Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sigras
Conglomo
1003
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 02:15:25 -
[1] - Quote
People always talk about ways to fix missiles, and really, all their suggestions are just making them more like turrets. (adding missile "tracking computers" and decreasing missile time on target)
This is not the right approach. Missiles need to gain advantages over turrets in other ways and become their own unique weapon system.
The Proposal Allow missile launchers to load smaller ammo than their design size.
For Example: Rocket launchers would stay the way they are, but Heavy Assault Launchers could load rockets if they choose to, and torpedo launchers could load Torpedoes, Heavy Assault Missiles, or Rockets.
Likewise, cruise missile launchers could hold Cruise Missiles, Heavy Missiles, or Standard Missiles.
Now of course the downside to loading smaller ammo would be a drop off in DPS as your larger sized missile launchers fire slower than the smaller ones, but you would also always have an option to engage ships of a smaller size if you had to.
Rapid launchers would also still have their place as they could fire much more rapidly but would still be classified a size smaller so they would be stuck with the one size smaller ammo.
I believe this would make missiles unique, distinct and very versatile. Now not only do you get to switch damage types but also swap to the correct weapon to strike at your opponent.
Thoughts? |
Tusker Crazinski
Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 02:20:10 -
[2] - Quote
Yes, lets take the easiest weapon system to use in the game and make it easier.
raven frigate blapping at 40 to 0km. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2298
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 02:33:44 -
[3] - Quote
I'd support this if missile DPS were reduced. I like having missiles be that ultra-flexible weapon system with mediocre DPS but their DPS just isn't that lousy so without reducing it a bit I wouldn't want to see their application even easier.
CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Sugar Kyle, Corbexx, Jenshae Chiroptera
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1317
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 02:38:21 -
[4] - Quote
An interesting, if old, idea, but there are some serious balance issues to deal with. For example, a RHML loaded with lights would seriously abuse frigates.
My Many Misadventures
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I seek to create content, not become content.
|
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
249
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 02:41:19 -
[5] - Quote
Quote:People always talk about ways to fix missiles, and really, all their suggestions are just making them more like turrets. (adding missile "tracking computers" and decreasing missile time on target)
This is not the right approach. Missiles need to gain advantages over turrets in other ways and become their own unique weapon system.
Even if tracking enhancers or computer analogues were added, missiles would still be distinct because they use a completely different formula to apply damage to targets. Missiles already have unique rapid variants, always hit and have full damage selectability. They've got their own set of advantages and disadvantages and unique balance challenges. HMs are due for a review at some point and I think that we'll see a place for all missiles in pvp soon enough.
Quote:The Proposal Allow missile launchers to load smaller ammo than their design size.
For Example: Rocket launchers would stay the way they are, but Heavy Assault Launchers could load rockets if they choose to, and torpedo launchers could load Torpedoes, Heavy Assault Missiles, or Rockets.
Likewise, cruise missile launchers could hold Cruise Missiles, Heavy Missiles, or Standard Missiles.
I think that this suggestion overlaps far too much with the roles of already existing rapid variants and adds too much flexibility to the weapon system, even if the ammo wasn't bonused. |
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
249
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 02:42:06 -
[6] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:An interesting, if old, idea, but there are some serious balance issues to deal with. For example, a RHML loaded with lights would seriously abuse frigates.
I don't know why, but this made me smile. |
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Cirrius Technologies O X I D E
368
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 03:24:01 -
[7] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:An interesting, if old, idea, but there are some serious balance issues to deal with. For example, a RHML loaded with lights would seriously abuse frigates. They'd be unbonused lights... I've thought about the OP before, and it's interesting for sure. The problem I see is that a cruise launcher could hold around 90 lights, that's a lot of lights even if they're unbonused. One possible solution would be to, FINALLY!!!, fix reload and ammo swap as separate timers and then this would open the door for a new timer for ammo class swap. Not sure how feasible it is, but it's one possible idea. |
Sigras
Conglomo
1004
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 10:48:40 -
[8] - Quote
Ive given some thought to the issues that have been posed:
First about the ridiculous number of missiles the larger launchers could hold... I would assume you could only load the same number of missiles for each salvo. This would also fix the Rapid Launcher issue.
IE cruise missile launchers have 27 launch tubes, and so they can load 27 missiles, either Cruise, Heavy or Standard. Otherwise what would you be doing? loading 2 missiles per launch tube?
