EVE Search - Making Missiles more viable in pvp

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Making Missiles more viable in pvp

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
HELLBOUNDMAN Brothers Through Rebellious Actions 2	Posted - 2011.11.25 19:31:00 - [1] - Quote My thought for making missiles more viable for pvp is a 3 step process 1 - buff velocity 2 - Nerf flight time 3 - balance 1 and 2 tie together. Lets say you have a 6000m/s velocity, and a 5 second flight time, giving you 30km/s. Increase the velocity to 30km/s and reduce the flight time to 1 second. giving you the same range. However, this would require some balancing in other means, since the missiles will fly much faster, they'll reach the target and hit it more directly than the current system. So in that thought, you could reduce the explosion velocity of missiles, but i'm not sure that would be enough to balance them. It may require the addition of a new factor, such as penetration. Which would be the ability of the missile to puncher defences and apply more damage. Perhaps this factor would replace explosion velocity, and any skill or buff effecting exp velocity would become a pentration skill or buff. Any other suggestion on this to balance it would be helpful for me. However, the ultimate goal is to balance missiles better, so that they're not focused directly towards pve, and more balanced to be as effective, or at least more effective towards pvp like turrets are.
Mfume Apocal Origin. Black Legion. 117	Posted - 2011.11.25 21:00:00 - [2] - Quote Increasing velocity and nerfing flight time causes desync, according to a CCP post of old. This might have changed, but given they also said "no" to a general speed boost as well, I'm inclined to believe it's still a technical limitation. HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: However, this would require some balancing in other means, since the missiles will fly much faster, they'll reach the target and hit it more directly than the current system. The missile's velocity has nothing to do with it's explosion velocity (i.e. applied damage). Anyway, not supported, rockets, standard missiles, HMLs, and (arguably) HAMs and torps are reasonably well-balanced right now, so I'm opposed to any general missile buff as opposed to one focusing specifically on the missile systems that desperately need work (cruise).
SGT FUNYOUN Arachnea Phoenix Battalion 8	Posted - 2011.11.25 22:49:00 - [3] - Quote Making the missles fly faster and nerfing the distance sound like a good idea. But... A Tomohawk Cruise missle in RL can fly up to Mach 5 and 100-500 km. That = 1475 m/s. So a standard class T1 Cruise missle in EVE can fly 3750 m/sec and has a max flight time of 20,000 seconds. This would = Mach 12.7 and 75,000 km of range in RL. The missles in EVE not only replicate RL missles rather well, they are actually faster. So yeah making them faster and shorter range might be a good idea but, It might screw with the realism too much.
Duchess Starbuckington Starbuckington Manor 24	Posted - 2011.11.25 23:08:00 - [4] - Quote Quote: A Tomohawk Cruise missle in RL Stopped reading here. EVE is not even remotely realistic, and using RL figures to justify things is stupidity. That being said, cruise missiles at the very least need their velocity buffed, as well as a small damage buff.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 152	Posted - 2011.11.25 23:15:00 - [5] - Quote You do know that the term "Mach" refers to speed right, as in "times the speed of sound"? Mach 5 has only ever been achieved by experimental scram/ram-jet planes, even the mighty SR-71 never went over Mach 4 or so. Modern cruise missiles are all sub-sonic with a few specialized super-sonics (mainly anti-ship gizmos). As for OP: Would certainly make them direct competitors with gun based systems (read: PvP enabled), but why would we want that? They used to have a lot going for them by being the only "pure" damage type selection on the block, but they have been upstaged by the Winmatar patch which made projectile ammo as good as "pure" .. Hopefully they'll get a niche at some point that can/will not be taken over by a gun platform, like being able to target specific subsystems for instance .. until them I'd advise you to train gunnery and hop on the Winmatar train as it doesn't look like it has any stops scheduled stops until next summer at the earliest.
HELLBOUNDMAN Brothers Through Rebellious Actions 2	Posted - 2011.11.25 23:45:00 - [6] - Quote Hirana Yoshida wrote: You do know that the term "Mach" refers to speed right, as in "times the speed of sound"? Mach 5 has only ever been achieved by experimental scram/ram-jet planes, even the mighty SR-71 never went over Mach 4 or so. Modern cruise missiles are all sub-sonic with a few specialized super-sonics (mainly anti-ship gizmos). As for OP: Would certainly make them direct competitors with gun based systems (read: PvP enabled), but why would we want that? They used to have a lot going for them by being the only "pure" damage type selection on the block, but they have been upstaged by the Winmatar patch which made projectile ammo as good as "pure" .. Hopefully they'll get a niche at some point that can/will not be taken over by a gun platform, like being able to target specific subsystems for instance .. until them I'd advise you to train gunnery and hop on the Winmatar train as it doesn't look like it has any stops scheduled stops until next summer at the earliest. lol.. Yeah, the winmattar train is definitely rolling. My thing is though that I much prefer missiles, they're easier to work with as far as ranges, they have all damage types, and torps look really pretty when they go off. The only problem missiles seem to have is their pvp viability. While I feel missiles are somewhat viable, their flight time is what causes a lot of people to avoid them. However, once they do hit, they hit pretty hard.
Goose99 Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 225	Posted - 2011.11.25 23:57:00 - [7] - Quote SGT FUNYOUN wrote: Making the missles fly faster and nerfing the distance sound like a good idea. But... A Tomohawk Cruise missle in RL can fly up to Mach 5 and 100-500 km. That = 1475 m/s. So a standard class T1 Cruise missle in EVE can fly 3750 m/sec and has a max flight time of 20,000 seconds. This would = Mach 12.7 and 75,000 km of range in RL. The missles in EVE not only replicate RL missles rather well, they are actually faster. So yeah making them faster and shorter range might be a good idea but, It might screw with the realism too much. Tomahawk and most other "cruiser" missiles uses a jet engine, scoops air, burns oxygen, flies in the atmosphere and is subject to drag... If you want to be realistic, compare it to satellite missiles flying through vaccum. Constant acceleration, with no max velocity, remove exp radius and velocity, and vastly increase yield.
Nestara Aldent EVE University Ivy League 2	Posted - 2011.11.26 10:23:00 - [8] - Quote Missiles are more viable for achievement of high speed than cannon, because by keeping operating pressures low engineering a rocket is much easier. Don't forget every rocket capable of putting a satellite to Earth orbit travels at least 7800 m/s. Achieving such speed in a cannon would present extreme strain of the barrel. Nuclear powered cannon is also unfeasible. And talking about real life technology in a game where people travel faster than speed of the light and are immortal is pointless. By the way, your ship, it's expelled from a muzzle of a cannon or has rocket engines of some sort? And yes, missiles need to hit in these fleet engagements where the target can last only for few seconds. That would mean redesign of some missile skills and ship bonuses.
Daedalus Arcova Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD. 178	Posted - 2011.11.26 11:21:00 - [9] - Quote Drake. Cerberus. Tengu. Stealth Bombers. All of them are deadly in long-range fleet PVP. Their only drawback of delayed damage is that missiles struggle when operating alongside gunships when the turret dps is enough to kill targets before missiles can hit (in which case, you're in a badly composed fleet). Otherwise, a long range fleet comprised of any of these ships can be a thing of terror.
Markus Reese Debitum Naturae RED.Legion 5	Posted - 2011.11.27 02:01:00 - [10] - Quote I do like the idea of a higher speed missile. Considering in orbit stuff is 5km/s Many things in space move much faster. As for the desync issue, I wonder if there might be a different way to do it, but still keep missiles like missiles. What might be needed is to remove missiles as an object all together in how they currently work. Maybe like a timer of sorts? The missile itself could be a slow moving visual image based similar to many of the other remote effects perhaps. Take the target painter style thing, but instead is the glow and visual of the missile moving along it at a specific rate. At a specific time, it will hit, use some sort of calculation to determine collision time. Well, that will still be an object of sort since it needs to compare it's range to target range/distance velocity. Compare every data packet. Hit yes/no?

Bienator II 24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire 307	Posted - 2011.11.27 02:47:00 - [11] - Quote missiles are already good (almost to good IMO). - pick the damage type - range independent damage - no cap consumption - they always do damage (no missing) - no viable counter measures (nobody uses defender missiles) if you rise dps (or basically anything else) to match turrets they will quickly become imbalanced. a new bounty system for eve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked
Goose99 Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 238	Posted - 2011.11.27 04:30:00 - [12] - Quote Bienator II wrote: missiles are already good (almost to good IMO). - pick the damage type - range independent damage - no cap consumption - they always do damage (no missing) - no viable counter measures (nobody uses defender missiles) if you rise dps (or basically anything else) to match turrets they will quickly become imbalanced. Lol, do you play the same Eve as everyone else? And no, we balance by pvp, not pve.
Gevlin SMANews.net SpaceMonkey's Alliance 44	Posted - 2011.11.27 08:52:00 - [13] - Quote Think it should be more of a specialty ship thing with an increase of speed and drop of flight time. though a short range torpedo boat getting really close I agree with several people: CCP needs to focus most of eve's recources on FIS, but the development of WIS still needs to continue, just as a slower and more efficient pace. In eve I wish to be more than just a machine.
Sealy The Scope Gallente Federation 6	Posted - 2011.11.27 13:05:00 - [14] - Quote Ok if you "Fix the Missile problems" you will need to fix the caldari Tank Problem" The Drake the Tengu are just way over tanked and with the missiles these are killer ships. I dont mind at the moment i fly both the drake and Tengu in PVP but i can also fly almost all other race ships upto Supercaps. Caldari ships are shield so lightweight missiles/torps are great damage dealers when used correctly the tank of the caldari ships is amazing. this is why you see drake gangs flying around and killing everything in there path. So lets look at it this way. Drake Tengu Falcon/rook/blackbird Do you need anything else?
Velicitia Open Designs 122	Posted - 2011.11.27 15:17:00 - [15] - Quote SGT FUNYOUN wrote: Making the missles fly faster and nerfing the distance sound like a good idea. But... A Tomohawk Cruise missle in RL can fly up to Mach 5 and 100-500 km. That = 1475 m/s. So a standard class T1 Cruise missle in EVE can fly 3750 m/sec and has a max flight time of 20,000 milliseconds. This would = Mach 12.7 and 75~~,000~~ km of range in RL. The missles in EVE not only replicate RL missles rather well, they are actually faster. So yeah making them faster and shorter range might be a good idea but, It might screw with the realism too much. FYP. gotta remember to check the units that are being used (a lot of websites pull the 20k milliseconds from the static dumps, and don't bother doing the maths).
Mibad Caldari Provisions 40	Posted - 2011.11.27 19:08:00 - [16] - Quote Missiles take time to accelerate to their max speed. Higher speed + less flight time = more acceleration required in a lower amount of time. Unless other factors are also changed, this would just nerf missile range even more, at least to my knowledge. When you calculate your max range, you will notice your missiles never hits a target at that range. Sometimes you are 5k short sometimes more. I have confirmed this with a GM. IDK why ccp doesn't calculate the true missile range for us... No one really talks about it, but its there I do agree they need to be more viable for pvp. fire missiles, wait.... Oh look your target is already dead before they even get there.
HELLBOUNDMAN Brothers Through Rebellious Actions 2	Posted - 2011.11.28 04:06:00 - [17] - Quote Sealy wrote: Ok if you "Fix the Missile problems" you will need to fix the caldari Tank Problem" The Drake the Tengu are just way over tanked and with the missiles these are killer ships. I dont mind at the moment i fly both the drake and Tengu in PVP but i can also fly almost all other race ships upto Supercaps. Caldari ships are shield so lightweight missiles/torps are great damage dealers when used correctly the tank of the caldari ships is amazing. this is why you see drake gangs flying around and killing everything in there path. So lets look at it this way. Drake Tengu Falcon/rook/blackbird Do you need anything else? The thing you're not factoring about the drake and tengu is The drake actually has quite low dps without risking a good amount of tank The tengu has good dps and good tank but if you're fitted for dps and tank, you're pretty much lacking in everything else. Both of these ships can pull good dps, both can have a large tank, but never really at the same time. Not to mention with the type of tank and dps fit you're talking about, you lack in many other aspects of pvp. The drake has to worry about the target having a heavy enough tank to outlast the drake's dps in comparison to the drake outlasting their dps. A hurricane can vastly out dps a drake, but can't out tank it... However, that lack of dps on the drake's part means that the hurricane may have enough time to tear down its tank. Overall with this thread. We can rebuild missiles to be more pvp oriented. Increase velocity Decrease flight time Adjust for factor of accel time Replace explosion velocity with accuracy. Revamp explosion radius to also factor targets within the explosion radius instead of just factoring the size of the ship. Missiles will now be more balanced for pvp, and since the higher velocity of the missiles means they'll better hit their target, then removing explosion velocity and replacing it with accuracy and revamped explosion radius means that it will have the same general effect on the target that it normally would. The only difference now is missiles will be much more effective in pvp and will actually have a chance to hit those targets that are going over 3km/s.
King Rothgar Autocannons Anonymous 46	Posted - 2011.11.28 04:57:00 - [18] - Quote Confirming drakes and tengus need a buff.
HELLBOUNDMAN Brothers Through Rebellious Actions 2	Posted - 2011.11.28 07:41:00 - [19] - Quote King Rothgar wrote: Confirming drakes and tengus need a buff. It's not a buff. It's a matter of how they apply the dps. they'll have the same dps, same range, same tank, same blah blah blah. The only difference is now missiles will just hit sooner. There are no actual changes to dps or anything
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 61	Posted - 2011.11.28 10:31:00 - [20] - Quote why?? Missiles are already viable for pvp.

Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts 130	Posted - 2011.11.28 12:41:00 - [21] - Quote HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: The only difference is now missiles will just hit sooner. There are no actual changes to dps or anything head explodes at the stupidity Note. EFT Gëá EVE. Reducing missile flight times increases applied missile DPS in all situations.
Akara Ito Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation 45	Posted - 2011.11.28 13:32:00 - [22] - Quote HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: King Rothgar wrote: Confirming drakes and tengus need a buff. It's not a buff. It's a matter of how they apply the dps. they'll have the same dps, same range, same tank, same blah blah blah. The only difference is now missiles will just hit sooner. There are no actual changes to dps or anything No it makes them Turrets. Thats bad.
Demarcus Killjoy. 0	Posted - 2011.11.28 14:06:00 - [23] - Quote Bienator II wrote: missiles are already good (almost to good IMO). - pick the damage type - range independent damage - no cap consumption - they always do damage (no missing) - no viable counter measures (nobody uses defender missiles) if you rise dps (or basically anything else) to match turrets they will quickly become imbalanced. Just because people don't use the counter measures offered doesn't make them non-viable. Anyone who has ever watched an Alliance Tournament has seen how viable defender missiles can be. It is really the exact same argument about the Falcon and ECM. FoF missiles are there to help counter ECM and they work, yet people still don't use them.
Naomi Knight Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 61	Posted - 2011.11.28 15:11:00 - [24] - Quote At least large /capital missiles speed should be buffed , if the server has no problem with my heavy missile go 10kps it should have no problem my cruise missile or citadel do the same


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.