| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
   |
Posted - 2007.10.18 04:22:00 -
[1]
Original thread that spawned the idea
ALL turrets in EVE follow a rather simple progression from small to medium to large and even extra-large.
The progression is +100% range (both optimal and falloff), +100% ammo damage, +50% RoF penality (so +33.33% DPS).
Both before and AFTER the current torpedo changes, the missile weapon systems in EVE fail to follow it.
And they fail to follow it quite badly, I might add.
So, if you do plan on adjusting the torpedoes to make them "viable in PvP", then you might as well throw a damn eye into the issues with rockets and HAMs while you're at it.
Namely, bring them in-line already.
___
Let's ASSUME for a moment that the "new torpedoes" we see right now (or very close to them) are somehow magically PERFECT for PvP... that everything about them would be just peachy... range, DPS, volley damage, explosion radius/velocity and just about ANYTHING you can think of.
IF the final changes result in giving the Siege Missile Launcher IIs a 14.4 RoF and T1 torps a 450 base damage with 20km reach (maxskills, no ship bonus)...
then give HAML-IIs a 9.6 RoF (instead of 6.4) and T1 HAMs 225 base damage (instead of 100) with 10km reach (instead of 20)...
and RL-IIs a 6.4 RoF (instead of 3.2) and T1 rockets 113 (or 112.5) base damage (instead of 25) with 5km reach (instead of 10).
That all comes out as +50% HAM DPS (+100% volley damage) and +100% Rocket DPS (+300% volley damage) compared to current values.
OF COURSE, explosion sig and velo should be looked at too and brought "in line" with the torp tweaks too.
That also fixes the "butbutbuuut lagstrike on rocket ships insane RoF" issues, and you can finally give some rocket-boats RoF bonuses instead of damage bonuses.
___
As for the (somewhat valid) issue that this would completely screw over some rocket/HAM users ?
Well, there's some Caldari ships (and not only Caldari ships) that have rocket/HAM range bonuses.
Crow and Hawk (putting it now at 15km, would finally have to get in 7.5km range or use javs, it COULD be a problem, but then again, Crow is definetely overpowered, and Hawk is meh-okish but still)... Condor is the "wtf who uses this" ship, so doesn't really matter... still, double DPS with rockets ? HELL YEAH.
Flycatcher (which has more than enough speed and could use the HUGE DPS increase quite nicely)
Caracal (and all variants, esp. Cerberus with double range bonus), which would get 15km (and 22.5km respectively), and a 50% extra DPS would be AWESOME
Of course, there's also the Heretic (rockets) and Damnation (HAMs), which COULD both use the extra DPS badly too.
And what's there to speak against the DRAKE getting a makeover from ANY of its two bonuses to a missile velocity bonus ?
For that matter, might as well do the same for the Nighthawk, a lot more bonuses to pick from.
___
Last but not least, you could start readjusting lights/heavies/cruise missiles so that they "make sense" from a short-vs-long range and damage-vs-range ratio similar to the NEWLY changed rockets/HAMs/torpedoes the same way as how blasters/rails, pulses/beams and ACs/arties fit in here.
"Could" being the operative word here. As in, not absolutely necessary, but nice to.
For starters, you could HEAVILY tweak their flight speed upwards and flight time downwards, before anything else.
Second, you could increase their base damage but decrease launcher RoF (not necessarily completely proportional to current value, but in line with what's been said so far).
And with that, I'm done for now 
_
1|2|3 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 04:32:00 -
[2]
So ccp overpowers torps and intead of fixing them you want to overpower hams and rockets?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 04:50:00 -
[3]
Well, it's either that or slightly renerf torps.
They have to fall in-line with eachother.
I'm perfectly content with either approach...
_
1|2|3 |
Talthrus
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 04:51:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Talthrus on 18/10/2007 04:52:06
 Originally by: Goumindong
So ccp overpowers torps and intead of fixing them you want to overpower hams and rockets?
This. Seriously... For example, the Nighthawk already does 600 DPS with HAMs and is able to tank way more than any armor tanker in its class. Rockets and HAMs are completely fine as they are.
Edit: 
Originally by:
Well, it's either that or slightly renerf torps.
They have to fall in-line with eachother.
I'm perfectly content with either approach...
----------------------
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 05:25:00 -
[5]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 18/10/2007 05:29:15
Edited by: MotherMoon on 18/10/2007 05:28:44
have you looked at tracking speed progression? I'm sure CCP factor this in.
Quote:
"So then, please explain to me like I'm the crazy person everybody seems to think I am, what makes rockets/HAMs ok right now, but a similar range/damage progression torpedo would totally break ?
Why SHOULDN'T rockets/HAMs/torpedoes be "aligned" with respect to fiting requirements, effective ranges and DPS outputs, in the same "alignment" as every other weapon system in EVE is ?
_"
what other weapons systems? turrets?
they are missiles.
they aren't turrents.
and thus the reason why they don't have to "aligned" with respect to fiting requirements, effective ranges and DPS outputs, in the same "alignment" as every other weapon system in EVE is becuase they aren't every other weapon system in eve.
also while were at it let us look at smartbombs compared to fitting and damage output compared to the range thewy progress in.
is that the same as every other weapon system??
I don't see what's wrong with 10km/20km/30km
30km is damn father than my autocannons
Quote:
flight speed upwards and flight time downwards
I do agree with this however :)
-----------------------------------
I'm working my way through college
target CCP
need...more room... |
Icome4u
Caldari
Dark and Light inc.
D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 08:23:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Goumindong
So ccp overpowers torps and intead of fixing them you want to overpower hams and rockets?
Goonswarm at its smartest, right there
______
Originally by: Vyger
If I lose connection while walking around a station will my avatar run off in a random direction and go hide in a corner? 
|
Xenny Lee
Minmatar
coracao ardente
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 09:23:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Xenny Lee on 18/10/2007 09:23:50
Just like to point out, you seem to be missing the fact that the torps will have 520 explosion sig up from 400 not even a 3rd of the range they go now and basically become a form of blasters which have ridiculously low range and need painters to be effective, LOTS of painters for cruisers forget frigs. Im preety sure a huginn mixed with a bunch of ravens with sensorboosters sitting on a gate will do wonders, but blow up or make the huginn run away and the ravens dps drops.
Theirs no realistic way you can increase the maximum potential volley damage with explosion radius alone without making them ridiculous against larger ships. (Think drake with higher dps hams spewing at Battleships)
You could reduce the range on them to say compensate and give em more volley damage as a result... but would you really want to drop even more range. While comparing them to other forms of turrets to be honest is just not fair seeing as how missiles started out as a secondary weapon system.
|
Igualmentedos
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 12:28:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Goumindong
So ccp overpowers torps and intead of fixing them you want to overpower hams and rockets?
Wrong.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 12:36:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Akita T on 18/10/2007 12:36:16
Hey, what do you know, heavies and lights need a boost too !
Like, taking the current stats of cruise (300 ammo damage, 20 sec flight time) and CML-II (17.6 RoF)...
...what do you know, the ammo DOES indeed follow both range (flight time) and damage x2 rule perfectly !
What about launchers RoF then ?
Well, not THAT bad... HML-IIs should be 11.7 Rof (instead of current 12), and SML-II should be 7.8 Rof (instead of current 12)... AML-IIs should probably be 6.25 RoF then (instead of current 9.6).
_
1|2|3 |
Transcendant One
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 13:29:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Talthrus
This. Seriously... For example, the Nighthawk already does 600 DPS with HAMs and is able to tank way more than any armor tanker in its class. Rockets and HAMs are completely fine as they are.
Not at the same time. Try fitting a HAM2 Nighthawk and then come back. Hint: look at the pg reqs of hams.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 14:40:00 -
[11]
Also, let's not foget crappy mass (and hence speed/agility) of NH compared to other field CSs, or the fact you can't effectively neutralize the enemy's speed and/or sig advantage (if any) when you're using HAMs unless you fit painters (usually not needed, true) and manage to get him into web range (but then again, you have to HAVE a web first, and also a MWD of course, don't forget a scram too, which leaves you with 2 midslots for a shieldtank... let alone the issues of GETTING into web range due to crappy speed), let alone the insane fiting requirements on HAML-IIs compared to available PG on the NH, and so on and so forth.
So, yeah, ON PAPER, it could work with HAMs acceptably.
In practice however, it positively and totally sucks compared to just about any other field command ship when used in PvP.
Due to the vast number of reasons explained above.
_
1|2|3 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 14:48:00 -
[12]
Lord Akita, please stop. Have you even bothered to look at what this will do to the ships?
|
maarud
Knight of Anubis
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 14:48:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Talthrus
Edited by: Talthrus on 18/10/2007 04:52:06
Originally by: Goumindong
So ccp overpowers torps and intead of fixing them you want to overpower hams and rockets?
This. Seriously... For example, the Nighthawk already does 600 DPS with HAMs and is able to tank way more than any armor tanker in its class. Rockets and HAMs are completely fine as they are.
Edit:
Originally by:
Well, it's either that or slightly renerf torps.
They have to fall in-line with eachother.
I'm perfectly content with either approach...
600 DPS with Hams?! Well, I suppose its close to the 570 DPS I get with T2 lauchers and T2 Rage ammo... While thats okay, it's not fantastic.
Tbh, HAM launchers need a PG decrease. I need to fit 2x RCU II's to the NH to get it to fit HAM Launchers. Otherwise I suppose they are okay.
Maarud.
Proudly a Ex-BYDI member
<t20> i'd rather have a python in my pants than a sleipnir |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 15:47:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Goumindong
Lord Akita, please stop. Have you even bothered to look at what this will do to the ships?
Actually, I did. Have you ?
Let's see... shortest-range highest-damage weapon systems around ? CHECK.
Longest-range, lowest-damage weapon systems around ? With a crippling delay in delivery ? DOUBLE CHECK.
One for PvP, other for PvE ? Hell check.
Makes all missile-using boats feasable in PvP ? Rain check, for some... regular check, for most.
_
1|2|3 |
Riddick Valer
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 16:46:00 -
[15]
No need to change damage much. (though rockets could use some +damage and slower ROF).
If you just change the fitting reqs on HAMS and Torps I'd be happy. It would be nice to be able to fit then along with a MWD without having to totally gimp my setup. I'm not saying they should be less then the long range systems (they don't have to be like turrets), but if the difference was halved it would make missiles ships a lot more viable.
|
Vulture Virtue
Caldari
Pyrrhus Sicarii
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 17:13:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Talthrus
This. Seriously... For example, the Nighthawk already does 600 DPS with HAMs and is able to tank way more than any armor tanker in its class. Rockets and HAMs are completely fine as they are.
So other races field command ships doing upwards 1000 dps is okay then? Tell me how it's balanced that the NH barely competes in damage with other race's HACs.
|
Jessica Molla
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 17:58:00 -
[17]
you guys keep on whining...just dont forget that your missies hit every single time...while my blasters dont...that kinda makes up for the damage difference
cheers
|
Captain Rius
ELITE SUPPORT SERVICE
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 18:12:00 -
[18]
Something of this sort would be nice, caladri for pvp!
/signed
~~
-Rius |
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS....
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 18:16:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 18/10/2007 13:46:24
stuff about 2 x rule
explosion velocity and explosion radius do not follow this formula..
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 18:48:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Goumindong
Lord Akita, please stop. Have you even bothered to look at what this will do to the ships?
Actually, I did. Have you ?
Let's see... shortest-range highest-damage weapon systems around ? CHECK.
Longest-range, lowest-damage weapon systems around ? With a crippling delay in delivery ? DOUBLE CHECK.
One for PvP, other for PvE ? Hell check.
Makes all missile-using boats feasable in PvP ? Rain check, for some... regular check, for most.
I am not sure how 10 is lower than 3, or 7.5 for that matter, but i guess they have good drugs where you reside.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Uninvited Guests
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 18:55:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Transcendant One
Originally by: Talthrus
This. Seriously... For example, the Nighthawk already does 600 DPS with HAMs and is able to tank way more than any armor tanker in its class. Rockets and HAMs are completely fine as they are.
Not at the same time. Try fitting a HAM2 Nighthawk and then come back. Hint: look at the pg reqs of hams.
Get more skill? Full rack of HAM2 is quite *****ble.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Uninvited Guests
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 19:03:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Vulture Virtue
Originally by: Talthrus
This. Seriously... For example, the Nighthawk already does 600 DPS with HAMs and is able to tank way more than any armor tanker in its class. Rockets and HAMs are completely fine as they are.
So other races field command ships doing upwards 1000 dps is okay then? Tell me how it's balanced that the NH barely competes in damage with other race's HACs.
How about no?
What 1000dps you talking about?
Absolution 800dps
Astarte around 900dps
Sleip around 900dps
Nighthawk around 770dps
This is max skills, full drone bays included and full racks + missiles to fill empty high slots. In reality these are mostly much lower.
You want a no tracking, long range weaponry like missiles to do 900dps?
Good thing you arent involved in the balancing team.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 19:05:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Goumindong
I am not sure how 10 is lower than 3, or 7.5 for that matter, but i guess they have good drugs where you reside.
When posting those numbers, it would be helpful to have an unit of measure attached to it (like "km" for instance) and explain which number pairs with what ship, weapon or whatnot (like "10km actual rocket range now, 7.5km rocket range from crow with proposed changes").
_
1|2|3 |
Gypsio III
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 19:35:00 -
[24]
This is a bizarre suggestion. You balance things by examining their effects in game, not by making the numbers look pretty.
The damage/ROF/range of HAMs and rockets are balanced very well (although their PG and CPU maybe less so), and the new torps will be brought into line in a similar fashion - defined by in-game effects, not by nice patterns in sets of numbers.
If an additional 1 km of range in a weapon system had a value that was constant and absolute, then pretty numbers would be the way forward. But the value of that additional 1km of range isn't static - it varies depending on the nature of the weapon and its host ship. Hence, balancing has to be done via an analysis of in-game effects.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 19:37:00 -
[25]
as your ignored it before I will bring it up again.
does tracking speed follow this?
Do smartbombs?
what about bombs?
Anything on drones?
ou said every weapons system in eve follows this magic rule so please show us that EVERY weapons system needs to be like this. I want to see prove outside of turrets.
I'm not saying your point is valid or not, just to show more information.
yes include fighters in that drone system and make sure you compare the increase in damage and speed compared to the amount of space they take up.
-----------------------------------
I'm working my way through college
target CCP
need...more room... |
Exlegion
Caldari
New Light
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 19:55:00 -
[26]
Wasn't this the reason torps were nerfed to begin with? Because they didn't "follow the progression" on paper? There was nothing wrong with torps. But all of a sudden they're supposed to be short short-range weapons because that's how it is on paper for turrets. Nevermind the fact that Caldari battleships are slow hunks of metal that can't even close the distance. But now it looks good on paper  .
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Guru |
Matyae
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 19:56:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Absolution 800dps
Astarte around 900dps
Sleip around 900dps
Nighthawk around 770dps
Could we please see this 770dps NH setup? Thanks. |
Dragon Lord
Caldari
InQuest Ascension
R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 20:28:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Dragon Lord on 18/10/2007 20:31:46
Originally by: Jessica Molla
you guys keep on whining...just dont forget that your missies hit every single time...while my blasters dont...that kinda makes up for the damage difference
cheers
Yes they do but can a torp hit a frig for full dmg? a large blaster can, can a torp do double and quadruple dmg? a gun can. Can a torp hit instantly? a gun can.
People dont tend to mention that the dps calcs for guns are for normal hits, when you start maxing you skills in gunnery you get a lot of good excellent and wreaking hits which skyrockets your dps.
So yes at certain ranges you get next to no dps but once ur in range you will get anywhere from half to 4 times your max dps depending on how good your gunnery is.
now obviously you wont get 4 times more dps than what eft says but you will at times and you will also get less than 50% of ur ef dps, but my point is it averages out so that you do get around the eft number for dps.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 20:36:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Dragon Lord
People dont tend to mention that the dps calcs for guns are for normal hits, when you start maxing you skills in gunnery you get a lot of good excellent and wreaking hits which skyrockets your dps.
No, it doesnt, the hit quality formula does not work that way and only serves to reduce dps faster than missiles lose it.
|
Julius Romanus
Amarr
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 21:34:00 -
[30]
Rockets power comes entirely from the fact that you can hit for full dps out at 8-10km IE the edge of web range. Nerfing range on rockets is dumb. They barely kick ass as a frigate weapon as is, "lets get into small blaster range :D" is just stupid.
--
All these graphs show is how bad the apocalypse is with different kinds of weapons.
-Dr Jigglez |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |