EVE Search - Heavy Missiles, lets make them interesting

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Heavy Missiles, lets make them interesting

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 447	Posted - 2015.01.04 08:57:34 - [1] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Interesting idea but all it'll do is make kiting ships even better than they already are and simply because of that it's a bad idea. Also, you can't just implement a massive mechanic change like that to just HML, that would be highly arbitrary. All that HML needs to do for more dps is to drop some range; Lose 20% range and get a 10-15% flat dps increase. Heavy missile volley on an appropriately bonused ship goes over 2200 per volley. Increasing explosion velocity for a weapon that is essentially used when kiting (I.e. presenting a scenario where their damage is getting mitigated the most) would be the single most appropriate buff for the ship. Buffing navy missiles of each size catagory to 75% of the base speed of the aggregate average speed of the hull appropriate target is one potential way of rebalancing missiles to be better and more situationally appropriate. In a little but I'll draw up a quick graph of damages and get back to this thread. I coukd be totally wrong but it is my gut feeling after spending basicly 3 years using missiles in various capacities. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 447	Posted - 2015.01.04 09:57:58 - [2] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: Interesting idea but all it'll do is make kiting ships even better than they already are and simply because of that it's a bad idea. Also, you can't just implement a massive mechanic change like that to just HML, that would be highly arbitrary. All that HML needs to do for more dps is to drop some range; Lose 20% range and get a 10-15% flat dps increase. Heavy missile volley on an appropriately bonused ship goes over 2200 per volley. Increasing explosion velocity for a weapon that is essentially used when kiting (I.e. presenting a scenario where their damage is getting mitigated the most) would be the single most appropriate buff for the ship. Buffing navy missiles of each size catagory to 75% of the base speed of the aggregate average speed of the hull appropriate target is one potential way of rebalancing missiles to be better and more situationally appropriate. In a little but I'll draw up a quick graph of damages and get back to this thread. I coukd be totally wrong but it is my gut feeling after spending basicly 3 years using missiles in various capacities. Okay here we go: In each case I'm taking a hull with no application bonuses loaded with hull appropriate long range ammo. Then I'm going to run a quick diagnostic against shooting the fastest hull for class with no speed or sig altering fittings/implants. In essence this is a missile user shooting someone slowboating straight towards him. eV = explosion velocity eS = explosion signature Kestrel with LML: 30 eS / 255 eV Caracal with HML: 105 eS / 122 eV Raven with cruise: 248 eS / 104 eV Now when shooting their worst likely target with NO fittings OR implants. slasher: 30/255 vs 30/538 = 70 reduced to 45 (36% reduction)(HML caracal gets 248->43 ie 82% reduction)(cruise raven 688->122 ie 82%) Stabber: 105/122 vs 100/363 = 248 to ~140 (44% reduction)(kestrel 0%)(raven 64%) typhoon: 248/104 vs 330/163 = 100% applied damage across the board. It might only be anecdotal but to me when LML gets 36% reduced applied damage to a ship in its own class with no prop mod, HML gets 44% and cruises get 0% there might be a problem. And that problem is very likely explosion velocity. For reference an LML corax shooting against that same unpropped slasher gets all 100% of its damage going through. But.. loses 44% of its damage if the slasher puts on an AB. The caracal against this slasher: gets about 23 dps. 91% reduced applied damage due only to speed. For the sake of discussion lets apply two fully bonused painters (40% each) and then use a strong crash on the caracal. 41 dps. 83%. Against the stabber from above with AB: 72% mitigation. With 2x painters and strong crash: 130, 48% mitigated. Let's go for another anecdotal extreme: the RHML. Since no ship using RHML gets an application bonus to it let's look at an RHML ship shooting a HAC and look only at damage applied before resists. For this purpose I've used a Typhoon FI vs a deimos (since I know the two ships well). The phoon loses 44% of it's damage shooting this target. Leaving 55% of its original amount to go through, in to resists and finally be subtracted from the target. If I instead put say just an AB on the deimos that value becomes 63% damage mitigated. Against another battleship (TFI) with AB it's 11%. A battleship can literally speed tank a missile designed for 2 size catagories smaller than it just by burning in a straight line anywhere with an AB on. I think the heavy missile needs some attention. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 447	Posted - 2015.01.04 15:26:50 - [3] - Quote This debate is certainly interesting. I'm going to investigate it further. Obviously as you begin swapping defensive rigs out for application rigs you need to get further away and move faster. It still doesn't remove the facts of fighting in point range as being a really bad idea for any HML user particularly when the target can keep pace with you (pretty easy for every ship except amarr) Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 447	Posted - 2015.01.04 18:16:18 - [4] - Quote Please do not presume every ship getting close to another automatically means it is getting under its guns. A decent kite fit works optimally when the target is actively chasing them after all. A rail eagle with javelin and pulling 2200m/s is something to be feared and respected. I say kiting isn't good with missiles mostly because of that scenario. The one where you are being egged at optimal or low falloff while he mitigates most of your dps through raw speed. It's only in my estimation that missiles especially the heavy missile work best when used on a target which is already pinned down. Consider the power of a fury cerb and rf point/navyweb huginn. Especially after their rebalance a combo like this will be ridiculously deadly. It still will be today just not so much so... and to be fair in that case you might opt for HAM anyway. I am perhaps more speaking for something like deimos/cerb or any other brawler/arty combo you elect. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 447	Posted - 2015.01.05 03:47:59 - [5] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: For the sake of argument, repeat those "tests" but now with rigor/flare rigs. Well graphed in pyfa the caracal from the earlier example shooting the slasher jumps from 22.5dps to 30.4. This is with 2 flares and 1 rigor, no drugs or TPs factored. So not even 30% more dps for what is 45% better application through modifiers. Shooting the stabber base dps 69, plus 2x flare 1 rigor it jumps to 92.2. 33% more dps applied. Again this is 45% more application resulting in 33% more dps. Adding in 2x painters and strong crash you hit 175.5 dps or 38% damage mitigated through the stabber having a 10mn AB II. By comparison the caracal has 718m/s with an AB so you'd want a fairly healthy head start (and probably HG snakes) to keep ahead. There's lots and lots of variables but the guarantees work out generally to that missiles will apply greatly reduced dps to any target moving over 12% faster than your missile explosion velocity. For reference of the curious, after this break point your dps applied drops faster and faster until it bottoms out at nearly nothing. I think stoicfaux generated a 3d graph of this for the inital RLML remake which showed how missiles function across a broad spectrum of sig and velocities. I might go dig those up. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 447	Posted - 2015.01.05 11:08:17 - [6] - Quote afkalt wrote: So did you feel they were worthwhile trades? Compared to say RLML* or a gunship? I never did. I actually made a mistake before, there is one ship quite nifty with HML - Navy caracals. Rigor on that starts to be worth it, for me personally (rainbow damage plays a significant part in that as well though). Edit: If I'm not mistaken, RLML even do more sustained (i.e. DPS reduced even accounting for all reloads) to moving cruisers than HML, whilst still murdering frigates compared to a non-rigor caracal. They (RLML) don't need the rigor and in fact when compared to a triple application fit HML the difference is ~10%. So 10% more damage to cruisers at a massive tank hit and vastly inferior tackle clearing. Yuck. Range difference isn't really significant either, given how far the RLML go. Numbers may not be quite there, please double check - was in a hurry and not had enough coffee! I suppose if you're shooting fury at a tackled battlecruiser/ship maybe - but at that point I really* am clutching at straws. 2015.01.05 09:30:00 Destroyed: Myrmidon System: 6-CZ49 Security: -0.2 Damage Taken: 69993 Involved parties: Name: Caleb Seremshur (laid the final blow) Security: 5.00 Corp: The Atomic Fallout Kids Alliance: None Faction: None Ship: Drake Navy Issue Weapon: Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Damage Done: 66215 Name: Top Security Security: -4.3 Corp: Zebra Corp Alliance: The Bastion Faction: None Ship: Vargur Weapon: Vargur Damage Done: 3778 So the myrmidon had a very good chance here of killing me, we both burning our mods like crazy. Vargur comes in at the last second and pops the myrm with arty, starts lining me up before I warp off. So my fit was [Drake Navy Issue, DNI HML 1] Power Diagnostic System II Co-Processor II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II Limited 'Anointed' EM Ward Field Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II Medium Warhead Flare Catalyst II Medium Warhead Flare Catalyst II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Acolyte II x5 Literally the only thing this ship had going for it was the huge tank. In hind sight with such a slow ship I might trade the thrusters rig for something else like a core extender. No drugs were used. If I drop the 3rd rig as I said earlier I can put the EM field back to T2. But then I might get kited at 40km. Would probably happen anyway. Hard to say really. I feel like against any BC or down this fit with the extender rig would give them a real headache. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 447	Posted - 2015.01.07 01:41:04 - [7] - Quote Well one thing I've found so far is it's arguably better to ise RLML on any ship with a damage bonus to them and fit hydraulic thruster rigs to extend the range than use HML on the same vessel. OTOH RLML don't hold a candle to the volley damage or uptime from an HML ship so there are some fringe scenarios where you might still select HML and I suspect that would be based around your fleet comp or possibly the orthrus. I'm finding it hard to even give HML a role here. Kind of like HACs where the ishtar (rlml) just does everything better. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 448	Posted - 2015.01.07 08:38:28 - [8] - Quote afkalt wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: Well one thing I've found so far is it's arguably better to ise RLML on any ship with a damage bonus to them and fit hydraulic thruster rigs to extend the range than use HML on the same vessel. OTOH RLML don't hold a candle to the volley damage or uptime from an HML ship so there are some fringe scenarios where you might still select HML and I suspect that would be based around your fleet comp or possibly the orthrus. I'm finding it hard to even give HML a role here. Kind of like HACs where the ishtar (rlml) just does everything better. Exactly. There are definitely some edge cases where theorycraft puts HML as the weapon of choice, in reality those situations are either so unlikey, so rare or it will be so fleeting that actually using them is a mistake. There are odd exceptions but that is my general experience, things like the orthrus cope better because the combination of speed and tackle range buys it more time/room to maneover. They don't need much help, but they need help. The performance is too poor shooting same sized targets to warrant their use for me personally. Even if RLML didn't exist, I'd still use a different weapon if I had any say in it, they just can't keep up with other medium guns (or sentries at HAC level) at any reasonable engagement. Well I would be asking why so many ships are getting bonuses to light missiles when they are cruisers. HACs perhaps, but standard t1 cruisers and maybe even pirate cruisers should probably not. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 448	Posted - 2015.01.07 10:04:16 - [9] - Quote afkalt wrote: Well, it's rapid light, only cruisers can really use them well. Gruistas aside. Unbonsued rlml wouldnt see the light of day. Even if you did though, I wouldnt expect to see HML profilerate into that gap because they dont fill it. They are just sub-standard, I'd usually say this is just my opinion but I cant even remember the last time I was hit by one, or saw one on (either side of) a killmail without trawling zkillboard, so my local area basically. Anyway, point being I don't think it's just me being a special snowflake. Heck if they were worth a damn, they'd be good at killing ishtars because you can [on paper] outrange the main sentry damage - except no-one does it because it's not viable. I'd like to test them with the application nerf rolled back (but not the damage one). Can anyone remember what the old stats used to be? I'm gonna do some forum searching for the dev post that did all this. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 448	Posted - 2015.01.07 11:25:54 - [10] - Quote I note that we still don't see any kind of statistical evidence like we see in the HML nerf thread. Quote: The four most heavily used medium weapons in the game are all Heavy Missile launcher variants, as well as seven of the top eleven. Whenever we need to change something this powerful it will always be painful because so many players will have done the smart thing and flocked to the best game mechanic. If it feels like CCP nerfs you a lot that's just a sign that you're doing it right and getting good at staying on top of the best trends so pat yourself on the back. No insight in to the performance since that day. Do any websites track usage? I think eve-kill used to? Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players

Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 448	Posted - 2015.01.08 16:04:42 - [11] - Quote Personally I wish CCP would take more advantage of what a missile launcher is. Its a tube that shoots rocket propelled explosives. Take a look at the HML for example it has 24 missiles or so visibly loaded in to it. Being able to fire the whole lot ala LRM would be a great great thing. I have been musing on the topic for a couple of days now. If you fly another ship with long ranged weaponry you effectively have a cone in front of the nose of your guns wherr you csnnot miss. On the outside of this cone is another cone where you begin to mis and this second cone gets more blurry the further to its edges you go. This vague idea is the only appropriate parallel I could come up with for comparing long ranged performance for turrets vs missiles. In brief, inside a certain set of parameters you are almost certain to hit your target with guns at a given range for a damage as determined by how deep in to falloff (+ù2) they were. Also unless I am mistaken a target can be beating your tracking by percentages thus resulting in grazing or glancing hits which are still hits but at reduced damage output. Essentially with a long range turret and at a range inside your falloff you will have a hard time missing. Where am I going with this? Look at the volley damage for 720 arties. It hits what... I think 3700 or so on a gank fit? I'm not personally sure but let's say it does. You can land a practically guaranteed blow of between 3700 & 1850 on a target within the limit of your falloff as long as you hold the appropriate range advantage. Heavy missiles will lose damage if the target is stationary but has a smaller sig radius than the explosion radius of your missiles. As correctly pointed out above the best way to mitigate damage from missiles is by being very fast. The faster you go the less damage you take. Period. To me if we were to say hypothetically remove missiles from the dps grinder gameplay of turrets and instead make them high damage (which is easily mitigated) low dps one-shot-per-reload weapons it could provide some very interesting operational situations for missiles to exist in. Consider again the LRM. It is a finesse weapon. Bad lrm users receive little thanks and underperform woefully while very skilled LRM users amongst other things will complement a variety of group outfits and provide long range harassment that can dislodge enemies or force them to bunker down and become entrapped. Long range missiles would become like lrm (which possess relatively poor target tracking and a prone to losing applied damage due to landing off tsrget) while short range missiles become like SRM or MRM a higher rof burst weapon with relatively lower damage per volley but are faster and track much better. Look up a mechwarrior video sometime and tell me how conclusively thst missile ganeplay isn't incredibly boring in EVE right now and that it wouldn't be improved both from a technical and player skill investment perspective but also from a gameplay perspective where players with a poor sense of timing or incompatible fleet design will see degraded performance as compared to a player with very high skill and proper fleet comp will see better than average performance. And the best part is you don't even have to change the heavy missile or HAM or anything at all to achieve this, you're changing the launcher instead. To do this you would lower the maximum capacity of the HML to what is physically visible and then set the number of charges launched per cycle to say a percentage of the whole rack at a time. Things like the rapid launchers would dump their entire load at once irrespective of the target making them perfect for instantly killing that one frigate tackling you but useless for wiping the rest of the group because you'll spend quite a while waiting to reload. If there's one thing I've really hated about the new design of the rlml is the reload timer penalising you arbitrarily for having the wrong ammo loaded, taking 35s of damage you can't respond to and then having to wait 90 seconds to expend the clip you just loaded. Waiting is not good gameplay. If I have to wait a long time to reload then I feel like that should be compensated for by a very high rof or a much larger usable ammo count. Like LMGs with belt fed ammunition they have their srawbacks in reload time compensated for by very high rofs and longer uptimes. Rlmls and rhml would follow this pattern if they shot once per tick instead of whatever. Their ammo count isn't high and when they do get to fire again they dont dish out the pain fast enough to get them out of those situations where it literally would have been better to fit lml and not rlml. Talk about sustained damage all you want at the end of the day it's still time spent not defending yourself. Knowing that once you've finished reloading you just pull the trigger and you'll dump 50 missiles on someone is enough to keep the heart racing. There's very little tactics to missiles particularly long range missiles right now. Just benin range and press shoot and then stand there mystified at why you can't dump your whole cassette instead of playing grab-ass against someone's logi module timer. Sample ammo cassettes could be like lml 10, rocket 6, rlml 9, hml 12, ham 5, rhml 10 and then balance torps and cruises as loading from an ammo bay only and compensating for their one-shot then reload gamplay by multiplying the damage volley by the rof/reload time lost from original. Making cruises volley kings but still unable to blap a frig in one volley unless that frig has a vegetable for a pilot. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 449	Posted - 2015.01.09 02:02:29 - [12] - Quote scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: Not going to make a long quote that has to be scrolled past.... Caleb, you obviously put a lot of thought into that idea but I'm not sure how your version of missiles would be much different than the current artillery. My understanding is that you were referring to the MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) and how it fires all at once which, IIRC, is not entirely correct. I believe the MLR systems are selectable, one can be launched or all can be launched, or somewhere in between. I do like the idea of having launchers that fire double, like dual AC's, but having launchers just fire everything and go into reload seems like a poor change to make unless you want to see gank Corax's replace gank Catalysts. Actually... I'm not sure they would replace artillery gank fits entirely, a well-timed smartbomb would clear a lot of damage off the field since the missiles would still have their ridiculous flight times. Let me pretext this response with a video primer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70yNAwUUsc0 And then two missile tutorials based on the same game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waC4DXncwxs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1azBuiFIymc Tell me how that missile gameplay is not better than the crap we get in EVE? For reference I think each LRM takes like 40 seconds to reload after every volley, Rise wanted to create tension, knowing you live or die by 1 shot instead of a dps blender is tension. Maybe EVE can't handle it and if that's true then it's very sad to me. There is a "charges per cycle" attribute on missile launchers Rise, consider investigating it sometime. I miss this game so much, only servers still active are in the UK and I am in Aus. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 449	Posted - 2015.01.09 08:18:33 - [13] - Quote afkalt wrote: If he is correct, it shouldn't be hard to produce decent charts with proofs. Trouble here is, doing so /correctly/ reveals the glaring holes in heavy missiles. For instance no one has contested that they do damage at 0m and you can get under guns HOWEVER the point is that advantage is not worth the loss of effectiveness from 10-max range. Attempting to argue they are 'fine' whilst being sub par in all common engagement types and ranges is hard to believe. That is but one example. Also - for really chuckles, add skirmish links to the mix and...wow. Hence why I said 4 pages ago that HML need to stop being treated as a viable solo weapon. They're "not bad" when used to pound the ** out of stuff that's already hard tackled. Functionally you could have a couple of brawlers (or just arazu/rapier combo) disabling the enemy and keeping your dps safe while they work from 50km off and apply very easy dps. Which still isn't very good gameplay but at least it requires some teamwork to be effective which is what I guess the original HML fleets lacked (diverse fleet composition). No matter the outcome of all these threads I will still regard missile systems in EVE as being inferior to their form in nearly every other game as they feel to me like they're playing the turret game in a game of turrets and then being upset when they come up short. If missile launchers in EVE worked more realistically then this discussion today would no doubt be calling for a nerf (based on their current stats) and that would be completely justified. If it were my call no matter what I would increase volley and decrease ROF for all regular launchers, then lower maximum capacity for RLML/RHML and boost their ROF to the max possible but also decrease cartridge sizes. It's only my opinion and one that will most likely never happen. These missile launchers are not belt-fed their ammunitiion, the missiles are quite clearly just sitting there waiting to be told to activate. It's a suspension of disbelief I'm no longer willing to make and I'm also no longer willing to concede that it's good gameplay when my volleys are so weak and slow that my enemies can rep through them despite being hard tackled and outnumbered. Join channel Aussies in space** to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 449	Posted - 2015.01.10 05:11:07 - [14] - Quote I when I originally ran the numbers I noticed a trend. Light missiles lose 30% dps to a moving target, heavy missiles lose 44% and cruises lose nothing. Following that trend heavies ahould have been losing only 15% right? In my mind there's no other way to look at it. When you lose more applied damage than both the smaller weapon system and the larger despite being outranged by at least double in the latter case to be brought back in line to being inbetween the two is the logical request. Like what raw missile stats would that require for heavy missiles anyway? 50% more explosion velocity? It's only to 150 after all not the gross 220+ of light missiles. 12% lower explosion radius would give you what 97m? Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 449	Posted - 2015.01.10 05:49:40 - [15] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: 12% lower explosion radius would give you what 97m? Somewhere around that ya. Should drop the "damage bleed" to around 30% or so. In line with other missiles, and more in line with other turrets but still about 30-35% behind peak damage. But since Turrets can be TDd that seems about right. That's not unreasonable. As long as we're talking about size-appropriate targets naturally. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 451	Posted - 2015.01.12 02:49:57 - [16] - Quote What I'd really like to see from CCP is just a statement where they tell us roughly where missiles sit on the food chain. I know we have that nifty graph but that isn't really specific enough. I want to know by % weight how many ships used in pvp use missiles, which ships those are and which missiles they use. Lastly I want to know if they were used in fleet or solo combat. I might even report my own post here to hopefully an ISD can escalate it up. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 454	Posted - 2015.01.12 12:24:15 - [17] - Quote Quote: I'm confused as to what this DPS drop is when shooting HM's at BC's. Even with AB's on I'm only getting a very small drop in DPS and that's beyond the single TP's range of 45km which is fitted to the Drake already! I've been making some graphs of my own. My HML Fleet Drake fits do comparably well vs everything else (except a Myrm because of Sentries). The Arty Hurricane and HML Cyclone are really pathetic compared to the rest of the pack though. afkalt wrote: You'd expect that, it's a size class up (cruiser weapon system). Arguably one should be shooting fury at BC. Well yeah, I guess that only small drops in dps against a larger target it the expected outcome huh. OTOH I think I would still use navies against an armour boat just in case, at least until they close to scram range (and they will because missile ships are slow whowouldathought) Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 454	Posted - 2015.01.12 13:29:01 - [18] - Quote Spugg Galdon wrote: I've just been doing a hell of a lot of comparison of BC's fitted for long range and seeing how well they can apply their damage to an AB'ing armour tanked rupture. My conclusion in the end is that the only buff required for missiles is an optimal range buff for TP's to 60km. How would that suit you? If you buff the TP you break everything that benefits from it already and then incite tye creation of new fits to capitalise on it. If you reduce the explosion radius of the heavy missile to pre nerf stats you fix that one problem. Which might sound a little dramatic but can you imagine say.. giving any other ewar especially ECM a 50% range buff to their modules off the bat? Target painters are useful in fleets built for them and not just missile fleets. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 457	Posted - 2015.01.13 15:44:15 - [19] - Quote From everything I've seen heavies start with a TD nerf built in and you're stuck building it back up to some degree of normal application. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 459	Posted - 2015.01.14 00:19:16 - [20] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: Then we'll go back in circles about how missiles don't use cap, can select damage type, can't be countered by angular, don't require any manual input and are too easy to fit and because of all that shouldn't work even close to on par to turrets. perhaps that should be the thing the fix instead of tweaking damage output and application/projection values, just say'n. Well missiles would most likely be a mix of kinetic and explosive damage. If they were hypothetically to get damage locked completely then that would be the two I'd give them. Which gives you only drones and projectiles as the selectable damage weapons and missiles could be modified in other more useful ways. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players

Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 459	Posted - 2015.01.14 01:49:41 - [21] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: Tusker Crazinski wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: Then we'll go back in circles about how missiles don't use cap, can select damage type, can't be countered by angular, don't require any manual input and are too easy to fit and because of all that shouldn't work even close to on par to turrets. perhaps that should be the thing the fix instead of tweaking damage output and application/projection values, just say'n. Well missiles would most likely be a mix of kinetic and explosive damage. If they were hypothetically to get damage locked completely then that would be the two I'd give them. Which gives you only drones and projectiles as the selectable damage weapons and missiles could be modified in other more useful ways. Yeah, fck the Amarr missile ships, right? Why wouldn't I just bonus them for missile damage? I'm not seeing your problem. [edit] Also it seems I misquoted the wrong person.. that's what you get on 12 hours sleep in 4 days I guess. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 459	Posted - 2015.01.14 02:29:19 - [22] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: Why wouldn't I just bonus them for missile damage? I'm not seeing your problem. Because in that case Amarr missile ships for pve in amarr space would not be able to both tank EM (T2 resists are explosive/kin) as deal EM. Amarr missile ships? You mean the sac and contentiously the drone/neuting boats? Anyone PvEing in the frigates is doing it wrong (or the t2 coercer whatever its called). That's not a large sacrifice for what would probably be an overall improvement in most other situations, nevermind using thermal/em drones to disregard reactive hardeners. I don't know why the racials are the best weapons to use against their own race, you'd think the concession would be in the totally opposite direction. Game design v0v. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 459	Posted - 2015.01.14 03:02:29 - [23] - Quote scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: The more you try the itrollu.jpg the more obvious it becomes for everyone about how you're not to be taken serious in anything at all. So please, keep at it. And with that, I'll leave this thread alone because the only thing that happens here is circle jerking using flawed logic and (not so) hidden agendas. Good luck with that. The more you try the itrollu.jpg the more obvious it becomes for everyone about how you're not to be taken serious in anything at all. So please, STOP it. I found this too applicable to pass up Edit: I pity the thread/bridge you move to next. I briefly wondered if it was a Rise alt. While he makes a few good points most of what he says leaves me doing this ---> =.= Like there's something not being communicated here. Something being missed. Something about why HML bleed 44% of their dps while most other weapons systems bleed only 30% and his argument about the drake and tengu having too many HP or whatever might be valid but that's something that should have been addressed during the drake rebalance. Should have. HML are also the only missile system that really needs rigors and flares to work well, but if we hold that to be the same as sniper-fitting a sniper then I guess you'd have to address that comparison more directly. The same argument that Mario has been looking at. I find it contentious at best to say that just because missiles will track a close-orbit frigate means they need to be ***. Attacking a missile ship no matter what means getting hit inside of 10km (unless rockets because lol). The real demon is an orbiting slicer at 22km burning 6km/s and your lights can't even hit him because they track so badly. Now move up to heavies and see the results. Those times the missiles launch perpendicular to your hull (despite being launched from external launchers with 360 degrees of motion) and they waste a lot of flight time course correcting. Those times they track away from the target before course correcting back in to chase the target (and barely scrape in a hit). Also I too find the 'max transversal situation' to be intellectually dishonest, unless you're in a MWDer and get hard tackled by an AB fit you'll be hard pressed to have this problem. Shield rail thorax is a thing. The people in favour of a change are putting in a lot* more effort than the people claiming parity and that disturbs me a little, as if saying that the pendulum of time-wasting balance swings is still how CCP works. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 461	Posted - 2015.01.14 03:36:50 - [24] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: The more you try the itrollu.jpg the more obvious it becomes for everyone about how you're not to be taken serious in anything at all. So please, keep at it. And with that, I'll leave this thread alone because the only thing that happens here is circle jerking using flawed logic and (not so) hidden agendas. Good luck with that. Im sure you have numbers to support your claims tho. (Deleted a bunch of ** because honestly its not worth the effort seriously replying to you.) I think the problem with the rook is it still only gets good ECM use inside of 30km, which incidentally is where it would be better to use a falcon as well. Join channel Aussies in space** to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 461	Posted - 2015.01.14 03:47:50 - [25] - Quote Well yeah, fit a RF point on it and you're good to go. I'm going to think up the most horribly broken HML fleet I can. TP get stacking penalties right? Let's see. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 461	Posted - 2015.01.14 09:03:42 - [26] - Quote Jihad leader wrote: Make all missiles and torpedoes realistic If you have a f-15 cruisng at 800 mph and it launches a missle at another jet traveling 800 mph the other jet doesn't outrun the missile like in eve, it dies in a big ball of fire. You need to rework velocity period its like shooting a missile from 0mph and having a jet out run it yes it can easily....... 2 light missile boats IE: crows should not be able to out run eachothers missiles its dumb ...... if crow (A) is doing 4500m/s and crow (B) launches missiles at crow (A) also doing 4500m/s, missiles velocity should be a launch speed of 4500m/s on top of normal flight speed and should have no problem hitting them out running missiles in little ships is a unrealistic joke But then you'd have to fit rigors and and target painters otherwise the drake will be unbalanced against comparatively tanked battleships. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 461	Posted - 2015.01.15 03:25:45 - [27] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: I was referring more to the Lack of manual input needed to make missiles work, with a weapon system that always hits they're either OP if they apply good damage or garbage if they don't. there's really no middle ground. fix that part instead. that being said I do think all weapons should lose damage selection. drones- EM / Therm.... they don't use ammo projectiles- kin / exp..... they're bullets missiles- either kin / therm or kin / exp. The thing about missiles is the premise of a kinetic missile doesn't really "work". Unless it's a bunker buster. This would leave you with either straight EM, explosive or explosive/thermal. Kinetic damage from a missile is more like antitank missiles which have armour penetrating heads due to the cone of their explosion, a feature totally unsuitable for anything but citadel missiles and bombs. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 461	Posted - 2015.01.15 05:44:58 - [28] - Quote Didn't the X-9 hit 11km/s back in the 70's? Hardly impressive to pull that little speed. Also launch velocity for a modern space shuttle is about as fast. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 461	Posted - 2015.01.15 15:52:55 - [29] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: Tusker Crazinski wrote: I was referring more to the Lack of manual input needed to make missiles work, with a weapon system that always hits they're either OP if they apply good damage or garbage if they don't. there's really no middle ground. fix that part instead. that being said I do think all weapons should lose damage selection. drones- EM / Therm.... they don't use ammo projectiles- kin / exp..... they're bullets missiles- either kin / therm or kin / exp. The thing about missiles is the premise of a kinetic missile doesn't really "work". Unless it's a bunker buster. This would leave you with either straight EM, explosive or explosive/thermal. Kinetic damage from a missile is more like antitank missiles which have armour penetrating heads due to the cone of their explosion, a feature totally unsuitable for anything but citadel missiles and bombs. The kinetic part of a missile would be anything like a shaped change to punch a hole in an armored structure to expanding rod in anti-air missile sending chunck of metal in all direction to punch holes in relatively fragile planes. I see someone is also vaguely rememberig schlock mercenary. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 461	Posted - 2015.01.16 03:02:08 - [30] - Quote At high enough velocities the impacts would be more like explosive damage than kinetic due to the friction of the impact partially vapourising the materials involved. If anything, a super-high-velocity missile (and we're talking about one that reaches its absolute newtonian-determined maximum speed) would be more explosive/thermal than kinetic for that reason. If you're making a case for changing how missiles work in game based on that mechanic then I'd support it. If your motivation is different however I am skeptical and reserve support for a later time. Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players

Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 469	Posted - 2015.01.22 01:40:31 - [31] - Quote I should hope that the t3 destroyers for caldari and gallente are spruced up corax and algos' respectively Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 470	Posted - 2015.01.22 05:27:45 - [32] - Quote So long as we don't return to the days of set-orbit and winmatar, then I couldn't give a damn about ACs. Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 470	Posted - 2015.01.24 01:09:29 - [33] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Rapid heavy missile launchers are fine or maybe a little overpowered. Heavy missiles are underpowered though. And if heavy missiles weren't underpowered, rapid heavy launchers would be totally overpowered. Because, well, rapid heavy and rapid light launchers are just overpowered. Soooo delete rapid launchers and fix heavies properly? Does anyone use rhml? I haven't seen it. Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 472	Posted - 2015.01.25 02:39:55 - [34] - Quote scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: "Gorski pointed out that the Drake is a joke compared to what it used to be. CCP Fozzie replied that of course it was a joke compared to where it used to be, since it used to be incredibly dominant. He said that the current meta is geared towards speed and that penalizes battlecurisers and battleship usage for small gangs and solo, but that not every ship needs to be balanced into every prevailing meta." -CSM Winter Day 3 Minutes Obviously there was probably a lot of discussion, and I might just be a little pessimistic, but I'm reading this as there are no plans for balance passes to address the Drake, which touches on HM's. I hope I'll be pleasantly surprised but at this point it definitely seems like CCP has little to know interest in the goings on of this thread. Thoughts? As always it was never the heavy missile that was the problem but still ships are being balanced around the modules they use instead of the other way around. In 2 more years we might finally see this addressed. As for BC and BS they have internally metricated that these ships shall have glass ceilings of performance in various places and ways. Take a look at battleships themselves will get about 110k tank without dipping in to faction gear. For the raven hulls you get 90k. It's almost as if fitting the way they're meant to be done is actively penalised and we're all meant to fly around fruity non-conformist fits that focus on speed or impressive artistic displays or something. Case in point: polarised weapons. These are ridiculous but if you watch some of Rise's old livestreams this guy really deeply believes in risk/reward it's just a shame he came up with this ******** idea instead of something more useful. Polarised weapons are an answer to a question noone was asking. And this lateral solution generation is probably being applied to other areas of the game as well like instead of making concise and predictable changes that everyone wanted they're doing tangential modifications to things noone cared about. Perhaps to get people to use them more (but secretly noone ever will because putting a ribbon on a turd doesn't fix the problem of it being a turd). Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate

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.