Secondly, about the increased versatility, I would figure this change would accompany a balance pass for all missile launchers and missiles. Most likely what would need to happen is the ROF of the standard launchers would need to be increased with an accompanying decrease in damage for each standard missile. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
713
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 10:58:35 -
[9] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:An interesting, if old, idea, but there are some serious balance issues to deal with. For example, a RHML loaded with lights would seriously abuse frigates.
Agreed, though part of me wonders if the insane reload timer here would balance it out some. You don't bring a raven to clear tackle - you bring a RLML caracal/cerberus. And a raven caught with light missiles vs a bigger ship...well....bye.
I dunno, I think it would need testing - it's clear cut on paper but in reality that reload time changes the game. |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
5937
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 11:01:41 -
[10] - Quote
The missile formula isn't much different from turrets, only that it always gets the maximum velocity applied instead of a transversal. So 'tracking independent' means they always get the short end.
I'd remove velocity from the damage calculations of missiles and create a formula solely depending on the signature radius. The formula would need to be more exponential with a sweet spot for the appropriate ship size and rapidly falling off towards zero if the ship is smaller. Especially to prevent citadels from blapping battleships.
Missile velocity would be reduced so it could be possible to outrun them on a fast ship or keep them at a distance long enough for Defenders to pick them off. Maybe add a missile defence system as a mid slot that reduces effective signature radius against missiles when active.
This way missiles would be a unique weapon system that would require different tactics to defend against or apply at targets from how turrets and drones work.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
713
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 11:24:35 -
[11] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:Maybe add a missile defence system as a mid slot that reduces effective signature radius against missiles when active.
Make it a function of sensor strength and sig thus allowing ECCM to be useful and hushing all the people who cry about it
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
889
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 12:00:41 -
[12] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:An interesting, if old, idea, but there are some serious balance issues to deal with. For example, a RHML loaded with lights would seriously abuse frigates. Agreed, though part of me wonders if the insane reload timer here would balance it out some. You don't bring a raven to clear tackle - you bring a RLML caracal/cerberus. And a raven caught with light missiles vs a bigger ship...well....bye. I dunno, I think it would need testing - it's clear cut on paper but in reality that reload time changes the game.
That's why you carry them big missiles and swap on the fly for larger targets. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
713
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 13:39:42 -
[13] - Quote
Obviously, but there's "on the fly" and there's "brb lads, going to take a **** whilst this reloads" |
Tusker Crazinski
Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels
26
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 13:50:26 -
[14] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:The missile formula isn't much different from turrets, only that it always gets the maximum velocity applied instead of a transversal. So 'tracking independent' means they always get the short end.
I'd remove velocity from the damage calculations of missiles and create a formula solely depending on the signature radius. The formula would need to be more exponential with a sweet spot for the appropriate ship size and rapidly falling off towards zero if the ship is smaller. Especially to prevent citadels from blapping battleships.
Missile velocity would be reduced so it could be possible to outrun them on a fast ship or keep them at a distance long enough for Defenders to pick them off. Maybe add a missile defence system as a mid slot that reduces effective signature radius against missiles when active.
This way missiles would be a unique weapon system that would require different tactics to defend against or apply at targets from how turrets and drones work.
Or make them straight up avoidable via limited turn rate, actual acceleration values, or what have you.
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1317
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 15:03:25 -
[15] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Ive given some thought to the issues that have been posed:
First about the ridiculous number of missiles the larger launchers could hold... I would assume you could only load the same number of missiles for each salvo. This would also fix the Rapid Launcher issue.
IE cruise missile launchers have 27 launch tubes, and so they can load 27 missiles, either Cruise, Heavy or Standard. Otherwise what would you be doing? loading 2 missiles per launch tube?
Secondly, about the increased versatility, I would figure this change would accompany a balance pass for all missile launchers and missiles. Most likely what would need to happen is the ROF of the standard launchers would need to be increased with an accompanying decrease in damage for each standard missile. Launchers, and indeed all weapons, determine ammunition capacity by volume, not number of rounds.
With this in mind, let me take a moment to expound on my "Light Missiles out of a RHML abusing frigates" example.
Base stats:
RHML II: 0.75m^3 capacity, 5.185s RoF, 35s reload time RLML II: 0.3m^3 capacity, 6.24s RoF, 35s reload time LML II: 0.795m^3 capacity, 12s RoF, 10s reload time
CN Heavy Missile: 0.03m^3 volume, 155 damage CN Light Missile: 0.015m^3 volume, 95 damage
Compared to a RHML loaded with heavies, a RHML loaded with light missiles would have 70% of the raw burst damage, much better application to small targets (albeit with a shorter range), and bursts that are twice as long, so your sustained DPS would actually increase.
