the minor issue here-¦-¦. It would make them counter-less (and don't play dump, you know what is meant).
The problem you have is not with either of the stats, it is with balancing them.
-before I snap-
Let's do a little experiment. Assume for a minute or so that heavy missiles have no 'tracking'. For this experiment to work let us also assume that you and maybe three or four of your buddies are camping a gate somewhere in nullsec, let it be Syndicate. So you have your cbuddies and I am flying a Drake fit with heavy missiles. And because you said I am stupid let us assume I have Mjolnir missiles loaded, the tech one ones. My launchers are grouped so they will launch 6 missiles at the same time. Maximum range is like 60km if nobody involved in the upcoming 'fight' is moving at all. You and your buddies will be sitting at 50km of the gate in four or five tornados.
Cause it makes total sense to compare Large guns to medium missiles...
|
elitatwo
Congregatio
286
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 01:50:00 -
[77] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Cause it makes total sense to compare Large guns to medium missiles...
Would you feel better if I used Sleipnir x2 @10km and Ishtar x50 @80km for that example? signature |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 02:22:00 -
[78] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:elitatwo wrote:Donnachadh wrote: First off I resent your comment about me being an idiot. I use missiles and I use guns and I have no clue what you are talking about. -snip-
This is offtopic on purpose but important to this case. Let me start with a little background from my highschool days. We had one language teacher that was a littler older than his collegues and due to his long years of experience and education he tought us well in the history of languages. The word 'idiot' comes from a very, very old greek word that sounds similar and with time 'morphed' to the word 'idiot' which we all know today. Now the fact is that back in Greece around 3000 years ago that word meant 'someone who doesn't know' or 'someone who does not have a clue'. Nowdays that is taken as an insult but really it is just an observation as you can see. It is not even meant as an insult but people that do not know a lot might take it as such. Now back to topic after my free of charge education for you, you seem to contradict yourself. And in response to the poeple that are trying to be cute, you really are not cute at all. Again, when I joined New Eden no missile had an explosion radius or explosion velocity attribute and they were not really dominant that much in pvp except for small scale skirmishes. You can argue whatever you want with your turrets being blabla balanced and whatnot, what you all seem to forget are recent changes to all of the turrets doing way more damage than they did back in 2006. No missile recieved any kind of a damage buff, except for cruise missiles and despite the feeling of some noobs that get hurt in the process, I hate to brake it to you but I have what is called 'perfect recall memory' and I know exactly what I am talking about, wether you like it or not. I do not have to proove any of my claimes and I do not have to make any spreadsheets because the data is already there. Ask CCP 'X-plosion radius' what he has to say. funny you say that .. because rockets, light missiles and HAMS all got damage buffs in the last missile rebalance (when they nerfed heavies)..
OK a few pages late cause of R/L issues but here goes.
I don't care what your teachers "tought" (you misspelled that one by the way) you, and I sure don't care about what it meant 3,000 years ago or the meaning of the root word it is based on in today's English the word idiot is derogatory in meaning. Portions from the Oxford dictionary of the English language. Unlearned, ignorant or simple of mind. Destitute of ordinary intellect. A fool or simpleton. I could copy and paste the entire definition if you want but I think my point is made. If you are going to use a word based on the meaning from 3,000 years ago or the meaning of the root word from another language then I suggest that you post that meaning so others can distinguish it from a more common and more current definition.
To get back to the discussion at hand like the rest of you I will deal with whatever changes CCP makes to this game but the only part of missiles, rockets and torpedoes that really needs any work is the stupidly low values assigned to explosion velocity. |
Humang
Sefem Velox Swift Angels Alliance
75
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 02:35:00 -
[79] - Quote
I'm still inclined to just add the relative bonuses for missiles (exp vel/exp rad) to Tracking Enhancers / Tracking Computers and the same de-buffs to Tracking Disruptors.
That's my 2 isk. AFK Cloaking Thread summary - Provided by Paikis
-á-á-á-á-á - Witty Comment Here - |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1231
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 02:50:00 -
[80] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Cause it makes total sense to compare Large guns to medium missiles...
Would you feel better if I used Sleipnir x2 @10km and Ishtar x50 @80km for that example?
Hey guys, if the enemy outnumber me 5+ to 1 , I won't be able to blap them all even with no racking weapon system... |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4113
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 14:36:00 -
[81] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Cause it makes total sense to compare Large guns to medium missiles...
Would you feel better if I used Sleipnir x2 @10km and Ishtar x50 @80km for that example?
lol...
FYI: Sentry drones are also Battleship class weapons.
Can you please explain how your example of a lol-fit, lol-flown drake dying to a gate camp is even remotely relevant to the thread?
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
312
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 14:48:00 -
[82] - Quote
I mostly agree - but in order to have a single module missile DPS needs to be brought into line with their size class. So for example a 10% hike in heavy missile DPS wouldn't kill much - but a 10% hike to lights? Ouch time.
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1231
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 15:06:00 -
[83] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I mostly agree - but in order to have a single module missile DPS needs to be brought into line with their size class. So for example a 10% hike in heavy missile DPS wouldn't kill much - but a 10% hike to lights? Ouch time.
The missile with already good application would not benefit as much from such module just like extra tracking is only useful to a certain point. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
312
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 15:12:00 -
[84] - Quote
Depends what you're shooting. Something like that stuffed on a RLML caracal would dunk interceptors so hard they wouldn't even know what hit them and they already dont have a great time there. There's anti-tackle and there's "lolpwntgtfo". |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4113
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 16:36:00 -
[85] - Quote
afkalt wrote:
I mostly agree - but in order to have a single module missile DPS needs to be brought into line with their size class. So for example a 10% hike in heavy missile DPS wouldn't kill much - but a 10% hike to lights? Ouch time.
Are heavy missiles really out of balance though?
Caracal: 5% R.o.F Bonus, 2 BCU, HM's do 253 dps out to 100 kms. Stabber: 5% R.o.F Bonus, 2 Gyros, 720's do 253 dps out to 20 + 37 kms.
Cerberus: 5% Damage, 5% R.o.F. Bonus, 3 BCU's, Hams do 426 dps out to 140 km's. Muninn: 5% Damage, 5% R.o.F Bonus, 3 Gyros, 720's do 444 dps out to 27 + 31 km's.
Drake: 10% Damage, 3x BCU. HM's do 464 dps out to 62 km's. (CN Scourge HM) Drake: 10% Damage, 3x BCU. HM's do 531 dps out to 47 km's. (Scourge Fury HM) Hurricane: 5% Damage, 5% R.o.F 720's do 532 dps out to 18+31 kms.
I realize the Stabber and Muninn have 1 less weapon mount than the Caracal and Cerb, otherwise they'd deliver signficantly higher dps than their HM counterparts just like the Cane out damages the Drake in damage output. However, even the drake, without a range bonus, applies its consistent damage to a much farther range. Furthermore, when any of the Arty fit ships swap to long range ammo, their dps dramatically falls off. Likewise, when the Drake swaps to high damage ammo similar to RF EMP, it's dps matches that of the Cane. From this standpoint, the damage profiles of HM's are very much balanced with other long range damage platforms.
I'll admit there is a big discrepancy in damage application. By flying right, a cane can optimize their range and tracking to apply most of their dps even to frigates. Missile pilots do not enjoy similarly exploitable conditions. But that exploit goes both ways. I've solo killed Hurricanes, Ruptures, Stabbers, Thorax's, and many other turret ships in frigates hulls like the taranis by simply killing their drones and avoiding their turret dps with a close orbit. You can't do that to a drake or caracal, and have to be able to tank the damage they constantly deliver.
It is precisely this last scenario that we need to be careful of. While improving damage application creates a good fitting option, there is the danger of over-buffing this damage application to targets that should be difficult to kill. Optimizing your HM or HAMs to take down fellow cruisers is a great thing. If these modules result in easy-optimization so they blap frigates, too, and we have a problematic state from a balance perspective. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
286
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 16:57:00 -
[86] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:-snip- It is precisely this last scenario that we need to be careful of. While improving damage application creates a good fitting option, there is the danger of over-buffing this damage application to targets that should be difficult to kill. Optimizing your HM or HAMs to take down fellow cruisers is a great thing. If these modules result in easy-optimization so they blap frigates, too, and we have a problematic state from a balance perspective.
So its only okay to 'blap' frigate size hulls with blasters and autocannons?
