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)
Nina Pappotte Wayward Chickens Half Massed 1	Posted - 2015.03.09 09:49:04 - [1] - Quote I think that missiles deserve a balancing pass. They're able to deliver long range dps without sacrificing dps or tank, something turrets can't. The problem lies in the skills: missiles are more skill-dependent than turrets. Skilling the Turret skills to maximum gets you 25% extra range, 100% extra dps and 25% extra tracking. Compare this to 125% extra range, 100% extra dps, 50% increased explosion velocity and 25% decreased explosion radius. This makes it quite clear that while the straight damage bonus is equal, the bonus to damage application is anything but. To match the turret range bonus the skill bonus from Missile Bombardment and Missile Projection should be nerfed from 10% per skill-level to 2.5%. Since they get multiplied together this results in a 26.6% increase in range at maximum level. Explosion velocity and explosion radius are more difficult. The formula for missile damage is Base Damage * min[1, S/E, (S/EVe/Vt)^(ln(drf)/ln(5.5))] where S is the signature radius, E is the explosion radius, Ve is the explosion velocity, Vt is the target velocity and drf is the damage reduction factor. The most common case of speed-tanking is where the signature radius is bigger than the explosion radius (or S/E > (S/EVe/Vt)^(ln(drf)/ln(5.5))), so (S/EVe/Vt)^(ln(drf)/ln(5.5)),, is the part of the missile damage equation that applies. The damage reduction factor looks complicated, but delivers exponents ins the range of [0.56 , 1], so it increases the value of the the formula, but most significant when it's close to zero, so I'll ignore it. That leaves us with (S/EVe/Vt). This term becomes 50% greater with 50% increase in explosion velocity as well as 33% greater with a 25% smaller explosion radius for a total increase of 100% with max skills. That is slightly compensated by the drf, but still a lot more significant than the 25% tracking bonus. Guided Missile Precision still has a job to do in slow targets so I think that lowering it to 4% per skill level is the most it can be nerfed to, as this means 25% damage bonus against slow, small targets (S/E applies). Target Navigation Prediction still incurs almost a 50% damage bonus against speed-tanked targets, so lowering it to 5% per skill-level seems appropriate. This means that the damage application against speed-tanked targets is lowered from 100% skill-bonus to 56% skill-bonus. That is still much higher than the 25% tracking the turrets get, but turrets have the option of negating any tracking issues by piloting. To compensate for these severe nerfs I propose new modules that mimic the functionality of tracking computer / enhancers. Missile guidance systems that increase the missile velocity as well as the explosion velocity. They'd come in low slot and med slot varieties, and as usual the med slot can be scripted. To complement this I also propose changing the missiles themselves similar to the change in sentry drones, so that say EM missiles do the most damage at the shortest range up to kinetic doing the least damage at the longest range. So to sum up: - Decrease the Missile Bombardment and Missile Projection bonuses to 2.5% each. - Decrease the Guided Missile Precision bonus to 4%. - Decrease the Target Navigation Prediction bonus to 5%. - Create Missile Guidance System modules that increase Missile Velocity and Explosion velocity - Change the missile flavors to include missiles that sacrifice dps for increased range. This should make sure people have the option of sniping as far as they could before, but at the cost of sacrificing some dps and requiring to fit modules for range as the turret snipers have to. The nerf to damage application against smaller targets may need to be compensated with improved base stats, but the Missile Guidance Systems should go some of the way to compensate already.
Duchess Starbuckington Starbuckington Manor 317	Posted - 2015.03.09 10:12:44 - [2] - Quote Quote: I think that missiles deserve a balancing pass They certainly do, half of them are useless. Quote: To compensate for these severe nerfs I propose new modules that mimic the functionality of tracking computer / enhancers. Not a bad idea per se, but half the missile types being complete ** kinda takes priority before a massive overhaul of the entire system. Quote: To complement this I also propose changing the missiles themselves similar to the change in sentry drones, so that say EM missiles do the most damage at the shortest range up to kinetic doing the least damage at the longest range. Yes, let's apply a completely arbitrary and pointless nerf while we're at it wrecking this weapon system, because go big or go home right? Quote:** This should make sure people have the option of sniping as far as they could before People don't snipe with missiles because turrets utterly eclipse them in that role, but I notice you've not addressed that issue anywhere in favour of just nerfing them into the ground for no coherent reason instead.
Nina Pappotte Wayward Chickens Half Massed 1	Posted - 2015.03.09 10:51:12 - [3] - Quote Quote: People don't snipe with missiles because turrets utterly eclipse them in that role, but I notice you've not addressed that issue anywhere in favour of just nerfing them into the ground for no coherent reason instead. You don't pve do you? Because probably half the mission runners out there snipe with cruise missiles. Anyway if you don't snipe with missiles you should be happy: you'd be getting ammo types with extra dame at short range and a single scripted Missile Guidance System would get you 30% explosion velocity if we're taking our cue from tracking computers, so you'd already have better damage application than before. The idea is not to wrecking the weapon system but nerf the skills and take it from there. If that means boosting the base stats go ahead. Also I have no idea where you get the idea that half the missile systems are useless, they all have their purpose. If your goals don't match those just don't use them.
Duchess Starbuckington Starbuckington Manor 319	Posted - 2015.03.09 11:13:25 - [4] - Quote Quote: You don't pve do you? Because probably half the mission runners out there snipe with cruise missiles. This is a PVP oriented balance pass. Cruise carebear ships don't factor into this. Quote: Anyway if you don't snipe with missiles you should be happy: you'd be getting ammo types with extra dame at short range and a single scripted Missile Guidance System would get you 30% explosion velocity if we're taking our cue from tracking computers, so you'd already have better damage application than before. Yes because we have nowhere near enough short range high damage missiles already. Then we get into the issue of ships having to sacrifice more mids and lows in favour of just competing with turret boats, meaning you get situations where missiles are comperable in ability, but need extra support ships to work. Quote: Also I have no idea where you get the idea that half the missile systems are useless, they all have their purpose. If your goals don't match those just don't use them. The more you speak the more I get the impression you have a copy of EFT rather than any actual experience with missiles. I'll give you a quick summary: Rockets - fine. Lights - fine, though some debate exists on them verging on OP. Heavies - laughable pile of **** with no niche, utterly eclipsed by turrets in all roles. HAMs - Very niche. Good at what they do, but what they do is only useful in a handful of circumstances/ship hulls. Not exactly an ideal state of affairs. Rapid lights - Love em or hate em, I personally regard them as fine but there are valid arguments against that. Cruises - They're designed around a niche that doesn't really exist in PVP, relegating them to carebear ships. Torps - Hilariously niche. Rapid heavies - Hilariously niche. So we see a handful of good types, and the rest are either terrible or have very limited roles. Hardly a ringing endorsement. You also notice that the summary gets progressively more negative the larger you get, though heavies are by far the worst there are. Given how much different this weapon system gets across different sized hulls, your sweeping blanket change will hit some a lot harder than others - and guess which ones get nerfed most? Oh right, the ones that are between passable and crap. Fix the existing system, then start thinking about module issues. Also I think it's worth repeating how laughably terrible your damage type idea was and how utterly pointless it is.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 861	Posted - 2015.03.09 11:14:51 - [5] - Quote Yes, let's nerf the worst weapon PVP systems in med/high/capital sizes. Brilliant. Also using PvE to show missiles are unbalanced. LOL
Nina Pappotte Wayward Chickens Half Massed 1	Posted - 2015.03.09 12:13:00 - [6] - Quote Ok so the damage type idea is bad. It was kind of spur of the moment when i was typing this up, I'll edit it out of the post. But I stand by the skill changes. As long as you can afford to double anything it's probably not balanced. And as long as you can double the stat with skills you can't really balance it either. Nerfing the skills is essential to getting the balance right. But it's a starting point, not the endgame. I did have PvE in mind when I started this. But you have a point PvP should be considered as well. But not considering PvE is equally wrong. So I would like you to state what the missile types you don't like should do different and I'll gladly work that into my approach.
Sisohiv Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 297	Posted - 2015.03.09 12:28:06 - [7] - Quote Even on the PvE front I'd say most who use missiles do so because it's all they have used and they just can't be bothered to change habit. I've missioned with missiles, rails and lasers and of the three, missiles apply the least real damage. That's not a complaint. The trade off is more tank but it's usually tank you don't need or more specific, I don't need. With rails I can snipe faster than I can lock. I've never had that problem with missiles.
Duchess Starbuckington Starbuckington Manor 319	Posted - 2015.03.09 12:44:32 - [8] - Quote Quote: But I stand by the skill changes. As long as you can afford to double anything it's probably not balanced. And as long as you can double the stat with skills you can't really balance it either. Nerfing the skills is essential to getting the balance right. But it's a starting point, not the endgame. Or you could just leave both of them alone, as there's no actual need to nerf anything right now except MAYBE lights. And frankly even that is worth essays worth of discussion. Quote: I did have PvE in mind when I started this. Yeah no **, believe me it shows. But weapons are not balanced around PVE, that way madness lies. This is without even getting started on the fact there's no problem with missiles (besides Incursions where IIRC they're disliked? I wouldn't know, never done them with a missile ship.) Quote: But you have a point PvP should be considered as well. PVP should be considered FIRST, as that's what your ideas completely and horribly break. I repeat: weapons are not balanced around PVE. Never have been, never will. Thank god. Quote:** So I would like you to state what the missile types you don't like should do different and I'll gladly work that into my approach. Feel free to re-read the above summary. Heavies in particular are godawful (which is why I laughed so hard at you saying all missiles are useful for something...) and battleship missiles are a mess. Frigate-sized ones are basically fine.
Nina Pappotte Wayward Chickens Half Massed 1	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:04:54 - [9] - Quote Well ideally PvE would have better rats, that are more similar to PvP fits with stupid pilots. That way the gap between PvP and PvE would not be as big. But still I'm pretty sure the PvE pilots outnumber the PvPers. Anyway here's what i think about the missile systems you dislike: - Heavys really don't stand up against the competition, but we'll see how the rebalance of medium turrets goes. - Rapid heavies seem quite useless because their only job would be killing cruisers, but they can't do it without reloading, and they reload so long that the cruiser has ample opportunity do do something about it. - Cruises are convenient for shooting BS from a safe distance while the sentries take care of everything else. So purely PvE. - Torps are useful when combined with the stealth bombers bonuses, but on BS they seem quite pointless. No idea about citadel either, but they look like their main purpose is bashing structures. The question of what do do with them remains. I don't think simply dialing up the damage would really fix things.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 864	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:11:13 - [10] - Quote You know there's a reason I use a vargur over golem. It's because missiles are crap next to turrets. Sniping is an irrelevance with the advent of bastion and LOLTANKED marauders. I've eft'd it up the yingyang as ratting is dull and turrets smash missiles to pieces in every normal engagement range. Exceptions may be newbies in MJD ravens. But then...MJD domis dunk them too so....yeah.....

Duchess Starbuckington Starbuckington Manor 319	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:20:07 - [11] - Quote Quote: Well ideally PvE would have better rats, that are more similar to PvP fits with stupid pilots. That way the gap between PvP and PvE would not be as big The PVP-PVE gulf is far, far bigger than you know. But yeah, say it with me here: weapons are not balanced around PVE, never have been, never will be. You really need to grasp that simple fact before suggesting anything that affects an entire weapon system. Also can I take this as confirmation you have no actual experience using missiles outside of your carebear-mobile?
Ix Method Guilty Pleasures 422	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:45:51 - [12] - Quote Nina Pappotte wrote: But still I'm pretty sure the PvE pilots outnumber the PvPers. Probably but that's not the point. When something i broken for PVP it becomes oppressive/worthless and fundamentally ruins the game for the masses. When something breaks for PVE you simply switch to one of 50 alternatives and maybe have to train a bit. PVE fits are so obtuse rebalancing from that viewpoint is always going to give ridiculous results. Travelling at the speed of love.
Agondray Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces 223	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:52:07 - [13] - Quote yeah missiles aren't used widely in pvp and none at all in incursions unless you lack gun skills because of time delay. Nerfing them into the group won't make more people use them. I can do the same work in a mission with guns that I can do with missiles assuming the rats don't EW you to death first. "Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
Tineoidea Asanari Heeresversuchsanstalt The Bastion 40	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:12:43 - [14] - Quote Nina Pappotte wrote: I think that missiles deserve a balancing pass. They're able to deliver long range dps without sacrificing dps or tank, something turrets can't. I totally agree with you! Missiles need a balancing pass, or, as I would call it, a straight-through buff. Missiles are by far the worst weapon system that currently exists. Even smartbombs are more effective! Here are the reasons why: Balancing needs to be done primarily around PvP, because of imbalanced PvP ruins everybodys day, whilst imbalanced PvE means just flying at lower efficiency. In PvP missiles are close to not existant due to the only thing they are good is, is creating high volley damage. Same thing do artillery systems, and they do their damage instantly. If 150 cruise fitted typhoons or ravens start yellow or redboxing me, I immediatly call for reps, so logis can prelock me. Until the CMs are at my position, my buddies can save me and everything is okay. When alpha Machariels or Maelstroms redbox me, I can still broadcast for reps, but chances are that I'm alpha'd from the field before anyone has a chance of locking me. Also, missiles can be firewalled against. Just have a few guys with smartbombs guarding the fleet and you drastically reduce the incoming DPS, a flaw not one other weapon system has. Sure, there is EWAR, but the effectiveness of this is reduced at longranges. Now you say you want it for PvE, but I have to tell you: Even in PvE missiles are by far the worst weapon system. Yes, they are easy to fly. When I help a new player who asks which weapon system he shall train, I usually point him to drones or missiles. They are pretty easy to use, can apply damage from long ranges, cost no cap and you dont have to worry about tracking. But as the pilot gets more skills, missiles start to fall behind the rest. If you do nullsec anomalies, most people tend to use drones, unless you are doing combat signatures for what Heavy Tengus are still a very good choice. But then you have two other PvE income sources where missiles are totally useless: Incursions and high class wormholes. I have never seen or heard someone doing C5 or C6 sites with missile boats. Usually it were dreadnoughts with webber support (Loki) or spidertank Dominix/Nestors. And in Incursions you have to deal with missiles being only usefull as snipers, a job Vindicators and Machariels do even better than the missileships, even if some people use Barghests, it's more because of they are fun to fly instead of them being actually better. So I ask you, why is every one doing "end"-content quite strictly not using missiles if they are so op?
Leyete Wulf Rolling Static Gone Critical 92	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:19:20 - [15] - Quote OP: CCP publishes from time to time some very interesting information about the weapons systems in EVE, how often they're used, and how much of all damage done is done by each. They even make this available in a nice neat graph for people who aren't so good at reading. I highly recommend you look for the missile weapons systems on these graphs (Hint: look down towards the bottom, very down). I fail to see how your proposal adds meaningful gameplay, balances existing gameplay, or in any other way improves our lives as capsuleers. I also second the proposal that you undock regularly in hostile space with the weapons you're proposing nerfing (start with a torpedo fit battleship) until you understand why people disagree with your assessment so vehemently.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 184	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:33:34 - [16] - Quote Adding another voice to the no side of thie one. Missiles need a balance pass badly, but they do not need such a heavy handed nerf.
sabre906 Old Spice Syndicate Intrepid Crossing 1657	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:42:16 - [17] - Quote Larger size missiles are already the worst pvp weapon system. Rockets are alright, situationally, but hardly op enough to warrant nerf. "Pve balance" is a laugh. We don't balance based on pve, it ruins the game.
Thonys Visser Green Visstick High 5	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:56:01 - [18] - Quote NO .. look at the drake do you see a pvp drake lately ? buffed ..yes nerved ...no if there is a nerve again .... i quit
Nina Pappotte Wayward Chickens Half Massed 1	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:10:58 - [19] - Quote I have thought a bit more and i think i have some solutions: - Keep the skill nerfs about range. Increase the missile velocity to keep the total range the same. That makes this very much a buff shortening flight time and increasing the range for lower skill pilots. - Get rid of the damage reduction factor. A big problem for applying missile damage is the quadratic decrease for smaller sized ships as ships that are twice as fast and half as big take roughly 1/4 of the damage. Replace that with a square root instead. To match that the square root would need to be in the signature radius as well to make the formula Base Damage * min[1, sqrt(S/E), sqrt(S/E*Ve/Vt)] This simplifies the formula and smooths out the effects of the signature radius and target velocity. A target of half the size and twice the speed would take half the damage. Therefore the skill bonuses of Guided Missile Precision and would be less pronounced, and i could live with them being bigger than I initially proposed, perhaps even unchanged. HAMs, Cruise Missiles and Torpedoes would be the biggest winners of that change because of their high damage reduction factor. - Missile Guidance Systems should still be part of the plan, but they'd need to also bonus the explosion radius to keep the bonus somewhat linear. - Heavy missiles still need about 25% damage bonus to rival long range turrets. - Cruise seem to be on equal footing dps wise, so I'm not sure what to change there.
Duchess Starbuckington Starbuckington Manor 320	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:32:01 - [20] - Quote Quote: - Keep the skill nerfs about range Speed could indeed use a buff on a lot of them, especially cruise missiles, but smaller ones are pretty ok there. Quote: - Get rid of the damage reduction factor. Oh my god no, that exists for a reason. Tweaks to the numbers are sufficient for now, rather than overhauling it all. Quote: - Heavy missiles still need about 25% damage bonus to rival long range turrets. You may be a bit too new to remember, but pre-nerf HMLs were quite a bit too good, but the nerf they got was an absolute sledgehammer. Leave the DPS the same, maybe increase it a tad (5-10% tops, if that), but undo the explosion velocity nerf which is what REALLY crippled them. Right now their DPS isn't great, but that'd be passable if most of it wasn't mitigated by all but the biggest targets. Damage isn't really the problem, application is. Quote: - Cruise seem to be on equal footing dps wise, so I'm not sure what to change there. Make them significantly faster and they'd be pretty passable. Trouble is you've got missiles there with more range than they can make any kind of effective use of, given they shoot to like 150k+ but take about 3 years to get that far

Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1104	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:32:09 - [21] - Quote only nerfs needed are too HAM and rocket range as they are effectively a size higher on range than they should be and cruises. HAMs - same range Torps - same range cruises - still too long range at over 140km's in exchange we should get those mods we were promised too allow greater options for buffing range and tracking. also some slight buffs here and there for some of them, rockets and HAM's could use more damage LM's and rockets could use an exp rad nerf especially if you add the tracking mods. 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.
Nina Pappotte Wayward Chickens Half Massed 1	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:10:17 - [22] - Quote I just noticed I forgot to disable the drones on my example fit. The 25% did sound suspicious, but I didn't figure out why, I just compared apples to oranges. I can see that the flight time on the Cruise is long, but part of what I said earlier would already make them faster. I guess a little extra couldn't hurt. I looked at Zkillboard and it seems Barghests are split between Cruise and Rapid Heavy. If we keep the drf as it is my point about the skills being overpowered stands. At the very least the skills should be nerfed and the base stats bonused to balance it out.
Duchess Starbuckington Starbuckington Manor 321	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:49:54 - [23] - Quote Harvey James wrote: only nerfs needed are too HAM and rocket range as they are effectively a size higher on range than they should be and cruises. HAMs - same range Torps - same range cruises - still too long range at over 140km's Those figures are actually deceptive. Rockets and HAMs suffer from greater damage reduction, and so actually lose a lot of their effectiveness outside of scram/web range. Yes they can hit that far, but it's like a weird missile version of falloff, where they suffer reduced dps when used at those ranges. Also cruises pay for their range with flight time, which is a big problem. Quote: in exchange we should get those mods we were promised too allow greater options for buffing range and tracking. If this happened, missile range at least would need to be reduced somewhat. And/or TDs would need to work on missiles. Quote: also some slight buffs here and there for some of them, rockets and HAMs could use more damage Rockets are fine. Buff their DPS and they become seriously OP, same with HAMs actually. See what you've missed is that while their DPS is lower than comperable systems, if you use them properly (IE tackle your target) you will apply almost all (or just all) your paper DPS. Turrets don't. Don't just look at raw DPS figures when yelling for nerfs/buffs, actually take a few minutes to consider the realistic scenarios. Quote: LM's and rockets could use an exp rad nerf especially if you add the tracking mods. Err, what? Weren't you just saying rockets needed buffing? And frigates are one slot-deprived ship size that does not need to be dependent on tracking mods to do anything. Please name me one frigate that needs TEs or TCs to actually do DPS. Frigate sized missiles are the ones that don't need to be touched. Cruiser and up (and especially battleship) need work.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1622	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:27:44 - [24] - Quote 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?
Bullet Therapist Caldari Provisions Caldari State 269	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:12:52 - [25] - Quote 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? The last time I brought that up in a thread the dev's comment was something along the lines of working as intended.
Duchess Starbuckington Starbuckington Manor 323	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:29:45 - [26] - Quote 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...
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 154	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:49:50 - [27] - Quote Duchess Starbuckington wrote: Please name me one frigate that needs TEs or TCs to actually do DPS. . While i agree with everything youve said so far, there are a couple frigs that NEED 1-2 TE to apply decent damage in their operating range. Namely the slicer and arty wolf. It is a minority, but still exists.
Terra Chrall Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 13	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:57:58 - [28] - Quote Nina Pappotte wrote: If we keep the drf as it is my point about the skills being overpowered stands. At the very least the skills should be nerfed and the base stats bonused to balance it out. I don't understand why you think a skill needs nerfed on a weapon system that is lackluster. Just because the skills don't match turret skill progressions does not mean that they are broken. Missiles are a different weapon system, they behave very differently. The skills and how they scale are built around their own uniqueness and there is no need to compare them directly to turret skills. What needs compared is the effectiveness of missiles to turrets. And as you can see from the feedback so far in this thread, missile users could use more of a buff than a nerf. If you want to overhaul the system to buff some areas and nerf others in order to fix a broken system that is fine. But make sure it is a broken system to warrant design time for an overhaul not just because it is better at 1 thing vs another system. Not all weapons need to have the same benefits. Variety and being different are good. The weapon system could use a balance pass I agree, but I think existing numbers could easily be tweaked without adding/removing or drastically changing one the skills. 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.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 154	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:06:08 - [29] - Quote Terra Chrall wrote: Nina Pappotte wrote: If we keep the drf as it is my point about the skills being overpowered stands. At the very least the skills should be nerfed and the base stats bonused to balance it out. I don't understand why you think a skill needs nerfed on a weapon system that is lackluster. Just because the skills don't match turret skill progressions does not mean that they are broken. Missiles are a different weapon system, they behave very differently. The skills and how they scale are built around their own uniqueness and there is no need to compare them directly to turret skills. What needs compared is the effectiveness of missiles to turrets. And as you can see from the feedback so far in this thread, missile users could use more of a buff than a nerf. If you want to overhaul the system to buff some areas and nerf others in order to fix a broken system that is fine. But make sure it is a broken system to warrant design time for an overhaul not just because it is better at 1 thing vs another system. Not all weapons need to have the same benefits. Variety and being different are good. The weapon system could use a balance pass I agree, but I think existing numbers could easily be tweaked without adding/removing or drastically changing one the skills. 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. There are mods that improve missile performance against smaller hulls. The problem is they use mids or rigs. Being that most missile ships are shield fit, this generally doesnt jive well. You have webs, target painters, rigor/flare rigs and the always useful crash booster. Now, what i think you meant is there is no low slot mod that helps missiles. This is what is sorely needed. But then EWAR that affects the modified attributes need to exist.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4105	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:36:43 - [30] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: There are mods that improve missile performance against smaller hulls. The problem is they use mids or rigs. Being that most missile ships are shield fit, this generally doesnt jive well. No, there are rigs (rigors, flares) that improve missile performance against smaller hulls. There are modules (stasis webs, target painters) that improve damage application for all ships and weapon types. There is no missile-specific module that improves missile velocity, explosion radius or explosion velocity. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

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.

Arthur Aihaken X A X 4121	Posted - 2015.03.13 11:19:10 - [61] - Quote Duchess Starbuckington wrote: 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. The "half" being anything larger than small missiles. It would be interesting to see the missile formula take into consideration radial velocity with respect to missile explosion velocity. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Duchess Starbuckington Starbuckington Manor 333	Posted - 2015.03.13 11:27:58 - [62] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Duchess Starbuckington wrote: 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. The "half" being anything larger than small missiles. It would be interesting to see the missile formula take into consideration radial velocity with respect to missile explosion velocity. Inspired by this thread, I'm actually writing a lengthy post/essay on a complete overhaul of the entire weapon system. Should be amusing to see where that goes...
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4121	Posted - 2015.03.13 11:52:28 - [63] - Quote Duchess Starbuckington wrote: Inspired by this thread, I'm actually writing a lengthy post/essay on a complete overhaul of the entire weapon system. Should be amusing to see where that goes... I look forward to it. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 929	Posted - 2015.03.13 12:28:51 - [64] - Quote I'd like to predict the following: No CCP comment Various trolls telling you that you're a noob and missiles are fine and need less range. That "always hitting" means they HAVE to be utterly ineffective. A handful of die hards who still use the things agreeing. The medium rail nerf was the best shot missiles had at getting competitive tbh. Which is pretty tragic, but there we go.
Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 41	Posted - 2015.03.13 13:00:45 - [65] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: 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. umm that's how they work now, their effective range is 0 to maximum. they're simply not very effective. Right now the weapon system requires no execution on the pilots side, and damage is only mitigated by going as fast as possible in literally any direction. Guns are simply much more complicated on both the sending and receiving side. while I'd prefer missiles be completely overhauled, where relative velocity effects damage and missiles have acceleration values and delta V budgets, apparently this would lead to some serious lag issues. having a minimum arming distance would at least require long range missile boat s require some form of range control. Quote: 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: 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. cute argument by ad hominem, and yes it is.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4122	Posted - 2015.03.13 13:07:29 - [66] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: umm that's how they work now, their effective range is 0 to maximum. they're simply not very effective. Right now the weapon system requires no execution on the pilots side, and damage is only mitigated by going as fast as possible in literally any direction. Guns are simply much more complicated on both the sending and receiving side. Actually, against large missiles small ships can mitigate most of the damage just by virtue of their size. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 591	Posted - 2015.03.13 14:21:32 - [67] - Quote Duchess Starbuckington wrote: Inspired by this thread, I'm actually writing a lengthy post/essay on a complete overhaul of the entire weapon system. Should be amusing to see where that goes... Thank you, dear! I'm looking forward to it. signature
Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 41	Posted - 2015.03.14 01:47:16 - [68] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Tusker Crazinski wrote: umm that's how they work now, their effective range is 0 to maximum. they're simply not very effective. Right now the weapon system requires no execution on the pilots side, and damage is only mitigated by going as fast as possible in literally any direction. Guns are simply much more complicated on both the sending and receiving side. Actually, against large missiles small ships can mitigate most of the damage just by virtue of their size. exactly, most damage is mitigated by what you do on grid while missile damage is simply mitigated by what you are on grid. simply bad game design.
Lienzo Amanuensis 50	Posted - 2015.03.14 04:04:59 - [69] - Quote How about if armor membranes or passive shield resist modules gave a bonus to target painting mitigation? In the real world, we use paints which absorb laser illuminater radiance, and then reemit or scatter them in frequencies other than those typically used by missile guidance systems to defeat target painting. Target painting is also really weak. It's weaker than a comparable module like webs at close range, and doesn't really benefit frigate weapon systems. It makes ships like the Vigil be restricted to the role of supporting a heavier ship fleet's damage application, which negates the advantage of mobility. If we added a counter module in the game, perhaps we could find an indirect way to buff the target painter. Target painters should gain some kind of benefit for gunning up against heavier ships that is not related to sig size. Perhaps some kind of heavy guided bomb system, or perhaps a new mode for weapon systems that is like an alternative to heat damage. In this mode, weapons fire more slowly, have shorter range, tracking and damage, but a portion of that damage makes it through shields and armor to hull. A target painter script would bonus this damage directly. This would make target painters an anti-logi weapon system, as well as an indirect path to buffing heavy ship tanks against standard damage.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4125	Posted - 2015.03.14 07:27:11 - [70] - Quote Lienzo wrote: Target painting is also really weak. As a single unbonused module, no. It's when combined with a few other bonused painters then it shines (not just for missiles but all weapons, including drones). It's definitely somewhat lacking, which is why we really need a missile enhancement module. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 514	Posted - 2015.03.14 08:14:25 - [71] - Quote afkalt wrote: I'd like to predict the following: No CCP comment Various trolls telling you that you're a noob and missiles are fine and need less range. That "always hitting" means they HAVE to be utterly ineffective. A handful of die hards who still use the things agreeing. The medium rail nerf was the best shot missiles had at getting competitive tbh. Which is pretty tragic, but there we go. It's important to look at the relationships between how missiles work and what this means for targets. Example: scourge light missile. Explosion radius of 40 and explosion velocity of 225. Base attribute of common frigate 35m sigR and 400m/s. Damage is lost natively straight away. Without ewar mods or rigs every missile system is "somewhat gimped". One of the bigger slaps in the face for heavy missiles is that lights do nearly as much damage with 3x as much application. It's complicated. I think the drf and velocity values for missiles are the biggest problems we have right now. It's also an enduring issue of how to approach dealing with things like linked assaultfrigs due to their existing combinations of sig reductions and resists. I'd feel much more worried about a linked arty jag than a garmur without links. Citing some other specific cases though there are a lot of balance things they do which are just ridiculous but getting yhe issue heard seems impossible. Diversity mostly exists amongst those too poor to afford the meta king ships. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Khorvek Dead Pool Syndicate 5	Posted - 2015.04.17 15:26:14 - [72] - Quote The only problem of missiles I see is the selling point of changing damage types. Unless you really know the enemy's fit because of intel, you have to avoid them while you reload if you make an educated guess as to their fit based on their ship. You can't really reload mid-combat to exploit a damage hole you find, which make that supposed bonus of missiles use superfluous. Their DPS overall is pretty low, and tackling range doesn't work well with missiles, although being 40km out to maximize sniping potential might just be a pipedream to begin with. Missiles don't improve their DPS by getting close, and they have lower DPS than turrets in general. People are using missile boats more lately, though. If you can work out the kinks, they seem to work okay.
Phaade Perimeter Defense Systems Templis CALSF 323	Posted - 2015.04.17 15:34:38 - [73] - Quote Another Carebear EFT warrior complaining. Go away, carebear. Nobody likes you. And also what that other guy said about half the missiles being worthless.
abrasive soap State Protectorate Caldari State 2	Posted - 2015.04.17 15:41:45 - [74] - Quote Rockets, HAM's, heavies, and torps each deserve a buff...
Scorpionstrike Bogan Nation 16	Posted - 2015.04.17 15:58:01 - [75] - Quote Missile changes will happen when everyone in null sec uses them
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1126	Posted - 2015.04.17 16:03:24 - [76] - Quote less range more application and mods too allow more customisation.. 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, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.