Can you say ouch? You barely even notice the long reloads.
Compared to a RLML, a RHML loaded with heavies would do 20% more burst damage and have bursts that are 2.5x longer.
That's nuts.
A RHML loaded with lights makes a LML downright obsolete. It's roughly as good as two LMLs stacked into a single slot.
The Raven and Typhoon both get a bonus to RHML RoF, and have 6 launcher hardpoints. Can you imagine what a battleship platform with roughly 16 LML's worth of damage output (at BS V) would do to frigates? (6*~2*1.3333 ~= 15.9999) Or a Barghest with roughly 17.5 equivalent LMLs (it's damage bonus applies to all missiles) with a hefty range bonus to boot?
I'm not saying no to the idea. In fact, I actually rather like the idea of drone users not being the only ones who can deal with undersized targets, and it also makes sense since the damage and application stats are properties of the missiles, not the launchers. I'm just saying that if it does happen, there would likely need to be some appropriate tweaks that happen along with it to deal with issues like this.
My Many Misadventures
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I seek to create content, not become content.
|
Sigras
Conglomo
1004
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 18:41:52 -
[16] - Quote
Tusker Crazinski wrote:Abrazzar wrote:The missile formula isn't much different from turrets, only that it always gets the maximum velocity applied instead of a transversal. So 'tracking independent' means they always get the short end.
I'd remove velocity from the damage calculations of missiles and create a formula solely depending on the signature radius. The formula would need to be more exponential with a sweet spot for the appropriate ship size and rapidly falling off towards zero if the ship is smaller. Especially to prevent citadels from blapping battleships.
Missile velocity would be reduced so it could be possible to outrun them on a fast ship or keep them at a distance long enough for Defenders to pick them off. Maybe add a missile defence system as a mid slot that reduces effective signature radius against missiles when active.
This way missiles would be a unique weapon system that would require different tactics to defend against or apply at targets from how turrets and drones work. Or make them straight up avoidable via limited turn rate, actual acceleration values, or what have you. The issue with that is now you're making the missiles need rudimentary AI calculations which would make the servers roll over and die... This is part of the reason drones are such a huge drain on the servers.
Bronson Hughes wrote:Sigras wrote:Ive given some thought to the issues that have been posed:
First about the ridiculous number of missiles the larger launchers could hold... I would assume you could only load the same number of missiles for each salvo. This would also fix the Rapid Launcher issue.
IE cruise missile launchers have 27 launch tubes, and so they can load 27 missiles, either Cruise, Heavy or Standard. Otherwise what would you be doing? loading 2 missiles per launch tube?
Secondly, about the increased versatility, I would figure this change would accompany a balance pass for all missile launchers and missiles. Most likely what would need to happen is the ROF of the standard launchers would need to be increased with an accompanying decrease in damage for each standard missile. Launchers, and indeed all weapons, determine ammunition capacity by volume, not number of rounds. Yes, yes i understand how the game works now, I was proposing a change to that. Instead of capacity missile launchers should have launch tubes which can be loaded 1 missile per tube.
This fixes the issue with the rest of the post. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
627
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 21:48:43 -
[17] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:The missile formula isn't much different from turrets, only that it always gets the maximum velocity applied instead of a transversal. So 'tracking independent' means they always get the short end.
I'd remove velocity from the damage calculations of missiles and create a formula solely depending on the signature radius. The formula would need to be more exponential with a sweet spot for the appropriate ship size and rapidly falling off towards zero if the ship is smaller. Especially to prevent citadels from blapping battleships.
Missile velocity would be reduced so it could be possible to outrun them on a fast ship or keep them at a distance long enough for Defenders to pick them off. Maybe add a missile defence system as a mid slot that reduces effective signature radius against missiles when active.
This way missiles would be a unique weapon system that would require different tactics to defend against or apply at targets from how turrets and drones work.
This is the idea i like best and the speed of missiles would not need to be altered to much seeing as even NPC frigs can orbit faster than a HAM can turn and chase them you just need to find an orbit tight enough to slow them down but not so close that they hit you right after they launch. but yes some amount of a speed nerf would be needed
Fuel block colors
|
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
545
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 21:59:32 -
[18] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:
I'm not saying no to the idea. In fact, I actually rather like the idea of drone users not being the only ones who can deal with undersized targets, and it also makes sense since the damage and application stats are properties of the missiles, not the launchers. I'm just saying that if it does happen, there would likely need to be some appropriate tweaks that happen along with it to deal with issues like this.
You could just increase the reload time when using undersize missiles, to account for the increased number of units. Say somewhere from 25% to 50%. Would make switching size classes more of a pain, in tradeoff for the high performance. Forces you decide if it's worth it for that one annoying frigate or not.
Overhaul Dscan!
Make your own rules - Noobs to Null / Casual Vets Corp
|
Sigras
Conglomo
1004
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 09:21:14 -
[19] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Abrazzar wrote:The missile formula isn't much different from turrets, only that it always gets the maximum velocity applied instead of a transversal. So 'tracking independent' means they always get the short end.
I'd remove velocity from the damage calculations of missiles and create a formula solely depending on the signature radius. The formula would need to be more exponential with a sweet spot for the appropriate ship size and rapidly falling off towards zero if the ship is smaller. Especially to prevent citadels from blapping battleships.
Missile velocity would be reduced so it could be possible to outrun them on a fast ship or keep them at a distance long enough for Defenders to pick them off. Maybe add a missile defence system as a mid slot that reduces effective signature radius against missiles when active.
This way missiles would be a unique weapon system that would require different tactics to defend against or apply at targets from how turrets and drones work. This is the idea i like best and the speed of missiles would not need to be altered to much seeing as even NPC frigs can orbit faster than a HAM can turn and chase them you just need to find an orbit tight enough to slow them down but not so close that they hit you right after they launch. but yes some amount of a speed nerf would be needed There are two problems with this.
1. Having a regulated and consistent missile turning radius would take a LOT of extra server time in large battles. 2. The missile animation you see in the client is not synced to the server. This is why you sometimes see missiles whirl around and hit your ship even when theyre nowhere near it.
I agree, this would be the best solution but I dont think it's possible without making the server roll over and die. |
Sigras
Conglomo
1004
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 18:26:43 -
[20] - Quote
Ines Tegator wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:I'm not saying no to the idea. In fact, I actually rather like the idea of drone users not being the only ones who can deal with undersized targets, and it also makes sense since the damage and application stats are properties of the missiles, not the launchers. I'm just saying that if it does happen, there would likely need to be some appropriate tweaks that happen along with it to deal with issues like this. You could just increase the reload time when using undersize missiles, to account for the increased number of units. Say somewhere from 25% to 50%. Would make switching size classes more of a pain, in tradeoff for the high performance. Forces you decide if it's worth it for that one annoying frigate or not. This is an interesting idea... |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
832
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 18:37:29 -
[21] - Quote
Sigras wrote:
Rapid launchers would also still have their place as they could fire much more rapidly but would still be classified a size smaller so they would be stuck with the one size smaller ammo.
Thoughts?
well you must not have done all of your research considering RHML would hold more light missiles and fire faster than RLML
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
Sean Parisi
Fugutive Task Force A T O N E M E N T
638
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 18:46:07 -
[22] - Quote
Would be nice to see Caldari missile damage get nerfed but applied to ALL damage types. I really despise the mental gymnastics involved with the 50 percent bonus to kinetic. Except on stealth bombers.
The point of missiles should be to understand your opponents resist profile and shoot into the weak spot. When you have a 50 percent kinetic bonus. You have to calculate whether its even worth it to change damage type. Which just seems to go against what missiles are. Yet drone boats and autocannons do not have the same limitations. |
Sigras
Conglomo
1004
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 19:09:32 -
[23] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Sigras wrote:
Rapid launchers would also still have their place as they could fire much more rapidly but would still be classified a size smaller so they would be stuck with the one size smaller ammo.
Thoughts?
well you must not have done all of your research considering RHML would hold more light missiles and fire faster than RLML
Sigras wrote:8th post in the thread
Ive given some thought to the issues that have been posed:
First about the ridiculous number of missiles the larger launchers could hold... I would change it so that you could only load the same number of missiles for each salvo. This would also fix the Rapid Launcher issue.
IE cruise missile launchers have 27 launch tubes, and so they can load 27 missiles, either Cruise, Heavy or Standard. Otherwise what would you be doing? loading 2 missiles per launch tube?
Secondly, about the increased versatility, I would figure this change would accompany a balance pass for all missile launchers and missiles. Most likely what would need to happen is the ROF of the standard launchers would need to be increased with an accompanying decrease in damage for each standard missile. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |