EVE Search - Changes to missiles

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Changes to missiles

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Adliger Krieger	Posted - 2004.01.21 19:48:00 - [91] Edited by: Adliger Krieger on 21/01/2004 19:52:46 TOMB DONT PENALIZE CALDARI PILOTS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE TOO DENSE and SLOT-HUNGRY TO USE SMARTBOMBS AND DEFENDERS. Ravens shoot missiles. Ravens rarely ever have Warp Scrams on. If you are getting beat, load up some defenders, kick them on until you are able to warp, or turn on a Smart Bomb. CCP has made available to you all of the tools you need to get away from a Raven. ***DEFENDER MISSILES TRAVEL AT 2500/ms. Cruise missiles travel at 1800/ms. You do the math. There in NO REASON any BS should be getting killed 1 vs 1 fighting a Raven, unless they are just plain stupid, or new. Raven vs Scorpion = Scorpion will lock it down. Stalemate cause Raven is shield tank. Raven vs Apoc. = Apoc sux against any ship with 5 or more medium slots, because most Apoc pilots use only lasers and most use EM and Thermal hardeners. Apoc can simply run if he is losing. Whats that? The Raven has you warp scrambled? Awww, guess you should have used one of your SEVEN LOW SLOTS FOR A WARP CORE STABLIZER. Raven vs. Tempest. = Tempest Deals HUGE Damage with right skillz and loadout, more than a Raven can. Since Raven pilots do not usually use ECM, this is a slugfest. At long range, the Tempest wins because the Ravens Cruise Missiles take too long to reach target. If Tempest is losing, RUN. Whats that? The Raven has you warp scrambled? Awww, guess you should have used one of your SIX LOW SLOTS FOR A WARP CORE STABLIZER. Raven vs Megathron = Megathron does huge damage with 425's and good skills. It can use 2 launchers with Defenders and a SmartBomb. Huge Drone bay. Lots of low slots for Armor Hardeners and Warp Core Stabs. If you are getting beat, RUN! Whats that? The Raven has you warp scrambled? Awww, guess you should have used one of your SEVEN LOW SLOTS FOR A WARP CORE STABLIZER. I wish you people would quit whining to CCP to nerf "missiles" (we all know were talking about the Raven here), and learn to use your brains instead. CCP, if you nerf launchers or missiles, I have hugely overestimated you. The ship balance you have in game right now is close to perfect.
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2004.01.22 00:27:00 - [92] If CCP would undo the silly nerfs to Caldari ships (the sig radius/scan resolution/mass increase trifecta of nerfage) and make cruise missles and torpedoes go much faster so they're viable in battleship pvp, yet not work against smaller ships I'd say PvP would be pretty balanced. Speed and cost of missles are the two biggest reasons ravens are not exactly popular anymore. Missles just don't work very well when your enemy is 60km away.. it simply takes missles too long to reach their targets, and they have over 30 seconds to pound on you. Missles just don't work in fleet battles. ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
Nerhtal Al'Thali	Posted - 2004.01.23 11:36:00 - [93] out of boredom, why not make missiles whose sole effect is not damage? Make special missiles designed to work as a short duration partial stasis webifier. System disrupting missiles (might be a mite too difficult to balance and implement?) TAG missiles, paints the target for your weapons to track better? shrug Its like using current modules and turning them into missile variants for the range bonus but obviously there are downsides. Just some ideas. Make missiles cheaper gripe still stays though. far too expensive still. "Game Experience And Dev Opinions May Change With The Time Of Day During Online Play" Oveur "First in, last out" Bridgeburner Motto
Adliger Krieger	Posted - 2004.01.23 16:06:00 - [94] Quote: out of boredom, why not make missiles whose sole effect is not damage? Make special missiles designed to work as a short duration partial stasis webifier. System disrupting missiles (might be a mite too difficult to balance and implement?) TAG missiles, paints the target for your weapons to track better? shrug Its like using current modules and turning them into missile variants for the range bonus but obviously there are downsides. Just some ideas. Make missiles cheaper gripe still stays though. far too expensive still. Wow, great idea. I would like to see missiles deliver some different kinds of payload like that.
Viceroy	Posted - 2004.01.24 12:00:00 - [95] Please just speed up missiles! Cruise should go like 2.5km/s, even more. Caldari ships specialize in LONG RANGE warfare. that means those missiles should actually reach their targets before they die of old age. -
Ezekiel Nailo	Posted - 2004.01.24 16:55:00 - [96] When i First Trained up torpedoes i was both incredible amazed and incredible dissapointed by them. I loved the massive explosion they caused. And i hated the way they turned. I would like to see frigates NOT be able to use cruise Missles, i hate when a kestral warps in locks and indy that i am gaurding unloads the cruise missles then takes off. what i would like to see is that Torpedoes acutally become more fun. Ie they only travel Straight (like they suggest in there description) and they can be fired without locking. as they are unguided anyway. i also would like to see there volume reduced and there max range reduced to 100km but speed raised. So you get an Unguided Massive Damage Torpedo with a volume small enough to fit into an M-12 (only 1 can fit) this way frigates can quickly be turned into torpedo Bombers. They Hit their MWD accel to 2500km/sec and approach a slow battleships when they hit 30km or so they dumb a salvo of torps then buugger off or circle around for another run. if the torps have a decent speed ie like 2km/s or so and are unguided they will make this a great way for frigates to be involved in a fleet scale battle. I would love to see a massive fleet battle with 6 battleships and 12 cruisers on each side and then a Torpedo Bomber wing of like 6 frigates.
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2004.01.24 18:56:00 - [97] Missiles speed was originally tuned assuming people would be fighting at 15km-30km. At these ranges, missiles are okay. At the current ranges people currently fight (60km or further) missiles are unacceptably slow. 30 seconds to 1 minute for your missiles to hit, it not acceptable. People warp away from missiles when they see a bunch coming at them. It is easy to warp to a planet and warp right back into the fight, and every missile you fired, was wasted. Missiles no longer function the way many battles are fought these days, long range turrets rule combat (1400mm/Tachyon). Until missiles function correctly they will always be second rate, super expensive weapons, that do less damage than turrets, if they do any damage at all.. ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
Cao Cao	Posted - 2004.01.27 00:33:00 - [98] The idea that missiles become more agile as they become faster doesn't make RL sense, but for the in-game mechanics, works VERY well. Missiles would become useless against frigates swarming around the ship at close range, which is fine. They would land hits all the time at long distance, which again is fine. The problem is missile SPEED and ACCELERATION. Torps and cruise missiles should accelerate slowly BUT REACH VERY HIGH SPEEDS. Ideally they would just continue accelerating ad infinitum, i.e. remove top speed altogether. But I suppose we could live with a 15 or 30km/s top speed. All missiles should have extremely high top speed. The difference would be that the smaller and lighter the missile, the faster it would accelerate. IMO all missiles should have long range ability except for perhaps rockets, which should have an extremely high ROF. Anyway all of this is discussed in Missiles: Case Not Closed. Anyways.
Gan Ning	Posted - 2004.01.27 11:56:00 - [99] hi Tomb, The only thing i believe needs to be changed with missiles is the splash damage on impact destroying other missiles. Its a problem which means a raven pilot cannot fire at his fullest potential as half of the missiles fired will be destroyed by the missile infront of it when it detonates. If you could change it so that only Defenders and Smartbombs destroy missiles and normal missile to missile splash is ignored things might seem a little fairer for caldari pilots. Two last things i would like to add is that it would be nice to see some sort of mid or low slot mod that gives some sort of bonus to missile users ROF and damage. A reduction in rare mineral requirements for Cruise and Torpedos would be very welcomed too. One Mjoinr torpedo is arround 40,000 Isk One unit of Large AM ammo is around 40 Isk Huge difference in price and whilst the the Mjoinir will do only 450 damage max the AM ammo has the potential for 3 times that figure.
Jernau Gurgeh	Posted - 2004.01.30 14:10:00 - [100] Hre's my thoughts on how to make missiles more interesting... 1) Add new sizes of launchers, especially between the H-50 and siege. 2) Make missiles immune to splash damage from other missiles. 3) Add new types of missile, particularly ECM, warp jamming etc. There are 10 sorts of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who do not.

Shai 'Hulud	Posted - 2004.02.01 00:27:00 - [101] While I agree that frigates should have missiles to make them usefull in large scale fleet battles, something must be done to make them fair in frigate vs. frigate battles. It only takes 2-3 cruise missiles to kill a frigate, so if you don't fly a missile frigate then you don't stand a chance against those who do. Personally, I feel that cruise missiles should not fit on frigates, but rather that heavy missiles should be reduced to 100 damage, but made small enough to fit 3 of them on a frigate. This whole complaint, of course, would become invalid if something were done to make it harder to hit small ships with the bigger missiles. So if this is done correctly, I would then retract my complaint.
Hawk Firestorm	Posted - 2004.02.01 04:08:00 - [102] My sugestions for missiles cover the following Fof's and defenders. They both should create a shoot list, both for targets and missiles respectively for BOTH you and your Gang/friendlys in the area. That is if I have a gang or corp mate under attack by missiles I can use my defenders to intercept, also they shouldn't all dive on the same missile if I have more than one bank of defenders in for instance. The same should be true of FOF's to some degree in how they operate, they should treat any target attacking me or my gang/corp mates as hostile and generate a shoot list based on that both on range etc. And perhaps a Point defence gun system for non missile factions to even up the score a little.
Rilkenaar	Posted - 2004.02.03 11:19:00 - [103] Edited by: Rilkenaar on 03/02/2004 11:26:24 Or maybe Point-Defence drones? NEW HOPE UNLIMITED
Ruffles	Posted - 2004.02.04 17:29:00 - [104] Edited by: Ruffles on 04/02/2004 17:35:48 TomB: I know it hasn't been long since the newest patch, but I still feel that the DoT for cruisers using H50 type launchers and heavy missiles is exceptionally low. Mostly from the launcher rate of fire changes previously. Sadly, it just isn't cost effective to solely hunt NPC's with cruise and torps. The profit goes out the window in some cases where they defend themselves. Perhaps an option for this would be to increase the M12 capacity sufficiently to allow a third heavy missile, but not two cruise. This would provide a higher DoT for heavy missile use, whilst still allowing H50 types for cruise and torpedo use to be constrained by the current launcher rate of fire. What ya think? Edit: The only other high end consumables that use megacyte and zydrine are Heavy Drones, if you really want to call them consumables. Turret based ammunition does (excluding Phased Plasma M which seems to use zydrine) does not require high end minerals. It really does vary the prices of missiles probably far more then drones. Drones you ran often expect to reuse after a fight. Missiles go pop every use - guaranteed Quote: One Mjoinr torpedo is arround 40,000 Isk One unit of Large AM ammo is around 40 Isk Whilst I would put it closer to 6500 isk as a going rate for a Mjolnir, and 50 isk for an Antimatter L charge, its still 130 times more expensive.
Luc Boye	Posted - 2004.02.04 23:07:00 - [105] Quote: A change I'd like to see for balancing frigates with missiles is for the number of missiles carried to affect the inertia of the ship, with the effect diminishing as they're fired. The bigger the carrying ship the larger the mass of missiles it can carry before experiencing the effect. As recompense some of the larger missiles would do more damage. I think it'd be great if you had slow lumbering frigates heading towards you, all of them desperate to shoot you so that they can regain their speed and zoom off/start to act more like fighters than torpedo bombers. Sorry but this would suck. Applying that logic to frigates only would be bad, thus you'd end up with indys going 50 mps when full, or battleships getting even worse then they are. -- 2004.12.29 23:33:40combatMining Pollution Cloud hits you, doing 140.0 damage.
Sevjer	Posted - 2004.02.05 13:46:00 - [106] How about Missles with a huge damage radius? I am talking about an ultimate weapon that does damage over very large area, say 50-60k range, very expensive, very rare. Also,seems to me that a nuclear weapon set off in space would have a much greater range of damage then currently in game, 500m, shouldnt this be like the smart bombs 5k meters? For that matter in the old tests on Navy ships, whole fleets were sunk by one bomb.
CHUD	Posted - 2004.02.05 13:48:00 - [107] MIRV's We need missles with MIRV type war heads. That would be very cool. "It puts the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again."
Ruffles	Posted - 2004.02.05 15:53:00 - [108] Information on MIRV's for people Whilst the idea of a single launched missile which breaks into self-homing warheads when closer to targets is a nice one, might be hard to make. I still think a warp-scrambler missile is probably the first thing I would ask for. If it was fast it would give people a long ranged scrambler and help try to prevent people fleeing from the other damage missiles, which whilst slower, may already be in flight to the target. Without something like this warping off is just such an easy way to avoid missiles. I still think its a fair trade off. One or more launchers may be used for this non-damaging role, so reducing the total incoming damage load of missiles.
Harisdrop	Posted - 2004.02.06 14:33:00 - [109] How about delivery missles. I want to send in warriors. I load them in a heavy missle cargo space and fire away. They reach 5km and deploy and attack. That would be cool. How about wrap scramble missles. How about cpu drain missles. How about webifier missles. How about a long term damage missle that if the shield is down the missle eats the armor for like 5 minutes. How about missles that target cargo space and drone space and propulsion or high slots or medium slots or low slots. -------------------------- Garsh ma it soo cool killing people in there space thingies
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2004.02.06 14:46:00 - [110] Quote: How about delivery missles. I want to send in warriors. I load them in a heavy missle cargo space and fire away. They reach 5km and deploy and attack. That would be cool. How about wrap scramble missles. How about cpu drain missles. How about webifier missles. How about a long term damage missle that if the shield is down the missle eats the armor for like 5 minutes. How about missles that target cargo space and drone space and propulsion or high slots or medium slots or low slots. Heh, how about just missiles that aren't useless at long range and deliver decent damage. That's all I want. Missiles that don't take days to make and don't cost insane amounts of resources would be nice too.. ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE

GrendelPrime	Posted - 2004.02.06 15:11:00 - [111] Quote: Missiles that don't take days to make and don't cost insane amounts of resources would be nice too.. Amen to that! "Though you may die, do not give up your honor" -- Miyamoto Musashi
Qutsemnie	Posted - 2004.02.07 19:44:00 - [112] To the original comment: Why would a missle at max speed be agile and a missle at low speed be sluggish? Seems like the opposite is true in RL. In RL you have the resistance to change in motion to overcome. Any sort of agility at high speed requires sick energy. At lower speeds you can be very agile for the same energy. In fact you could make an entire new set of missles around those principles. High speed missles that close extremely fast but have low agility and low speed missles that have extreme agility. Thats the most realistic. you can carry and load the missle that suits you. In tight your going to need the agility missle. Out far your going to want something that closes fast. Theoretically a computer controlled missile could be both but who wants that in a game =) But anyway I just dont see how come a missle with a huge velocity would be called the agile missle. Doesnt fit with physics principles. Kinetic energy does square the velocity of the object ya know =) Fast things take huge energy to get to change directions.
Drutort	Posted - 2004.02.08 08:12:00 - [113] Quote: While I agree that frigates should have missiles to make them usefull in large scale fleet battles, something must be done to make them fair in frigate vs. frigate battles. It only takes 2-3 cruise missiles to kill a frigate, so if you don't fly a missile frigate then you don't stand a chance against those who do. Personally, I feel that cruise missiles should not fit on frigates, but rather that heavy missiles should be reduced to 100 damage, but made small enough to fit 3 of them on a frigate. This whole complaint, of course, would become invalid if something were done to make it harder to hit small ships with the bigger missiles. So if this is done correctly, I would then retract my complaint. ya in general i like this idea, but as you said frig vs frig needs to be fixed so that BIG missiles dont work good vs frig, i think these changes MIGHT aid that area more so then the current state. support Idea: QuickInfo an alternative to ShowInfo my MoBlog
Xtro 2	Posted - 2004.02.10 17:32:00 - [114] Maybe just build in a target inaccuracy into a missile based on its targets size and the missiles size. Small missile > Small Ship = Usual Hit. Small Missile > Larger Ship = Usual Hit. Larger Missile > Frigate Ship = 60% Chance of missing its target. Larger Missile > Cruiser Ship = 40% Chance of missing its target. Larger Missile > Larger Ship = Usual Hit. Or something along those lines, this saves having to mess up missile dmg rates, and just makes it harder for a large damaging misile to correctly strike and correctly detonate onto a small fast ship. __________________________________________ Hell is nothing more than an office with fluorecent lights.
Luviera Silverwave	Posted - 2004.02.13 17:35:00 - [115] Well said, good logic about big heavy missles vs small tragets... ______________ System spec's: Windows XP Professional AMD Athlon(TM) XP 2500+, MMX, 3DNow, ~1.8GHz Memory: 1536MB RAM DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0b NVIDIA GeForce4 FX 5950 Ultra 256.0 MB at 1280*1024 IIYAMA MA203DT Monitor Max Res: 1920,1440 SB Audigy Audio
dalman	Posted - 2004.02.15 08:25:00 - [116] Quote: Well said, good logic about big heavy missles vs small tragets... It already works that way since frigates have better top speed and better agility than large missiles. On another note. TomB, you said in the dev-chat that you've made new skills for missiles and drones... Can we get a list of these skills? I'd very much like to see the stats on them. M.I.A. since 2004-07-30
Acuna Traos	Posted - 2004.02.15 18:45:00 - [117] In regard to firing missiles at long range, we all know that there is a high chance that the target will just warp away long before the first missile gets close. One idea I had that more than likely has been thought of before is to give tech 2 missiles a mini warp drive. When you launch your missile form say over 50km out the warp drive is capable of activating (no closer because its difficult to calculate a short warp or something, a skill can shorten the range if need be). The missile would then drop out of warp roughly 10km from the target and use current missile speeds to get there.
Xelios	Posted - 2004.02.16 21:35:00 - [118] I'd like to be able to evade heavy or cruise missiles in a frigate. I'd like to be able to dodge the missiles with some l33t piloting and not worry about them just turning around and slamming me in the arse. Maybe you could add a simple target loss feature to missiles, say if it misses the target and has to turn around there's a % chance that it loses the lock and just keeps on flying. Actual countermeasures would be nice too, sort of like a Chaff system, but one that you would have to trigger (not automatic). This would really add to the excitement of flying a frigate in battle, and prevent the 'oh, someone just launched 3 cruise missiles at me, guess I'll die now'. Defenders are nice for bigger ships, but if I'm piloting a fast and agile frigate, I'd like to be able to use that agility to my advantage. So in short, if I understand your original post, this is a lot like what you're suggesting and I think it'd be a great change. But I do think that real countermeasure modules would add to the fun of battles, but they should only be effective when combined with agile maneuvering.
Darklink	Posted - 2004.02.17 17:29:00 - [119] I think for what i tryed with missiles that its first too exepnsive to use them to any good use and they take tooooo much time to reach their target espacialy cruise missiles, torpedo i dont mind i see torpedo like a big slow missiles that cover great distance deal a lot of dmg to slow or fixed target ei: battleship and station. But cruise missiles should go alot faster to hit cruiser without having them warp out. but they should be less effective vs a frigate and shuttle. Heavy missiles should be able to hit frigate but as as good as a light missiles. and rocket as it said should be launch in very quick succession like real rocket launcher mounted on helicopter. And we need mod to increase missiles launcher like a gyrostabilizer version launcher increase something like ROF of launcher and maybe either speed or capacity of the launcher. For the faster the missiles goes the better they track i find this really stupid, try to make a 180 degrees a 180mph with your car and tell me what happen
Vip Divana	Posted - 2004.02.19 11:12:00 - [120] Hmm the way I would optimize the missile scheme. Rockets = keep the damage but increse the Rate-of-Fire so that you can make a swarm of rockets and rockets shouldnt be destroyed by splash damage. A rocket is used close range (max 30km apart). Light missiles = They should have a lower RoF than rockets but they should be really really fast. And a light missile is also a close range weapon but can be used at a longer range than rockets.. (about 40-45km) Heavy missile = a bit longer range than light missiles and a higher damage. But thats it. Torpedoes = Huge payload but slow. They should be slower than light/heavy missiles but on impact they should really cause havoc. This changes makes it pretty easy to deploy defenders against em but defenders gotta work too. Cruise missiles = 1 word "State-of-the-art" okay thats 4 words but still. Really fast covering 50km in a matter of seconds. (perhaps max 5 seconds) but keep the payload and decrease the splash damage. I hate it when I waste 3 out of 4 cruise missiles because the first hit makes splash damage. Perhaps we need some specilized launchers. Like a pure rocket launcer. Can carry 100 rockets and fire 1-2 every second. Right now the rockes are almost useless unless your in a frigat and like the sound. I got a lot more ideas but.. It can wait.



Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.