You are aware that most interceptors can outrun heavy missiles by burning in one direction until the flight time is over right?
Maybe one cannot outrun cruise missiles from a Raven but you were never supposed to kill one in a motorcycle and a sidearm anyways. signature |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1917
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 17:40:00 -
[87] - Quote
jiujitsutou wrote:While i think the BE shouldnt give speed (it could very easy make things a little op i imagine 120 km ham cerbs etc), i like the idea in general .
I say instead of speed increase flight time...
flight time is a trade off. yes it increases max distance but it also reinforces the negative of missiles of not having insta damage. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4113
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 17:58:00 -
[88] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:-snip- It is precisely this last scenario that we need to be careful of. While improving damage application creates a good fitting option, there is the danger of over-buffing this damage application to targets that should be difficult to kill. Optimizing your HM or HAMs to take down fellow cruisers is a great thing. If these modules result in easy-optimization so they blap frigates, too, and we have a problematic state from a balance perspective. So its only okay to 'blap' frigate size hulls with blasters and autocannons? You are aware that most interceptors can outrun heavy missiles by burning in one direction until the flight time is over right? Maybe one cannot outrun cruise missiles from a Raven but you were never supposed to kill one in a motorcycle and a sidearm anyways.
1.) I call bullshit on your "outrunning missiles" line. The typical interceptor travels at 5 km/s. The typical non-hull bonused Heavy Missile travels about 6.5 km/s, and almost 10 km/s with a bonused hull. Sure, there are special cases where an inty may outrun the missile, but so what. What matters is the standard application. An inty will be orbiting your drake at 28 km's holding it down for his friends to show up, and you'll hit him but not do enough damage to get him off of you. Likewise, a hurricane in the same position will be stuck because they too cannot hit the inty for any significant damage.
2.) Heavy Missiles are LONG RANGE weapons. You shouldn't be comparing them to autocannons and blasters, but to Arties and Railguns. And even in the case of autocannons and blasters, and inty can avoid all the damage they output by orbiting close or by orbiting beyond their range. Missiles damage is mitigated by being small first and foremost, and by moving fast as a secondary option.
By the way, that is the point you seemed to miss. You cannot mitigate missile damage like you can turret damage. This is one reason why it is balanced that their damage to small targets is much less effective. Improving that effectiveness a little is alright, but too much and we will break balance. This is especially true when considering Rapid launchers, which are already extremely effective at "blapping interceptors".
Also, what are you talking about: "you were never supposed to kill [a Raven] in a motorcycle and a sidearm anyways"? -- You might think of your ship as some tank that's supposed to be immune to small arms fire, but that's not how this game is designed. I've solo'd a raven in a rifter. I've solo'd Maelstrom's too. Your big cruise launchers are for shooting other big ships, not for killing small stuff (that's what your drones are for). Getting in a bigger ship gives you more tank, more raw firepower, but simultaneously limits your damage application, thereby making you weaker to smaller ships. That is how EvE is balanced, and it is a good thing!
|
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
interstellar initiative Incorporated
242
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:01:00 -
[89] - Quote
If we're quoting raw DPS numbers, I've got a Torp Raven that is probably "OP" with *gasp* over 1k missile DPS. Now, as we all know, it's only ok to get high DPS numbers if you're using turrets, otherwise it's not fair because you're blapping frigs with Torps. Sarcasm aside, look at the application stats for that same Drake and compare them to stats from comparable ships/fits against reasonable targets. I would say start with only 3 or 4 damage mods in the lows, BCS for the Drake and then Gyro's/Mag stabs/Heat sinks for the other ships, and then try and improve your damage. With the Drake, last I checked, the best you can do is a T1/T2 Rigor combo with a Flare. That's it, that's all you can do. Any other weapon system in the game can fit passive TE's in the lows along with the damage mods, or in place of them, and then take advantage of scripted TC's in the mids. That doesn't even bring ReTC's into the picture at all. Now, imagine you were in a 'Cane and your options were limited to rigs and passive damage mods. The point of this post is that missile fits are not in line with any other weapon type, even drones now have tracking links to improve their application while missiles are still stuck with sacrificing tank rigs for Rigors and fitting 3/4 BCS in the lows. And yes, I deliberately left out TP's and webs because those affect all weapons and I was attempting to highlight the disparity in weapon specific modules. Before anyone decides to completely ignore my point and hide behind the wall of "Light missiles OP", let's look BS size, short-range weapons. Unless you're shooting a small moon, there's not much point in fitting Torps to a BS for PvP whereas AC's/Blasters/Pulse are all able to achieve damage application against smaller-than-moon size targets with an ammo/script swap, even without refitting TE's or getting logi links. I fully understand that missiles are a different weapon system, and they have different strengths, but they have been pigeon holed into having those "strengths" because there are 5 total things you can do to improve your application: Rigor/Flare rigs, fit Javelin/Navy and then the universal Webs/TPs.
Just a thought.....
Edit: If big weapons are for shooting big things, then I think the Mega hulls in particular are probably a little out of line (2k DPS Blaster Vindi anyone?)
As for increasing flight time over flight speed, what is the appeal in increasing the delay in damage even further? Unless you want Cerbs and Caracals to get seriously nerfed to compensate. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
314
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:57:00 -
[90] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:afkalt wrote:
I mostly agree - but in order to have a single module missile DPS needs to be brought into line with their size class. So for example a 10% hike in heavy missile DPS wouldn't kill much - but a 10% hike to lights? Ouch time.
Are heavy missiles really out of balance though? [snipped]
Unfortunately, imo, yes.
I did some analysis previously - I'll repaste below. You're right we should be very careful about smaller targets but there are horrible issues with the application.
recap: MWD shield tanked cruiser is speed tanking these(!)
Repaste from https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4884869#post4884869
Example:
[Caracal, HML] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Reactor Control Unit II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Faint Warp Disruptor I
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Medium Bay Loading Accelerator I Medium Polycarbon Engine Housing I Medium Polycarbon Engine Housing I
Warrior II x2
PAPER DPS: 300
Just spotted I had a rogue RCU in there, should have been overdrive but I'm not changing it now
[Thorax, Thorax Rails] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Tracking Enhancer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Faint Warp Disruptor I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
200mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 200mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 200mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 200mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 200mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Warrior II x5
PAPER DPS: 488/284 [Am/Tu]
Here is the thorax shooting the caracal:
http://i.imgur.com/c5PfO5m.png
And here is the caracal shooting the thorax:
http://i.imgur.com/Im9yibr.png
Combined chart for visible break points:
http://i.imgur.com/WcVXXiJ.png
So whilst, yes the HML has a greater range, at a useful engagement range i.e. point range, the rails absolutely smoke it, even at extremely high transversal.
You can see yourself it's not even close. Not remotely. And that's HML vs a MWD cruiser. Sure, you may point out that it is antimatter and short range, so lets slap some tunsten in there and see what happens:
http://i.imgur.com/aQEb8s3.png
It's really pretty damning.
|
|
elitatwo
Congregatio
287
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 19:15:00 -
[91] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: 1.) I call bullshit on your "outrunning missiles" line. The typical interceptor travels at 5 km/s. The typical non-hull bonused Heavy Missile travels about 6.5 km/s, and almost 10 km/s with a bonused hull. Sure, there are special cases where an inty may outrun the missile, but so what. What matters is the standard application. An inty will be orbiting your drake at 28 km's holding it down for his friends to show up, and you'll hit him but not do enough damage to get him off of you. Likewise, a hurricane in the same position will be stuck because they too cannot hit the inty for any significant damage.
2.) Heavy Missiles are LONG RANGE weapons. You shouldn't be comparing them to autocannons and blasters, but to Arties and Railguns. And even in the case of autocannons and blasters, and inty can avoid all the damage they output by orbiting close or by orbiting beyond their range. Missiles damage is mitigated by being small first and foremost, and by moving fast as a secondary option.
- And everyone is at any given time always fit perfectly to what she or he encounters in space -
Also, what are you talking about: "you were never supposed to kill [a Raven] in a motorcycle and a sidearm anyways"? -- You might think of your ship as some tank that's supposed to be immune to small arms fire, but that's not how this game is designed. I've solo'd a raven in a rifter. I've solo'd Maelstrom's too. Your big cruise launchers are for shooting other big ships, not for killing small stuff (that's what your drones are for). Getting in a bigger ship gives you more tank, more raw firepower, but simultaneously limits your damage application, thereby making you weaker to smaller ships. That is how EvE is balanced, and it is a good thing!
1.) Yeah most of the time nobody uses links because they don't do much to ships anyway..
2.) I did compare heavy missiles to long range turrets many times in the past and stated that you can compare heavy missiles with artillery guns with roughly 60% - let's call it 'beta-damage' - of artillery alpha of the same size that may hit the target at the end of the cycle (of the launchers)
3.) I didn't say that. Fact is that the Raven (my favorite battleship hull) can do zero to small ships at any position, while turret boats can. Another tiny fact is that my cruise missile launchers with 3x tech2 ballistic controls have a rate of fire of 6.4 seconds. That is seven (7) server ticks if you wish. The Raven wouldn't be 'immune' to small craft but could certainly have a word with them. Unless it's like 40 Taranisses then is doesn't really matter how much my cruise launchers want to talk to them, they will just murder my boat ( ). No matter how much drones I'll send out.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey get's it.
I am not talking about increasing damage of missiles, I am telling you the roof will not drop on our heads when they ditch the two attributes that got us into that mess we have in the first place. signature |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4118
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 19:52:00 -
[92] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:afkalt wrote:
I mostly agree - but in order to have a single module missile DPS needs to be brought into line with their size class. So for example a 10% hike in heavy missile DPS wouldn't kill much - but a 10% hike to lights? Ouch time.
Are heavy missiles really out of balance though? [snipped] Unfortunately, imo, yes. I did some analysis previously - I'll repaste below. You're right we should be very careful about smaller targets but there are horrible issues with the application. recap: MWD shield tanked cruiser is speed tanking these(!) Repaste from https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4884869#post4884869PAPER DPS: 488/284 [Am/Tu] Here is the thorax shooting the caracal: http://i.imgur.com/c5PfO5m.pngAnd here is the caracal shooting the thorax: http://i.imgur.com/Im9yibr.pngCombined chart for visible break points: http://i.imgur.com/WcVXXiJ.pngSo whilst, yes the HML has a greater range, at a useful engagement range i.e. point range, the rails absolutely smoke it, even at extremely high transversal. You can see yourself it's not even close. Not remotely. And that's HML vs a MWD cruiser. Sure, you may point out that it is antimatter and short range, so lets slap some tunsten in there and see what happens: http://i.imgur.com/aQEb8s3.pngIt's really pretty damning.
I don't see how that is so damning?
There is a window where the Railrax outshines the HM Caracal (pt range). But you've fit the wrong weapon system to the Caracal if that is your desired fighting range. Your same graphs show that the Railrax has much less applicable damage beyond the point range or within scram range.
This is where the big discrepancies come into play.
How do you accurately compare the two weapon systems? HM's with Caldari Navy HM's are flat out better than Rails with Spike, yet at the same time, Rails with anti-matter are hands down better within point range. If you buff HM's so they compete well within this range, you make them INSANE at Spike ranges. Does anyone not understand this dilemma?
The only truly "balanced" means of evening the playing field is to ahve short range ammo that is tweaked to give excellent damage to similarly sized ships even if they are moving fast while being ineffective against lower class targets, and to have short range ammo that gives good damage to smaller, immobile vessels but pisspoor damage to a moving target.
I'm not opposed to rebalancing missiles, but I demand that they have limitations in how they apply their dps. My experience has been they are effective in the current environment, even if they aren't "the best".
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
314
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 20:13:00 -
[93] - Quote
It's better from ~5 to (at least) 50km - with but an ammo swap. That is about the useful limit of (average) cruiser sized engagements. Also keep in mind that is a worst case transversal for the rails and a juicy high sig missile target.
I agree about the 'missile' problems/dilemma of range vs damage though - indeed I've posted about the problems before - anything which balances HML at less than extreme ranges instantly breaks them at extreme ranges. My suggestion was different launcher 'calibers' which modified the ammo properties - exp profile/flight ranges etc. This keeps ammo as is and allows fitting choices (akin to the different gun 'sizes' (dual 150/200/250mm rails) in their size class (small/medium/large)
Edit: found my link: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4858982
I think it would solve a lot of problems - but that's obvious else I'd not have suggested it |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |