Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Catherine Laartii
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
497
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 10:23:07 -
[1] - Quote
While the glory days of the Drake are long since passed, and those among us who enjoy missiles in pvp have settled somewhat comfortably into using light missiles, there is quite a bit of work that needs to be done for missiles to be balanced in an ordered and efficient manner. Currently the kite meta favors light missiles due to their fantastic range and application abilities, but missiles in general still pale in comparison to where drones are, especially from having been left by the wayside for so long.
So let's look at a few things:
-Currently, most long range missiles excepting cruise and torpedoes have their short range weapons deal better application than long range weapons.
-T2 LR ammo follows the same trend with precision hitting closer and Fury and faction hitting farther and harder.
-Heavy missiles are cumbersome and awkward outside of pve, and have severe difficulty hitting smaller or faster ships.
This (to me, at least) is indicative of a misunderstanding of the dynamics between missiles and turrets, and trying to balanced the former as you would the latter with regards to transversal and application and range. Lower tracking speed works at longer ranges with turrets specifically due to how the tracking mechanic applies to something travelling perpendicular to you; it's a very well-balanced and robust mechanic that works for turrets quite well, and is easy to balance and tweak as time goes on. The issue occurs when you try to apply the same kind of thinking to missiles.
With missiles, damage application drops off at higher speeds, not at closer range. It would be logical to have the LONG range missiles like heavies and lights be the ones with the lower sig radius and higher explosion velocity by a consistent margin, and instead you see the opposite on average.
-Light missiles should swap their explosion radius with rockets, and receive a small boost to their explosion velocity
-Heavies and heavy assault missiles should swap their application bonuses directly. Increase flight time and reduce missile velocity on heavies to average out the same range, but with a slower missile.
T2 LR missile ammo should follow this line: -Precision ammo should have the longest range and best application, but lowest damage.
-t1 and faction ammo should have better damage than precision, but less range and worse application.
-Fury ammo should have the shortest range and worst application of all, but highest overall dps. They are currently in this place and do not require any modification.
-Light missiles should receive a moderate reduction to their flight time to reduce their effective range.
Having this setup for LR missiles lines it up with where cruise missiles are already (torps need a bit of a buff still), and makes short range missiles rely slightly more on tackle to slow down their targets. This may feel a bit counter-intuitive, but it makes a great deal of sense with how missile 'tracking' is more related to relative speed than relative distance.
[*] Close range missiles like rockets and heavy assaults don't have to readily deal with as much speed at their engagement ranges than their long-range cousins do, and so would be better suited to have poorer damage application but more dps, since unlike turrets damage does not decrease over range with different ammo swap, so having the basic missile ammunition reflect the same range/damage mechanics turrets enjoy, at least in a general sense, would be balanced |
Diana Kim
State Protectorate Caldari State
1660
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 12:39:46 -
[2] - Quote
Well, t2 missiles needs boost definitely. For example to apply rage rocket damage to a frigate you need like dualweb and target paint it. |
bonkerss
MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels
5
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 13:32:00 -
[3] - Quote
something i like to see with missiles is that whatever velocity you are flying you get full damage while flaying in a straight line into the missile. its the same effect when a target flies without trajectory straight in your gun (no tracking issues) .so if the target flies at none or almost non angle towards you the explosion velocity does not apply because you cannot outrange the explosion because you fly straight into it! sig radius penalty would still apply. afaik right now missiles dont take in account any form of relative positioning towards the missile. this makes large missiles even more useless against fast small targets compared to large turrets. |
Mario Putzo
Iron Dog Industries
1139
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 13:51:36 -
[4] - Quote
Really the only ones out of line are Heavy Missiles. They lose nearly 60% of their damage in application against like sized targets (Cruisers)...which is quite ridiculous and far and away the largest damage bleed through application of any weapon system in the game. Heck even Cruise Missiles retain more of their overall damage against Cruisers than Heavy Missiles do.
Heavy Missiles need to have their explosion radius reduced by about 15% which would drop the damage bleed from about down to a more manageable 45%, then putting them in line with other Mid sized weapons in the 30-35% range when adding other damage application mods in (Rigor Rigs example).
Even fitting Rigors and Flares only pulls missiles down to 42% damage lost in application, while Beams and Rails sit around 30%...Artys sit around 35%. Reducing Explosion radius by 15% will provide about an 8% increase to applied damage, putting Heavy Missiles more in line with the other Long Range weapons platforms. (about 30-35% Reduction to Damage)
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4291
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 13:53:43 -
[5] - Quote
Rockets, light missiles, heavy assault missiles and cruise missiles are all fine. Heavy missiles need a slight buff to damage and damage application, and I understand from one of the round tables at FanFest that heavy missiles are next in-line for a review. Torpedoes just need an increase in damage application with a drastically reduced explosion radius (smaller than cruise missiles).
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
161
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 14:04:56 -
[6] - Quote
HML need buff and maybe torps. Mainly in application and perhaps give torps alil more range.
Otherwise you need to fit webs/tps to make it work. |
Mario Putzo
Iron Dog Industries
1139
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 14:09:22 -
[7] - Quote
Actually...I will amend what I said since I did all the numbers in a different missile thread some time ago. All that needs to change for heavy missiles is reverting the Explosion Radius change CCP (12%) made when they stepped on the drakes throat.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5385157#post5385157
TLDR reverting the Explosion Radius change to Heavy Missiles will give a 9% Damage application increase. Which will put HMs right in the mix application wise.
Additionally in the same thread I discuss tweaking HMs further to not edge out Arty platforms from utility: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5391147#post5391147
TLDR Reduce base Damage of HMs by 10% and increase HML base rate of fire by 10%
This leaves you with same peak damage, but drops down the Alpha so Arties have a unique functionality against other Weapon systems to make up for their slightly inferior overall applied Engagement Range. |
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4291
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 14:19:54 -
[8] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:TLDR Reduce base Damage of HMs by 10% and increase HML base rate of fire by 10%
This leaves you with same peak damage, but drops down the Alpha so Arties have a unique functionality against other Weapon systems to make up for their slightly inferior overall applied Engagement Range. The only problem with this is that you're not just modifying the ammunition, but the launchers as well. This means you'd need to increase the corresponding launcher ammunition capacity by at least 10% as well, and this would have an averse effect on all the rapid launchers (essentially a nerf).
So yes to a damage application buff, no to a raw damage nerf.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Mario Putzo
Iron Dog Industries
1139
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 15:12:03 -
[9] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:TLDR Reduce base Damage of HMs by 10% and increase HML base rate of fire by 10%
This leaves you with same peak damage, but drops down the Alpha so Arties have a unique functionality against other Weapon systems to make up for their slightly inferior overall applied Engagement Range. The only problem with this is that you're not just modifying the ammunition, but the launchers as well. This means you'd need to increase the corresponding launcher ammunition capacity by at least 10% as well, and this would have an averse effect on all the rapid launchers (essentially a nerf). So yes to a damage application buff, no to a raw damage nerf.
The DPS lost to reloading is going to be the same whether or not it happens at 30 seconds or 40 seconds. You still only lose 10 seconds of firing time. So no you wouldn't need to buff the magazine to compensate, because the damage loss is a static 10 second period in all situations.
In regards to RHML they would experience a small hit to peak DPS but their average applied DPS will still be higher than today.
100*.5 = 50 100*.9*.59 = 53.1
.5*1.30(TP) = .65 ,59*1,39 = .76
100*.65 = 65 90*,76 = 68.4
The only time you will experience a great change is when you hit 90% Application, where the damage under the new mechanic would cap out. In order to hit that number you need a couple webs and TPs on the ship you are targeting...so under ideal circumstances, yes RHLM would lose peak Damage, however in most situations it will end up slightly more effective than it is today.
(yes these numbers are not actual values and just used as an example of how the difference of peak DPS is mostly negated by the increase to the applied DPS). |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
605
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 15:41:53 -
[10] - Quote
I may not give up hope but in the very sad case of leaving two useless attributes on my missiles, I came up with perfect values to make them all worthwhile again.
You can all thank me later by donating funds to my wallet.
In advance I let you know that I am most sincere and even if it may come of as monotone it is the best of all other solution this far.
Explosion radius of all missiles: 1m
Explosion radius of all missiles: 299.752.458m/s
In favor of the first idea that comes to mind will always be the best, we just ditch those rapid monstrocities from the database and leave some other attributes as they are.
Though some missile need a tiny adjustment for the better:
Torpedo flight time needs to be increased by 2 fold and removes from covert ops bomb launchers - errm ships.
Presicion missile flight time needs to be increased by 1,5 fold or removed entirely.
Missiles have enough downsides as it is and do not need any more nerfes.
signature
|
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4292
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 16:54:19 -
[11] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:The DPS lost to reloading is going to be the same whether or not it happens at 30 seconds or 40 seconds. You still only lose 10 seconds of firing time. So no you wouldn't need to buff the magazine to compensate, because the damage loss is a static 10 second period in all situations. Yes you do, or it's an overall DPS nerf. Ammunition capacity for missile launchers is tied to their rate of fire. So a definite no to your proposal.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Mario Putzo
Iron Dog Industries
1140
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 17:44:09 -
[12] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:The DPS lost to reloading is going to be the same whether or not it happens at 30 seconds or 40 seconds. You still only lose 10 seconds of firing time. So no you wouldn't need to buff the magazine to compensate, because the damage loss is a static 10 second period in all situations. Yes you do, or it's an overall DPS nerf. So this is a definite no to your entire proposal.
Essentially with CN Scourge + T2 Launcher 155 > 139.5 12 > 10.8
155/12 = 12.91 DPS 139.5/10.8 = 12.91 DPS.
T2 Launcher = 1.2m3 Capacity CN Scourge = .03 m3 volume 1.2/.03 = 40
Current 12*40 = 480 seconds until depletion. 40*155 = 6200 base D done at depletion.
480 - 490 = 0DPS
6200/490 = 12.65DPS
Proposed 10.8*40 = 432 seconds until depletion 139.5*40 = 5580 base D done at depletion
432-442 = 0DPS
5580/442 = 12.63
12.65/12.63 = .001% Variation.
Big ******* whoop...and likely only exists because I dropped the decimals in the Damage values when i initially made the numbers because a lot of asshats don't understand super simple math. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1113
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 20:19:33 -
[13] - Quote
light missiles are too strong now, reflected in RLML's. rockets and lights have really low exp radius already too low as it stands, adding missile applications mods are whats really needed for heavies/ battleship missiles.
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.
|
Tusker Crazinski
Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels
53
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 23:05:12 -
[14] - Quote
If they get good application they need to be lockable or straight up avoidable. |
Mario Putzo
Iron Dog Industries
1151
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 23:19:01 -
[15] - Quote
Tusker Crazinski wrote:If they get good application they need to be lockable or straight up avoidable.
You mean like this
I mean rails, beams, arty all do more damage, and have better application than missiles...from 10K to 60K (5K if target is webbed and or painted.) |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
614
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 00:33:16 -
[16] - Quote
Tusker Crazinski wrote:If they get good application they need to be lockable or straight up avoidable.
And it means that anti-missile-missiles will apply too
signature
|
Catherine Laartii
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
499
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 00:47:37 -
[17] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:Actually...I will amend what I said since I did all the numbers in a different missile thread some time ago. All that needs to change for heavy missiles is reverting the Explosion Radius change CCP (12%) made when they stepped on the drakes throat. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5385157#post5385157 TLDR reverting the Explosion Radius change to Heavy Missiles will give a 9% Damage application increase. Which will put HMs right in the mix application wise. Additionally in the same thread I discuss tweaking HMs further to not edge out Arty platforms from utility: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5391147#post5391147 TLDR Reduce base Damage of HMs by 10% and increase HML base rate of fire by 10% This leaves you with same peak damage, but drops down the Alpha so Arties have a unique functionality against other Weapon systems to make up for their slightly inferior overall applied Engagement Range. I like your idea; it works quite well. What's your opinion on my take with t2 missiles, though? |
Catherine Laartii
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
499
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 00:49:57 -
[18] - Quote
Tusker Crazinski wrote:If they get good application they need to be lockable or straight up avoidable. Fixing defender missiles or allowing drones to shoot down/damage missiles would be a good counter, don't you think? Smartbombs are nice and all, but they don't really hold up that well on small scale vs missiles. |
Catherine Laartii
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
499
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 00:58:06 -
[19] - Quote
Diana Kim wrote:Well, t2 missiles needs boost definitely. For example to apply rage rocket damage to a frigate you need like dualweb and target paint it. what would you think about increasing the bonus from guided missile precision from 5 to 10%? |
Mario Putzo
Iron Dog Industries
1155
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 01:28:07 -
[20] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:Actually...I will amend what I said since I did all the numbers in a different missile thread some time ago. All that needs to change for heavy missiles is reverting the Explosion Radius change CCP (12%) made when they stepped on the drakes throat. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5385157#post5385157 TLDR reverting the Explosion Radius change to Heavy Missiles will give a 9% Damage application increase. Which will put HMs right in the mix application wise. Additionally in the same thread I discuss tweaking HMs further to not edge out Arty platforms from utility: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5391147#post5391147 TLDR Reduce base Damage of HMs by 10% and increase HML base rate of fire by 10% This leaves you with same peak damage, but drops down the Alpha so Arties have a unique functionality against other Weapon systems to make up for their slightly inferior overall applied Engagement Range. I like your idea; it works quite well. What's your opinion on my take with t2 missiles, though?
It is interesting the only thing I can see is Precision overstepping into HAM territory. If you can get similar DPS and Application from HM Precision, why ever use HAMs since you can fall back on longer range of HMs in a kite situation.
I think that the idea is decent but worry of to much cross over against the Assault line of weapons. Personally I would reinforce their utility and make them more divergent based on a target environment rather than a range environment.
Specifically I would probably do the following.
Precision: Lower Damage by about 20% (about 25DMG) Reduce Explosion Radius by about 10% ( about 112) Top end range ~20K
This make them slightly better against smaller targets and faster moving like size targets. At the same time it still leaves Lights and Heavy Assaults in their own niche environment. While this would increase effectiveness against smaller ships at face value, it would still not be overwhelming, (less than light missiles) while the range limits them against anything kitey
Fury Increase Damage by a flat 18 (200 DMG) Increase Explosion Radius by 10% (265) Top end range ~50K
This makes them slightly stronger against slower like sized targets and Larger Targets, without infringing on HAMs or BS sized launchers, and still leaves Standard Missiles their own effective range area (above 50K)
I would apply a similar variation to all T2 Missiles really (lights, heavies, siege, citadel) where each tiers effectiveness is represented at opposite ends of the spectrum, and the standard are best applied against like size targets.
IE:
Lights: Precision Good against, Faster Dessies, Faster Frigs, Drones
Fury Better against Slower Frigs and Cruisers
Heavies Precision Good against Slower Dessies, Faster Cruisers
Fury Better against Slower Cruisers, Slower BCs
Siege Precision Good against Faster BC's and Faster BS
Fury Better against Slower BS, and Capitals (all sizes and types)
Citadel (pending capital rebalance of course) Precision Good against Slower BS,
Fury Better against Larger Capitals (Supers/Titans)
With Standards at all sizes filling in the holes which would be "of like targets"
Thats how I would do it anyway...limit the toes stepped on, each missile has a purpose and value at each size.
(Personally I view Assault variety Rockets/HAMs/Torps as the OF SIZE weapon of choice...if you can guarantee you are Cruiser on Cruiser your first choice should be HAMs and they should be tweaked to be Decent (longest Range), Better (Standard), Best (Short Range) In terms of Total Damage (base D*Application)
They would be inverse to LR Missiles, in the sense the Highest Damage would have the shortest range and the more precise would have the longer range, with standard sitting in the middle again.) |
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
616
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 07:11:38 -
[21] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:...Specifically I would probably do the following.
Precision: Increase Damage by about 100% Reduce Explosion Radius by about 50% Top end range ~65K
This make them slightly better against smaller targets and faster moving like size targets. At the same time it still leaves Lights and Heavy Assaults in their own niche environment. While this would increase effectiveness against smaller ships at face value, it would still not be overwhelming, (less than light missiles) while the range limits them against anything kitey....
I am so sorry to do this but there were some typos here which I kindly corrected for you.
signature
|
Tusker Crazinski
Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels
53
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 14:42:14 -
[22] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:Tusker Crazinski wrote:If they get good application they need to be lockable or straight up avoidable. You mean like thisI mean rails, beams, arty all do more damage, and have better application than missiles...from 10K to 60K (5K if target is webbed and or painted.)
Okay fire walling is only viable against drake blobs
better turret application is subject to the situation. with missiles it isn't, they just work.
I'd prefer missiles have actual acceleration values, and carried initial velocity of the shooting vessel, but it seems calculating Dv budgets for 1000+ missiles on grid would just break all things, other suggestions include giving LRMs a minimum arming distance so you'd actually have to exercise some form of range control with missiles ships.
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
526
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 15:12:59 -
[23] - Quote
I had something to say but I am far too drunk right now.
Assault missiles : less application: require more EWAR to be effective, shorter range but much higher dps Range missiles: like real missiles: substantially lower ammo counts: longer range: best application stats for class: extremely high ROF times: for use on specialised hulls or kiters/interceptors where speed and hunting kiters is the essential element.
Current balance?
Long range; best Short range: worst except on specific overbonused hulls.
OK. Well done breaking the concept of missiles over your knee CCP.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Mario Putzo
1159
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 16:18:41 -
[24] - Quote
Tusker Crazinski wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:Tusker Crazinski wrote:If they get good application they need to be lockable or straight up avoidable. You mean like thisI mean rails, beams, arty all do more damage, and have better application than missiles...from 10K to 60K (5K if target is webbed and or painted.) Okay fire walling is only viable against drake blobs better turret application is subject to the situation. with missiles it isn't, they just work.
Works against all missiles actually no matter the size or quantity of them. Firewalling works in small, medium, and large groups and is very effective in reducing damage from Missile Boats, and nonSentry Drone Boats.
In regards to turret application vs missile application.
I can through my play make my turrets apply better in every single engagement I am in, it is not subject to situation, it is subject to me flying my ship effectively.
Flying my ship effectively has 0 impact on missiles at all. There is no angle I can take against a moving target to improve their damage, like I can with turrets, and they become 100% dependent on modules alone, be they the ones fit on my ship, or the target ship or any other ship in the engagement (in terms of Webs/TPs)
I suggest you go back to the last page, click on the link I provided and check out some of the damage comparisons graphs in it. The numbers show that your belief that missiles "just work" is grossly outdated. Maybe a few years back this would be true..but a nerf to heavy missiles and subsequent buffs to turrets have created a massive application gap.
Its to the point that a Drake using Rapid Lights applies more damage to cruisers than a Drake using Heavy Missiles which should not be the case at all. This of course is not true of any of the Turret based weapons, whose long range medium platforms all deal more sustained damage than their long range small platforms against cruisers.
HMs are badly broken.
Torps are probably the only other missile system that also could use a tweak, and probably Citadels although id wait until the Capital Rebalance to tweak Citadel Launchers. |
Catherine Laartii
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
499
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 19:30:20 -
[25] - Quote
I would support a slight damage decrease for precisions to compensate, but to be honest, I don't see it as necessary. Turrets have long range ammunition, specifically with t2, that already does quite a bit of decent damage. Having an equivalent with that is appropriate which I outlined for reasons in the main thread, specifically with the missile speed vs tracking transversal with turrets.
It makes MUCH more sense to have higher application at longer ranges due to how missiles apply against faster ships. In addition to having to outrun the ship itself, their damage is further mitigated by simply going at that speed. Logically then, it stands to reason that the fastest missiles have to have the best application. |
Tusker Crazinski
Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels
53
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 02:16:06 -
[26] - Quote
Quote: Works against all missiles actually no matter the size or quantity of them. Firewalling works in small, medium, and large groups and is very effective in reducing damage from Missile Boats, and nonSentry Drone Boats.
Im sorry what, I find it hard pressed to justify luging around a couple Abbadons in a small roam unless you expect to drop your small gang on grid with a drake (insert next missiles ship here) blob.
Quote:I can through my play make my turrets apply better in every single engagement I am in, it is not subject to situation, it is subject to me flying my ship effectively.
exactly this is what is wrong with missiles, you literally press F1 and that is where the play and counterplay with the weapon system begins and ends. making them straight up avoidable, lockable, or giving the a minimum arming distance would be better than sig to explosion rad/vel calculations.
because of that they're doomed to be bad, or horrendously OP. there is no middle ground.
Quote: I suggest you go back to the last page, click on the link I provided and check out some of the damage comparisons graphs in it. The numbers show that your belief that missiles "just work" is grossly outdated. Maybe a few years back this would be true..but a nerf to heavy missiles and subsequent buffs to turrets have created a massive application gap.
Yes they just work...... poorly but they work. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1998
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 02:24:45 -
[27] - Quote
Missiles should be balanced around doing 100% damage to an unfitted hull of the intended target size. I.E. Heavy & HAM missiles should have an explosion velocity to match an unfitted cruiser and an explosion radius to match the sig size. This may mean that there needs to be a steeper drop off in the formula to avoid heavies being too good against frigates, or it may still be fine, who knows for sure, but that's the starting point they need. Balance them from that position. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |