EVE Search - Missile Balance

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Missile Balance

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
CW Itovuo The Executioners Capital Punishment. 64	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:48:08 - [31] - Quote Terra Chrall wrote: As a missile user, I also think that application modules are sorely needed. Right now there is no way to improve damage application of a larger missile to a smaller target other than skill points. While turret and drone systems do have tracking enhancers. This means that lower skilled pilots can use equipment to offset lack of trained skills, while a missile pilot can only wait to train up their skills. This alone could really bring heavy missiles into a much less niche fitting. Edit: I know TP and Web are useful, but you have to wait on cycle times or have multiple modules just to switch between targets. And as mentioned web range is ver limited for the average missle boat. Missiles are already the delayed damage system, waiting to get a TP moved to a target can be aggravating and I would prefer the option for a module that enhanced the weapon system outright. Target Painters and webs have pretty fast cycle times, not sure how they can be considered aggravating. In 2012, CCP "balanced" the missile category out of the meta. CCP went too far and adjusted too many variables (range, DPS, Exp Radius, Exp Velocity). Later balances added to the problem as ships became faster and marginally smaller. Creating additional modules to counter those changes will only cause more problems. CCP needs to adjust the missile ammo attributes, or revisit the missile damage application formula.
Arthur Aihaken State Protectorate Caldari State 4106	Posted - 2015.03.10 04:02:16 - [32] - Quote CW Itovuo wrote: Creating additional modules to counter those changes will only cause more problems. CCP needs to adjust the missile ammo attributes, or revisit the missile damage application formula. Many of us have been requesting this for the last few years. I'm not necessarily holding my breath at this point... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1622	Posted - 2015.03.10 04:07:30 - [33] - Quote Duchess Starbuckington wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Why does short range large missile have worse application than long range large missile when every other weapon feature better application on the short range/high DPS version? Because they need it. Missiles have fewer options for boosting tracking than guns (positioning doesn't matter, target painters are limited in effectiveness and range, webs are limited in range except on specialised ships, etc. etc.) I was about to say it's not rocket science but... oh yeah... Torp need worse application because there isn't many option to help application? WTF are you having before posting?
Duchess Starbuckington Starbuckington Manor 325	Posted - 2015.03.10 08:39:50 - [34] - Quote Quote: Torp need worse application because there isn't many option to help application? No, long range missiles need better damage application, because they don't have as many mechanisms as turrets to mitigate that problem. I didn't say anything about torps, please get a clue.
JoeSomebody Hungry Moonz Klan 2	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:06:21 - [35] - Quote I don't know what are you guys talking about missiles being in need of a buff... Caracal is probably the most common PVP t1 cruiser out there for a reason. Missiles are really hot in PVP right now, and that has much to do with their range. HAMs, heavy and light missiles deliver somewhat less damage, but far too easily. Too much range. Rapid launchers are a problem on their own. I feel missiles could use flight time or flight speed decrease, but I might be wrong about specifics.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1105	Posted - 2015.03.11 23:32:59 - [36] - Quote JoeSomebody wrote: I don't know what are you guys talking about missiles being in need of a buff... Caracal is probably the most common PVP t1 cruiser out there for a reason. Missiles are really hot in PVP right now, and that has much to do with their range. HAMs, heavy and light missiles deliver somewhat less damage, but far too easily. Too much range. Rapid launchers are a problem on their own. I feel missiles could use flight time or flight speed decrease, but I might be wrong about specifics. ranges are a bit strong on most missile types really, e.g. HAM's and torps having the same range light missiles apply too well too smaller sig ships 10% bonuses too missile range is more powerful than similar bonuses on turret ships. e.g. 10% falloff or 10% optimal onyl buffs 50% of there range profile where as the missile bonus applies too the whole range profile. 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 sentries. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
unidenify Plundering Penguins 98	Posted - 2015.03.12 00:45:12 - [37] - Quote Duchess Starbuckington wrote: Quote: Torp need worse application because there isn't many option to help application? No, long range missiles need better damage application, because they don't have as many mechanisms as turrets to mitigate that problem. I didn't say anything about torps, please get a clue. issue is Torp(short range weapon) have worse damage application than Cruise(long range weapon) HAM have better damage application than Heavy, Rocket have better damage application than Light. However it is opposite case for Torp vs Cruise
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4111	Posted - 2015.03.12 02:16:08 - [38] - Quote unidenify wrote: issue is Torp(short range weapon) have worse damage application than Cruise(long range weapon) The problem is that torpedoes are closely tied into Stealth Bombers, so any change you make to torpedo damage application has the potential to create an imbalance. But I agree - there's almost no reason to use torpedoes for the small gain in raw damage since cruise missiles have better damage application and can cover all ranges. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Duchess Starbuckington Starbuckington Manor 330	Posted - 2015.03.12 08:25:51 - [39] - Quote JoeSomebody wrote: I don't know what are you guys talking about missiles being in need of a buff... Caracal is probably the most common PVP t1 cruiser out there for a reason. Missiles are really hot in PVP right now, and that has much to do with their range. HAMs, heavy and light missiles deliver somewhat less damage, but far too easily. Too much range. Rapid launchers are a problem on their own. I feel missiles could use flight time or flight speed decrease, but I might be wrong about specifics. The Caracal is common as hell right now because rapid lights are just that good and synergise very well with the hull. To hold that up as the reason all missiles are "really hot in PVP right now" is idiotic. Frigate missiles are in a good place (though lights are arguably a tad OP) but others are pretty meh. Heavy missiles are a joke on anything and HAMs are mediocre on the Caracal. Battleship missiles are even more of a schizophrenically-designed mess. So yeah, when all missiles are wildly different in capabilities, holding up the rapid-light Caracal as the reason missiles are all fine is pretty stupid.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4112	Posted - 2015.03.12 11:13:26 - [40] - Quote Duchess Starbuckington wrote: Heavy missiles are a joke on anything and HAMs are mediocre on the Caracal. Battleship missiles are even more of a schizophrenically-designed mess. Well, outside of PvE anyway... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Aran Hotchkiss Phoibe Enterprises 72	Posted - 2015.03.12 12:19:14 - [41] - Quote Must admit as a missile pilot I'm so confused by all the conflicting viewpoints being offered - missiles sucks, missiles are OP, missiles apply too well, missiles don't apply well at all My personal experience with pve'ing with heavy missiles for a while and smidgeons of pvp with rapid lights... Heavy missiles apply atrociously, haven't used rapid lights enough to have a valid opinion. I honestly don't know. I'm just gonna save myself the hassle and move to auto cannons :D Shamelessly stole this line, Alternatively, QFT One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Duchess Starbuckington Starbuckington Manor 332	Posted - 2015.03.12 14:26:05 - [42] - Quote Aran Hotchkiss wrote: Must admit as a missile pilot I'm so confused by all the conflicting viewpoints being offered - missiles sucks, missiles are OP, missiles apply too well, missiles don't apply well at all Those viewpoints don't conflict at all because they're referring to different types of missile. Heavy missiles suck, lights are OP, lights apply too well, torpedoes don't apply well at all, etc. etc.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 511	Posted - 2015.03.12 14:56:24 - [43] - Quote I'd like to remind everyone about this https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=381542 Soapbox special, complete with the figures. Heavy missiles (the missile) are complete dogshit. Don't use them on anything but PVE tengu/cerb. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 155	Posted - 2015.03.12 15:18:41 - [44] - Quote JoeSomebody wrote: I don't know what are you talking about missiles being in need of a buff... Caracal is probably the most common PVP t1 cruiser out there for a reason. Missiles are really hot in PVP right now, and that has much to do with their range. HAMs, heavy and light missiles deliver somewhat less damage, but far too easily. Too much range. Rapid launchers are a problem on their own. I feel missiles could use flight time or flight speed decrease, but I might be wrong about specifics. Vexor. The vexor is the go to t1 pvp cruiser atm. Caracal has been relagated to anti-frigate duty because HAMS barely leave enough room to fit tank, and heavies are pretty terrible. Plus a range bonus applied to heavies is mostly worthless outside fleets. The caracal shines with RLML. Not hams or hml. RLML does not equal all missiles.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 155	Posted - 2015.03.12 15:25:12 - [45] - Quote Aran Hotchkiss wrote: I'm just gonna save myself the hassle and move to auto cannons :D I wouldnt do that. Train hybrids, lasers or drones before medium acs. Otherwise youll find youre out dps'd by anything up close, or far away. And to kite, youre effectively locked into explo damage (and still do pretty terrible dps).. Plus minny ships being the "fast" race with less tank, they arent really that much faster anymore. So less dps, tank for lil more speed. Train minny, use their missile boats, or the svipul... and then youll be ok.
Duchess Starbuckington Starbuckington Manor 332	Posted - 2015.03.12 15:45:49 - [46] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: JoeSomebody wrote: I don't know what are you talking about missiles being in need of a buff... Caracal is probably the most common PVP t1 cruiser out there for a reason. Missiles are really hot in PVP right now, and that has much to do with their range. HAMs, heavy and light missiles deliver somewhat less damage, but far too easily. Too much range. Rapid launchers are a problem on their own. I feel missiles could use flight time or flight speed decrease, but I might be wrong about specifics. Vexor. The vexor is the go to t1 pvp cruiser atm. Caracal has been relagated to anti-frigate duty because HAMS barely leave enough room to fit tank, and heavies are pretty terrible. Plus a range bonus applied to heavies is mostly worthless outside fleets. The caracal shines with RLML. Not hams or hml. RLML does not equal all missiles. Not to mention, the Caracal has a tiny dronebay and no utilities. Heavies or HAMs on it make it hilariously poorly equipped to deal with frigates for solo PVP, contributing greatly to it being the one-trick pony it is now.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey Totally Abstract O X I D E 380	Posted - 2015.03.12 17:50:59 - [47] - Quote I'm just hoping that the Devs will finally have a good, hard look at missiles and what they did to them. Rise's blog (internet out or i would be more specific) where he mentioned "missiles!" as needing work gives me a little hope, but I'm not exactly thrilled about Rise being the one to fix missiles. IMO there are 3 missiles systems that are in a decent place, RLMLs, HAMs, and torps. Although, torps are only decent in the sense of bombers and structure grinding. I would like to see every missile system get some much-overdue TLC. As was pointed out on page 2, there have been multiple threads that have some great data posted about dps and applied damage comparisons, definitely worth looking into by anyone interested in a missile balance.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 13	Posted - 2015.03.12 18:48:18 - [48] - Quote Just gonna throw my 2 cents on cit. missiles so you get an idea on them. Torps: Are they stationary and a capital/painted within ~55km? They're going to feel it. Are they moving? Forget about it. Cruises: Are they stationary and a capital/painted within lock range? This will tickle. Are they moving? Forget about it. Basically, there's a reason nobody wants to really fly a Phoenix or Leviathan aside from them being shield capitals. They can't hit anything moving without major assistance. Even capitals move faster than their explosion velocity which means a massive reduction in damage in most all warfare situations except against other sieged dreads. Add to that, other class of dreads can gain greater range by swapping ammo types, while the Phoenix (and levi) would have to switch weapon systems entirely which are heavy and will not fit in its cargo hold. When flying a capital you always have to plan for the chance of being hot dropped. As such fielding ships with like-tanks and ability to track moving targets at variable ranges is key. And is a large reason why you don't, and likely never will, see missile capitals aside from the token Phoenix at a POS bash. --- That aside, in general there are several major downsides to this weapon system which lead to why you don't see them used in large scale combat, which is why stats on their damage in pvp is so low. 1) Damage application: instant vs delayed makes for wasted cycles. Smaller ships can outrun missiles entirely where turrets will eventually hit even the smallest of targets (while cool looking, is very annoying esp with new t3 destroyers). -Can be helped, not solved, by giving them the "Garmur" treatment by vastly increase all missile velocities and decreasing flight times to compensate. 2) Firewalling: Smartbombs, which are meant to handle close orbit tackle and drones, can make this entire weapon system obsolete by destroying the missiles before they have a chance to hit their target. -Can be solved by not allowing missiles to be damaged at all. Resist with tank, not offensive weapons. 3) ECM: loss of lock on a target while missiles are in flight cause them to deal no damage. I still don't understand why this is even a thing. I'm jammed, not my missiles, which I would assume have their own guidance system. -Solved by fixing what has obviously been a long standing bug in the game. 4) Lack of versatility in range. As I stated with citadel torps/cruise in order to change the range of a missile weapons system outside of t2 precision vs rage. The only way to change your range is to change the entire weapon system currently installed on your ship. -The only acceptable solution to this would be to finally add a mid slot module that allows for the range to be modified against something like explosion velocity (buffs range but lowers exp velocity, scripting can increase range further or lower the penalty). Adding more missile types just makes things far too convoluted. -As far as citadel launchers are concerned, all they need is a massive size reduction in the modules themselves so they can be carried within the hold to allow for the weapon system to be swapped between since they cant just switch to a longer range ammo.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4117	Posted - 2015.03.12 19:04:38 - [49] - Quote One of the problems with medium, large and capital missiles is that they cannot apply full DPS to moving targets (we're talking about standard ship velocities here, not afterburning or microwarpdrive). Unlike turrets, they can't even apply full DPS to stationary targets. And finally, missiles can only apply a maximum 100% of rated damage (no penetrating or critical hits). The simplest solution would be to increase explosion velocity for all medium, large and capital missiles across the board by somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25-50%. While this may seem like a lot, the way the missile formula works is that once you reach or exceed the target's velocity there is no more potential damage applied; you still have the difference in the target signature radius from the explosion radius. This potentially makes webs more effective for missiles at close range and target painters slightly more effective at longer ranges. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 589	Posted - 2015.03.12 22:04:03 - [50] - Quote Duchess Starbuckington wrote: Aran Hotchkiss wrote: Must admit as a missile pilot I'm so confused by all the conflicting viewpoints being offered - missiles sucks, missiles are OP, missiles apply too well, missiles don't apply well at all Those viewpoints don't conflict at all because they're referring to different types of missile. Heavy missiles suck, lights are OP, lights apply too well, torpedoes don't apply well at all, etc. etc. This. CCP, imo, has hen pecked missiles in stop gap fixes creating a mixed bag of tricks. Lights were in need of some love I will admit. They got that...and then some. They were imo changed in a vacuum. 1 problem child done in a sea of them...so now the other problem children stand out. Also missiles will get these "confusing" arguments since imo missiles are rather hull dependent. I can slap on as much speed as I want on the frigs and not care. Try for a 10mn frigate that burns full time and not pulses prop mod...do it till the cap runs out. I don't track on them, no skin off my nose. Also get long range for a frigate at lower skill levels. Me to get my arty wolf or jaguar if masochistic (oddly wolf does this better, insert switch the damn bonus rant here) was a long path of many 5's (AF 5, gun skills 5, rig 4 to fit t2 range rigs or reduce rig downsides if t1) to get that max range. Turret side...by an large ccp goes wide sweeping changes. Its ammo base changes at least from small to large. Hybrid fix a few years back for example was ammo across the board. It made for me caldari hybrid use at severl levels more fun to use. Then later ccp hen pecked mediums and some can argue made them OP. Seeing a trend there...when ccp henpecks bad things can happen lol.

Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 40	Posted - 2015.03.13 02:23:53 - [51] - Quote or buff their application bud add a minimum "arming" distance. missiles do suck, but that it for a goddamn reason.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4121	Posted - 2015.03.13 04:28:02 - [52] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: or buff their application bud add a minimum "arming" distance. Which would just make them useless at point-blank range. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 40	Posted - 2015.03.13 06:56:30 - [53] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Tusker Crazinski wrote: or buff their application bud add a minimum "arming" distance. Which would just make them useless at point-blank range. Hmm why should a weapon system have an effective range of 0-200km? Drones can at least be shot, missiles just hit. until that is fixed they should simply remain bad.
unidenify Plundering Penguins 98	Posted - 2015.03.13 07:25:13 - [54] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: Tusker Crazinski wrote: or buff their application bud add a minimum "arming" distance. Which would just make them useless at point-blank range. Hmm why should a weapon system have an effective range of 0-200km? Drones can at least be shot, missiles just hit. until that is fixed they should simply remain bad. you can shoot missile down with defender, smartbomb or ECM* No one ask for missile do more dps than turret in paper. Most of time, they ask for better applied dps. *there are auto-targeting for Light/Heavy/Cruise, but none for Rocket/HAM/Torp.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 927	Posted - 2015.03.13 08:33:29 - [55] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: Tusker Crazinski wrote: or buff their application bud add a minimum "arming" distance. Which would just make them useless at point-blank range. Hmm why should a weapon system have an effective range of 0-200km? Drones can at least be shot, missiles just hit. until that is fixed they should simply remain bad. If you have problems with guns missing with any sort of regularity, you're doing it wrong. Stop being bad.
IBISWARS Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.03.13 08:51:52 - [56] - Quote I do not think you fully understand the layout of slots and the impact towards armor and shield tanking ships at all. High Slots are for external to ship Mods ie turrets and some ew items Mid slots are ship hull Mods such as shields, afterburners Low slots are for internal Mods such as armor repair and cargo, and modifiers to performance of high slot items. Rigs are for further refinement but they often act like extra low slots than anything. Subsystems well that is a whole different ballgame as per intended. For this i will be using the classical Caldari Vs Gallente examples The reason you see so many cruise missile boats in high sec is because torpedoes are nerfed to the point they are worthless to bring into missions, heck cruise missiles out dps torpedoes in the fitting screen and have 3 times the range or more. Missiles only do 1 type of damage so yes that should be higher than charges which do 2 types of damage. It's point and shoot for steady dps VS charged ammo which damage depends on the player, ship placement skills and damage modifiers like luck. Caldari dreadnaughts are already pretty usless for ship pvp engaments. Now why armor tankers have to balance tank VS damage output unlike armor tankers. Cuss when a shield tanker looses all its shields it dies quickly cuss it's not armor tanked. where armor tankers have the shields as a buffer before then begin to tank. Now if you make it so you can armor tank and have all damage mods then you seriously unbalance the game towards armor tankers then everyone will be flying blaster boats then what is the point of the other fractions to be skilled up. Fraction roles are to be considered too. Caldari are better suited for long range engagement even for the rails, gallente are close range brawlers. What and how you fly dose apply in choices of race advantages here. It sounds more your a minmatar auto-cannon style of player. Do ask some of your fellow alliance members why they fly certain types of ships compared to others. You will learn how they fly them matters as much as the ship they pick.
Sean Parisi Fugutive Task Force A T O N E M E N T 645	Posted - 2015.03.13 09:35:35 - [57] - Quote Light Missiles and Rockets = Healthy (Light missiles are strong for range, but aren't the best dps - if they ever become 'op' it is because of the hull they are on as opposed to the system) Rapid Lights? - They okay, frustrating at times. Everything above it (Haven't tried rapid heavies) have the issue of damage application. I do not believe they need a velocity bonus in most cases) but more so greater application when actually hitting the target. I would push Heavies back to pre-nerf level as everything else has been buffed since. Then take a look at Heavy Assaults. Don't use Torps or cruisers outside of stealth bombers enough to comment.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 928	Posted - 2015.03.13 09:49:27 - [58] - Quote Sean Parisi wrote: Light Missiles and Rockets = Healthy (Light missiles are strong for range, but aren't the best dps - if they ever become 'op' it is because of the hull they are on as opposed to the system) Rapid Lights? - They okay, frustrating at times. Everything above it (Haven't tried rapid heavies) have the issue of damage application. I do not believe they need a velocity bonus in most cases) but more so greater application when actually hitting the target. I would push Heavies back to pre-nerf level as everything else has been buffed since. Then take a look at Heavy Assaults. Don't use Torps or cruisers outside of stealth bombers enough to comment. They could ALL stand a velocity increase and a flight time decrease to keep neutral range changes but get more consistent results. You get some stupid anomalies shooting at approaching, or straight line fleeing targets. Yes, yes "features" and all that but pilots value consistency over most things.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4121	Posted - 2015.03.13 10:20:17 - [59] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: Hmm why should a weapon system have an effective range of 0-200km? Drones can at least be shot, missiles just hit. until that is fixed they should simply remain bad. I'm not necessarily suggesting that they should; but having a minimum "arm" range would be counterproductive. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Duchess Starbuckington Starbuckington Manor 333	Posted - 2015.03.13 10:45:52 - [60] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: Tusker Crazinski wrote: or buff their application bud add a minimum "arming" distance. Which would just make them useless at point-blank range. Hmm why should a weapon system have an effective range of 0-200km? Drones can at least be shot, missiles just hit. until that is fixed they should simply remain bad. I wondered when someone would start spouting the misleading rubbish of "missiles always hit". I find it's inevitably the mark of someone clueless who's never used them and so far that's never been wrong. I'll try and keep it in simple words for the newbie: Missiles always hit - true. Missiles always work when they do - false. Yeah if you lob a missile at a smaller/faster target, yes it will always hit if going fast enough, but it'll do so little damage it may as well have missed. So yeah, "missiles always hit" as justification for half of them being worthless crap is a joke of an argument and the mark of a clueless newbie.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: 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.