| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Grey Area
Caldari
   |
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:02:00 -
[1]
Yes, it is a missile whine. No, I am not asking for an overall increase in DPS.
Turret users get tracking computers and tracking subroutines which SPECIFICALLY improve the performance of TURRETS against small, fast moving targets. There are no equivalent modules that SPECIFICALLY imrpove the performance of MISSILES against smalle, fast moving targets.
Note: use of the word "SPECIFICALLY" is deliberately highlighted to prevent people bringing up target painters and webbers, which work for both systems. Webbers wrok equally, target painters work far better (as in, are effective for a wider range of targets) for turrets than for missiles.
I would like to ask for one mid slot and one low slot item that reduces the explosion radius of missiles. This is the nearest equivalent to the tracking attribute of turrets, in that it is the most responsible for reduction in damage vs small targets.
READ THIS NEXT PART CAREFULLY AS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND POSTING A REPLY WITHOUT READING IT MAY RESULT IN YOU LOOKING STUPID.
The introduction of these modules does NOT require a compensating reduction in any aspect of missiles. The simple reason for this is that to FIT the module, something else will have to be REMOVED from the ship. Let me explain by example.
With the current stacking rules, fitting more than three of the same module become pretty much pointless...so...
A turret user can fit three damage increasing mods OR three tracking increasing mods
A missile user can ONLY fit three damage increasing mods.
Against battleships then, a missile user and a turret user would choose the same option...go for the damage increase. If they accidentally encounter smaller targets, then they are both going to regret their decision.
Against SMALLER targets however...the missile user has no choice...we still have to fit the damage mods. That makes the turret ship more effective vs small targets. Again, if we accidentally encounter LAREG targets, the turret user will regret his decision...but the missile user would probably breathe a sigh of relief.
So you see, this is not about a BOOST to overall DPS...it is about giving missile users some CHOICE of what to fit, thus removing the normal (and unfortunately, justified) complaint, that missile ships use "cookie cutter" setups...we only have one moduel to fit, so we fit it...the use of said "cookie cutter" is enforced upon us by CCP...it is NOT our choice.
---
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Aeaus
Tabula Rasa Systems
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:07:00 -
[2]
Other then speaking in theory, could you show proof that missiles at close range hit worse then turrets of the same class (ie size differences)?
As in whether this is necessary, unless there is a big difference between the weapon systems with missile lagging behind this might be unbalancing.
Last Weeks Signature |
Tovarishch
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:07:00 -
[3]
Oh, God... Grey. You are a brave man.
You know I've brought this point up before. However, you... sir... have some guts.
I'd loan you my flame resistant suit... but it's in bad shape at the moment.
All life is sacred... until the client says otherwise. |
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:10:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Grey Area on 11/11/2006 21:14:22
Double post, sorry
---
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:12:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Grey Area on 11/11/2006 21:13:01
 Originally by: Aeaus
Other then speaking in theory, could you show proof that missiles at close range hit worse then turrets of the same class (ie size differences)?
I can prove it logically. If turrets with three damage mods and missile with three damage mods are balanced vs battleships (which I would say that they are), then turrets with three TRACKING mods MUST, by definition, be better against small targets than missiles with the same three DAMAGE mods.
Originally by: Aeaus
As in whether this is necessary, unless there is a big difference between the weapon systems with missile lagging behind this might be unbalancing.
Go back and read the part that I said you MUST read. It won't imbalance ANYTHING because it doesn't change overall DPS...if you take off damage mods to fit the tracking mods, then you will do LESS DPS against a BS. The module balances itself...it is about CHOICE, not DPS.
---
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Selia Rain
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:13:00 -
[6]
Midslot Missile guidance computer is fine by me.
I don't like the idea of a passive lowslot module though.
I like modules that you can fit that would nerf your tank to up damage, and a lowslot module for caldari would not.
|
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:14:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Grey Area on 11/11/2006 21:16:28
Originally by: Selia Rain
Midslot Missile guidance computer is fine by me.
I don't like the idea of a passive lowslot module though.
I like modules that you can fit that would nerf your tank to up damage, and a lowslot module for caldari would not.
Another one who didn't read the part in CAPITALS. to fit the passive lowslot module, I have to take something OFF my ship...do you think we fly around with empty lowslots? Most missile ships fit three ballistic controls, a power diag or CPU boost, and maybe an Emrgency damage control. The power diag or CPU is pretty much fixed - so we either replace a Ballistic Control (dropping our overall damage) ot the emergency damage control (nerfing our tank, as you requested  )
---
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Aeaus
Tabula Rasa Systems
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:15:00 -
[8]
Not by necessity. Missiles are a different weapon system then turrets are. They hit equally against targets at any range unless they have extreme velocity. Turrets on the other hand hit well at range and pathetically at close range.
A Raven hitting a cruiser will hit the cruise nicely at 20KMs, a Tempest hitting a cruiser with 1400mm Howitzers will rarely even be able to hit the target.
Logical proofs only work for similar weapon systems.
Adding these modules *WILL* effect the DPS as you will be hitting more powerfully against smaller targets.
Last Weeks Signature |
Tovarishch
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:15:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Selia Rain
Midslot Missile guidance computer is fine by me.
I don't like the idea of a passive lowslot module though.
I like modules that you can fit that would nerf your tank to up damage, and a lowslot module for caldari would not.
Mid-slot tracking enhancers do not cause an armor tanker to sacrifice their tank.
All life is sacred... until the client says otherwise. |
Selia Rain
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:17:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Tovarishch
Originally by: Selia Rain
Midslot Missile guidance computer is fine by me.
I don't like the idea of a passive lowslot module though.
I like modules that you can fit that would nerf your tank to up damage, and a lowslot module for caldari would not.
Mid-slot tracking enhancers do not cause an armor tanker to sacrifice their tank.
I find your logic to be without flaw.
And sacrificing WCS for missile precision is also good.
Fine, I agree completely with this thread, and the solution to the limited types of performance boosting mods for missiles.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:18:00 -
[11]
"Webbers wrok equally, target painters work far better (as in, are effective for a wider range of targets) for turrets than for missiles."
As soon as I saw that I stopped reading because you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Target painters increase missile DPS on smaller ships by almost the same factor as they increase ship size. The 30% painter gets you about a 30% dmg increase on small ships with big missiles.
Webbers will generally get you no damage increase unless you're using a very slow missile like a torp. A heavy missile will gain no benefit from a webber unless you're fighting someone moving a few K m/sec.
On top of this, missile users get a skill to reduce speed's impact on missile damage and to reduce sig radius's impact on missile damage. Turrets don't get the sig radius skill as far as I recall.
Of all the inequities, fighting smaller faster ships is not even close to the a real problem. Missile users have it much easier than turret users do. A heavy launcher will hit frigates FAR better than a 250mm rail will at both close and long range.
**********************************************
Tank Rankings - Ships & Fittings Compared!
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=386174 |
Tovarishch
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:20:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Shadarle
"Webbers wrok equally, target painters work far better (as in, are effective for a wider range of targets) for turrets than for missiles."
As soon as I saw that I stopped reading because you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Target painters increase missile DPS on smaller ships by almost the same factor as they increase ship size. The 30% painter gets you about a 30% dmg increase on small ships with big missiles.
Webbers will generally get you no damage increase unless you're using a very slow missile like a torp. A heavy missile will gain no benefit from a webber unless you're fighting someone moving a few K m/sec.
On top of this, missile users get a skill to reduce speed's impact on missile damage and to reduce sig radius's impact on missile damage. Turrets don't get the sig radius skill as far as I recall.
Of all the inequities, fighting smaller faster ships is not even close to the a real problem. Missile users have it much easier than turret users do. A heavy launcher will hit frigates FAR better than a 250mm rail will at both close and long range.
Reread the OP for the word 'specific' modules for missiles.
All life is sacred... until the client says otherwise. |
Tovarishch
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:21:00 -
[13]
I can't believe I'm getting wrapped up in this.
This is your fault, Grey.
All life is sacred... until the client says otherwise. |
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:22:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Aeaus
Not by necessity. Missiles are a different weapon system then turrets are. They hit equally against targets at any range unless they have extreme velocity.
Not true. Large missiles take substantial reduction in damage against small targets...far more so than turrets which can still Alpha Strike frigates into dust...normally by judicious use of aforementioned tracking improvers. Originally by: Aeaus
A Raven hitting a cruiser will hit the cruise nicely at 20KMs, a Tempest hitting a cruiser with 1400mm Howitzers will rarely even be able to hit the target.
The Raven hits for the same damage at 200km as it does at 20km..i.e. greatly reduced...the Tempest can SLAUGHTER the cruiser at optimal range...and can choose to improve it's performance by use of the tracking mods.
Originally by: Aeaus
Adding these modules *WILL* effect the DPS as you will be hitting more powerfully against smaller targets.
But, it will self balance as the same ship will hit for LESS damage against a large target. The average DPS over the range of target sizes remains the same...it would just gives us the same choice as turret users...fit damage mods to do more damage to big ships, or fit "tracking" mods to do more damage to small ships.
---
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:30:00 -
[15]
Point by point Shadarle, watch closely...
Quote:
Target painters increase missile DPS on smaller ships by almost the same factor as they increase ship size. The 30% painter gets you about a 30% dmg increase on small ships with big missiles.
Your maths is off, but I'll let it go. I never said target painters were useless for missiles...I said they were BETTER for turrets, because they affect more targets. A target painter will increase your turret hit rate for ANY turret on ANY target...so if you fit a target painter on a turret ship, it WILL be useful. If I encounter a battleship in a cruise equipped Raven...my target painter is a wasted slot. THAT is what I meant by more effective OVER A RANGE OF TARGETS.
Quote:
Webbers will generally get you no damage increase unless you're using a very slow missile like a torp. A heavy missile will gain no benefit from a webber unless you're fighting someone moving a few K m/sec.
I agree...I actually think webbers for ANY battleship are pretty much only usefull against frigate sized ships.
Quote:
On top of this, missile users get a skill to reduce speed's impact on missile damage and to reduce sig radius's impact on missile damage. Turrets don't get the sig radius skill as far as I recall.
The effect on damage of speed for a missile hit is VERY much a secondary effect...turret users get their knickers ina twist about it, but in terms of EFFECT, the two main problems are explosion radius for missiles, and tracking for turrets. You want a skill to reduce your sig radius effect? Start your own ****ed thread, don't hijack mine but seriously, 1. I don't think you'd see much actual damage increase and 2. I'll support you all the way.
Quote:
Of all the inequities, fighting smaller faster ships is not even close to the a real problem. Missile users have it much easier than turret users do. A heavy launcher will hit frigates FAR better than a 250mm rail will at both close and long range.
No...not at long RANGE IF you fit those ****ed tracking mods you have...yes if you fit all damage mods, then you gimp yourself...we are forced to gimp ourselves because we have no choice.
---
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:32:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Tovarishch
I can't believe I'm getting wrapped up in this.
This is your fault, Grey.
Sorry...but this issue needs to be covered, not just swept under the carpet by the flood of "OMG it will be unbalanced" kneejerk responses, which is what I tried to cover right at the start, but is STILL unfortunately the part that people are not reading.
---
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
HankMurphy
Pelennor Swarm
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:36:00 -
[17]
as a person that cant stand how easy msl users have it... etc etc <insert generic Raven/drake comment here>
I like this idea. Implemented correctly, (would need to be a passive mod so your ability to pwn bs's or interceptors didn't soley rely on you turning your mod on/off, you would need to go refit)
i would like to see an anti missile module equivelent of a tracking destabilizer also. something that also effected the msl expl radius perhaps, whatever.
|
Tovarishch
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:36:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Grey Area
Originally by: Tovarishch
I can't believe I'm getting wrapped up in this.
This is your fault, Grey.
Sorry...but this issue needs to be covered, not just swept under the carpet by the flood of "OMG it will be unbalanced" kneejerk responses, which is what I tried to cover right at the start, but is STILL unfortunately the part that people are not reading.
You won't hear me complaining. People seem to think that the popularity of missiles mneans that they are somehow overpowered... when all it means is that most people don't want to pay attention to transversal while running missions. Ease of use does not equate to being uber.
You know I've spoken on this exact topic multiple times... my patience ran out. Most people on these forums think that popular anecdotal misconceptions are fact. Missiles are pretty much the #1 victim of that naive mindset.
All life is sacred... until the client says otherwise. |
Siakel
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:42:00 -
[19]
Ok... so what about a missile-specific EW? You can't expect to get a missile-specific performance-increasing module while still having no missile-specific performance-decreasing module.
|
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:44:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Siakel
Ok... so what about a missile-specific EW? You can't expect to get a missile-specific performance-increasing module while still having no missile-specific performance-decreasing module.
Read it AGAIN Siakel...this does NOT increase overall performance. If we choose to fit the new mods to be better against small targets, we will be worse against large targets becasue we don't fit the damage mods. There is NO need for ANY compensation to introduce these modules.
---
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:46:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 11/11/2006 21:47:07
Originally by: Grey Area
Read it AGAIN Siakel...this does NOT increase overall performance. If we choose to fit the new mods to be better against small targets, we will be worse against large targets becasue we don't fit the damage mods. There is NO need for ANY compensation to introduce these modules.
Your "tracking enhancer-like" modules are lacking, you ask for them. His "anti-missiles modules" are lacking, he's asking for them. Fair enough ?
NB.
In Rust We Trust |
Siakel
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:48:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Grey Area
Originally by: Siakel
Ok... so what about a missile-specific EW? You can't expect to get a missile-specific performance-increasing module while still having no missile-specific performance-decreasing module.
Read it AGAIN Siakel...this does NOT increase overall performance. If we choose to fit the new mods to be better against small targets, we will be worse against large targets becasue we don't fit the damage mods. There is NO need for ANY compensation to introduce these modules.
And if turret users choose to fit Tracking Computers, they give up other midslot items. Webs, sensorboosters, etc. Yet they still have turret-specific EW, Tracking Disruptors. So why should Missiles not have a specific counter-EW?
|
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:55:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Siakel
And if turret users choose to fit Tracking Computers, they give up other midslot items. Webs, sensorboosters, etc. Yet they still have turret-specific EW, Tracking Disruptors. So why should Missiles not have a specific counter-EW?
In response to both you and Naughty Boy...you have defenders. Yes, I know, they are horribly broken unless you are an NPC.
the trouble with a module vs missiles and a module vs turrets is that both sides will eternally complain of imbalance. Turrets users will want one single defender launcehr to neutralise a Raven's entire DPS, and missile users will want one single tracking disrupter to shut down all turret ships entirely. both situations are quite obviosuly ridiculous (DON'T use this an excuse to say theat turret disrupters DO currently shut down a BS entirely...it depends on the range, is equally as overpowered as defenders are currenlty underpowered, and is just SO different in mode of operation it's not woprth having the discussion).
My solution was to remove BOTH disrupters AND defenders, and replace them with a decoy...you launch the decoy, and it draws ALL fire until destroyed. As it works exactly the same for either weapons system, there can be no complaints of imbalance. But that is a topic for a separate thread I feel. The whole issue of defence from either turrets OR missiles needs review, but I don't see why that should be used as an excuse to NOT address the lack of choice that missiles are given in terms of fit out.
---
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:57:00 -
[24]
I wouldn't mind it at all if missiles would get more fitting options to improve their weapons, as long as there is also a weapon disruptor introduced that has the opposite effect(just like tracking computers/enhancers/disruptors). Added bonus to this would be making the amarr EW type more usefull(because it would include missiles too and not just target turrets)
Crystal-Slave, that way?
Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug |
Tasty Burger
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 21:58:00 -
[25]
Grey area, you are fooling yourself if you think tracking computers increase turret tracking enough to actually hit smaller targets. You still need to use SKILL to be able to hit them. Missiles already *****smaller targets and anyone who says otherwise is an incompetent idiot and needs to recycle his character.
Missiles are so incredibly dumbed down for the same general effect as turrets at the moment. They don't need range-boosters, they already far outrange turrets and dont need to deal with falloff.
They don't need tracking enhancers, they already hit better than turrets.
You are completely retarded if you believe that target painters work better for turrets than they do for missiles, by the way. Target painters are useful for missiles, they are not useful for turrets.
This thread is stupid, as are all of your posts, Grey Area. Missiles and drones are the most overpowered actual offensive weapons in eve at the moment (ECM being not actually offensive). Missiles do not in any way need anything to boost them further. They're already the only weapon system that can only be stopped by jamming, which is getting nerfed so only the... oh... MISSILE USERS can use it effectively. They need a missile disruptor which ****s up their velocity and explosion velocity.
-
It's great being Minmatar, ain't it? |
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 22:03:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Tovarishch
Originally by: Tasty Burger
This thread is stupid, as are all of your posts, Grey Area.
Yeah... Grey Area providing cogent, logical arguments makes him stupid. This opposed to your regularly being insulting, argumentative, inconsiderate... and arguing without providing numbers or evidence.
Brilliant.
Really.
exact.
Love the sig
Crystal-Slave, that way?
Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug |
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 22:05:00 -
[27]
/ignore Tasty.
Seriously, I've read your posts before, and you're just not worth responding to.
---
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Tasty Burger
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 22:06:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Tovarishch
Originally by: Tasty Burger
This thread is stupid, as are all of your posts, Grey Area.
Yeah... Grey Area providing cogent, logical arguments makes him stupid. This opposed to your regularly being insulting, argumentative, inconsiderate... and arguing without providing numbers or evidence.
Brilliant.
Really.
Logical arguments my ass. Where does he put numbers down, by the way?
His arguments are full of bull****. He wants his cake and wants to eat it too. "OMG turrets have these, I want them for missiles even tho we dont need them!!!1111" is not a valid argument. I'm sorry, but it isn't.
Perhaps I wouldn't be "inconsiderate" if everone on this forum wasn't a pea-brained idiot and actually thought for a second about what they are posting, or gave a **** about balance.
-
It's great being Minmatar, ain't it? |
LUKEC
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 22:06:00 -
[29]
Adding those modules ofcourse needs to nerf missile performance without them.
... i'm doing lvl4 missions in raven while shooting pos. Don't know which one is bigger routine. I don't even need to activate booster on most of them.
ps. Just for you Grey Area... lvl4 agents are moved to low sec
-----------------------------------------------
KALdarI WILL SAVE US ALL...
|
Alejandro Zapata
Minmatar
PAK
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 22:06:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Alejandro Zapata on 11/11/2006 22:09:04
One of the issues between turrets vs missiles is that you cannot get "underneath" a missile boat's tracking like you can certain turrets.
Granted, there is a penalty given to missiles when signature radius is applied, but the missile will still hit its target, while a small ship can effectively get within a turrets tracking and be impossible or near impossible to hit. Even with in flight adjustments to Transversal Velocity, small ships can still go unscathed, and like all pilots that desire flexibility, drones will need to be called upon. Your missiles are still going to hit and are still going to do damage, making drones a more affective assistant than with turret ships.
And don't knock painters, I have a Wolf that still has the scars from being shot at by a Painter equipped Caracal w/ t1 missiles. If they indeed help missiles less, provide some sort of proof, because my Wolf says otherwise.
I don't see a problem with a low slot "Signature Booster" or "Guidance Computer" but the bonus should be small b/c I don't see the current state of things requiring that much reworking.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |