Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 09:05:00 -
[1]
I will preface this post by acknowledging this could well be the wrong forum; both "Game Ideas" and "Ship and Modules" are worthy fits. However, I believe that this post is targeting a bug, not a new gameplay concept, not a new module to be dissected. It is a fix in a longstanding weapon.
With Factional Warefare coming up within the next 2 months, and along with it lots of Sisi testing, this is the perfect opportunity for this bug to be addressed and fixed. I sincerely hope this is at least reviewed by CCP; the fix solves many Nano problems with just a simple variable change.
I used ElectroFreak's resolved missile damage formula for the below figures; they mirror what is seen in game. For reference, his original thread is Here.
Formal Petition: Fix Precision Heavy Missiles
Introduction:
Precision Missiles are weapon systems that are designed to give the skilled missile user a weapon capable of dealing with fast or small targets that would normally exceed high power missiles ability to engage. They attempt to perform this task while giving up firepower, range, and ship velocity.
In their current incarnation, precision lights are the only system capable of achieving this goal. Precision Heavy Missiles are in every way worse to Precision Cruise Missiles, and both Precision Heavy and Precision Cruise are inadequate to engage fast moving targets.
While a buff to Precision Missiles on the whole would be nice (not to mention all T2 ammo), I believe that to be beyond the feasible range of short term implementation. In the case of T2 heavy missiles, we are dealing with a bug, and it is high time it is fixed.
Raw Stats:
These are the base states of all T1 guided missiles and their T2 Precision Counterparts. The impact of skills + ship bonuses will be examined in the next section.
Light Missiles: These are the only decent precision missiles. They do not carry reduced range or damage compared to their T1 base, have 71% better explosion velocity and 250% improved explosion radius. The explosion radius is completely wasted, however, given that 50m is already at your average frigate level, and 20m is smaller than a pod. -7.5% Ship Velocity is an extreme penalty; it effectively prevents any frigate class vessel from using these without murdering their own speed as well.
Light: Velocity: 3750m/s Flight Time: 5.00s Est. Max Range: 18750m Explosion Velocity: 1750m/s Explosion Radius: 50m damage: 75
Precision Light: Velocity: 3750m/s Flight Time: 5.00s Est. Max Range: 18750m Explosion Velocity: 3000m/s Explosion Radius: 20m damage: 75 Drawback: -7.5% Ship Velocity
Heavy Missiles: These are the worst of all precision missiles. They carry reduced range, reduced velocity (the only one to do so), reduced damage, and marginal gains in precision and explosion velocity. They are, for all intents and purposes, worthless. The -5% ship velocity is a deal breaker for any nano-HAC that would wish to employ these. While a lower value than the Light missiles, these ships carry the most launcher hardpoints of any missile class until the Caldari Navy Raven (Hawk: 4, Caracal/Cerberus: 5, CN Caracal: 6, Drake: 7, Raven: 6, CN Raven: 7), while still needing the speed advantage like frigates (notable exception: Drake)
Heavy: Velocity: 3750m/s Flight Time: 10.00s Est. Max Range: 37500m Explosion Velocity: 750m/s Explosion Radius: 125m damage: 150
Precision Heavy: Velocity: 3250m/s Flight Time: 5.25s Est. Max Range: 17062.5 Explosion Velocity: 1000m/s Explosion Radius: 75m damage: 135 Drawback: -5% Ship Velocity
|
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 09:06:00 -
[2]
Cruise Missiles: Precision Cruise Missiles have better stats in every field than Precision Heavies, save only explosion radius (which is meaningless, but will be discussed in another section). They are left, ironically, with no target class to shoot at: Nothing of the battleship or battlecruiser size moves at the speeds you would really need these. Most ships will go much faster than your explosion velocity will ever hope to reach. The -4% ship velocity is the kindest to the ship class most immobile; no cruise raven is going to care about that penalty. These missiles suffer from all the reduced damage and range of Heavies.
Cruise: Velocity: 3750m/s Flight Time: 20,000s Est. Max Range: 75,000m Explosion Velocity: 500m/s Explosion Radius: 300m Damage: 300
Precision Cruise: Velocity: 3750m/s Flight Time: 10.00s Est. Max Range: 37500m Explosion Velocity: 1000m/s Explosion Radius: 200m damage: 260 Drawback: -4% Ship Velocity
Overview:
The Precision Heavy is slower for no reason, has a meaningless 33% explosion velocity improvement (compared to the 100% improvement to explosion velocity of Precision Cruise over base), a heavy velocity penalty, and dramatically shorter range. Precision Cruise are in every way superior for shooting nano-HACs than a Precision Heavy. This is the equivalent of Battleship long range turrets having superior tracking, range, and damage of cruiser class counterparts.
Impact of Skills
After level 5 skills (not unreasonable for Target Navigation Prediction û Rank 2), these explosion velocities are as follows:
Light: 2625m/s Precision Light: 4500m/s
Heavy: 1125m/s Precision Heavy: 1500m/s
Cruise: 750m/s Precision Cruise: 1500m/s
Where are the explosion Radiuses you ask? Frankly, in the age of the MWD, these are irrelevant. The worst case scenario, a MWDing Interceptor, has a signature radius of around 160m^2. A T1 cruise missile with Guided Missile Precision 4 has an explosion radius of 240m^2. Your need reduction from signature loss is a mere -33.33%. However, it is far worse than this. The missile damage formula picks the worst case variable: speed or radius.
The interceptor will outrun your missileÆs explosion radius by several fold; you will see no lost damage to radius as your explosion velocity will reduce far more than -33.33%. In other words, in the vast, vast, vast majority of situations, you will never see explosion radius matter. If it does matter, your damage reduction is nothing compared to that target using speed anyways.
What Will Those Missiles Hit For? This article will show what Level V TNP missiles will hit a target an X velocity for in % damage transferred. 100% = no damage lost to velocity, 1% = 1% of listed missile damage was transferred (pre-resistances).
Light Missiles: 4500m/s vs: 5000m/s: 89.48393168% 5500m/s: 64.11803884% 6000m/s: 36.78794412% 6500m/s: 16.90133154% 7000m/s: 6.217652402% 7500m/s: 1.831563889% 8000m/s: 0.432023947%
Interceptors rapidly enter the zone of ôminimal damageö. A max skilled P-ASM Cerberus can take ~25 seconds to kill a 6kms interceptor, ~35 to kill a 6.3kms inty, ~50 to kill 6.5kms, and it gets even sillier from there on in. Precession Lights fired from ASM IIs are the only missile capable of hitting nano-HACs.
Heavy + Cruise Missiles: 1500m/s vs: 2000m/s: 89.48393168% 2500m/s: 64.11803884% 3000m/s: 36.78794412% 3500m/s: 16.90133154% 4000m/s: 6.217652402% 4500m/s: 1.831563889% 5000m/s: 0.432023947%
The numbers here speak for themselves. Nano-Hacs are untouchable by missiles (even the awkward Cerberus will have a free -36% to incoming damage); even if they do hit for 20%, they still have to go through T2 resistances and tens of thousands of EHP on top of any active tank / shield regen the ship will boast.
Precision Cruise Missiles are Faster, Longer Reaching, More Damaging, and just as ôPreciseö as Heavy Precision Missiles. In short, Precision Heavies are broken.
|
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 09:07:00 -
[3]
Edited by: MalVortex on 26/05/2008 09:07:29 Proposed Solution: Fix The TypoÆs
I really cannot imagine that these figures are intentional. There is no reason for Heavy Precision Missiles to be missing a base 500m/s to their velocity, nor should their explosion velocity be the same as Cruise Missiles!
The Fix:
Precision Heavy Stats (w/o skills): Velocity: 3250m/s -> 3750m/s Explosion Velocity: 1000m/s -> 2000m/s
This would give Precision Heavy missiles their rightful base velocity as every other guided missile (the broken Rage excluded). This would also create a tiered stepping in explosion velocity:
Precision Light: 3000m/s Precision Heavy: 2000m/s Precision Cruise: 1000m/s
The New Damage % Breakdown at Level V skills:
Precision Heavy û 3000m/s (2000*1.5) 3500m/s: 89.48393168% 4000m/s: 64.11803884% 4500m/s: 36.78794412% 5000m/s: 16.90133154% 5500m/s: 6.217652402% 6000m/s: 1.831563889% 6500m/s: 0.432023947%
These damage %Æs are sufficient to impart meaningful DPS to most Nano-HACS, while not being anywhere near fast enough to hit interceptors. They become û yes û a lower damage, lower ranged (still has half flighttime), anti-fast cruiser weapon. The Roll They Are Supposed to Perform.
I humbly submit that these figures be reviewed by CCP carefully, and implemented at the earliest possible opportunity for play-testing on Sisi.
- MalVortex
|
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 09:09:00 -
[4]
- Reserved -
|
Spenz
Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 09:59:00 -
[5]
Wow. Heavy precision missiles are terrible! They have the flight time of a frigate weapon, the explosion radius of a battleship weapon, and do only slightly better damage than a frigate weapon.
I don't really know what to say about it. Hope it gets fixed.
If I had an Alt I would probably post with it... |
Albaluna74
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 11:42:00 -
[6]
MalVortex, thank you for posting. I hope this time we'll read a CCP post, I would like to understand why t2 heavy precision has to suck so badly.
|
Gypsio III
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 12:35:00 -
[7]
Precision Heavies are truely terrible.
|
Fador
Lyonesse. KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 12:45:00 -
[8]
/signed
|
Marlenus
Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 17:31:00 -
[9]
I've got to say, that's an astonishingly well-put-together piece of persuasive writing. My english professor friends would give it an "A".
I have heavy missile skills maxed due to my tendency to fly a Crane fitted for combat -- heavy missiles on a hauler, baby! And I like to maximize the damage I can get out of my one launcher. Fortunately, I don't encounter fast targets much. I did experiment with precisions for taking down Hulk drones, concluded they didn't work any better than regular heavies (i.e., not at all), and gave them up as a bad job. Do you want a sledgehammer or a precision sledgehammer for smashing flies? Meh, I want a flyswatter.
All that said, I am persuaded. It sounds like a fix is in order! ------------------ Ironfleet.com |
Tozmeister
Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 23:02:00 -
[10]
You know the really ironic thing? they did used to have a 2000m/s explosion velocity when they were first released but the nano brigade whined very hard on the forums and CCP nerfed in down to its current pitiful state.
Then the inhabitants of Nanofag island got rigs. The speed explosion was immense and what was CCP's response to bring precision missiles back to the table? absolutely nothing. Heavy precisions have been broken for years but are lingering at the bottom of the priority list next to the medium and light webber drones which have still not been released after 2 years of existing only in the database.
Asleep at the wheel yet again CCP.
+++????+++Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start+++
|
|
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 01:03:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Tozmeister You know the really ironic thing? they did used to have a 2000m/s explosion velocity when they were first released but the nano brigade whined very hard on the forums and CCP nerfed in down to its current pitiful state.
Hm, poking around on EVE Search this does seem to be accurate, a patch back in mid-2006. Frankly, the concerns of then are not the concerns of now. The in-game, real application numbers irrefutably demonstrate that a 2000m/s explosion velocity on heavy missiles would be fine in today's era. It is trivially easy to permanently ignore a heavy missile based ship's damage on the ships its designed to hit. For fracks sake, they so nerfed this missile its worse than the cruise variant in every way possible.
I can't speak to whether this nerf was justified in the days of old. However, in the days of the modern nano-HAC (complete with 4 more ultra-fast Faction Cruisers inbound), missile users are the only weapon system that is significantly mitigated engaging ships at standard operational speeds.
Bring Back 2000m/s explosion velocity CCP! The numbers themselves show that that this is both required and a balanced change.
Thank you for the positive feedback all. Lets keep this topic alive and active.
|
AshtarDJ
Filthy Scum
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 08:04:00 -
[12]
Edited by: AshtarDJ on 27/05/2008 08:06:04
Originally by: Tozmeister Asleep at the wheel yet again CCP.
Definatelly not!!! They are just too busy with ambulation that they forget that sometimes they need to balance some things in the game. ;)
/me signs this thread...
There are very very few weapons against the nano-HACs gangs that are pretty much taking over the PvP side of this game (huginns if they manage to survive more then 5 seconds, neuts if one of them "luckilly" gets in range and smartbombs that don't kill them, but since Ishtars are so popular nanoships, you can at least buy yourself some time with smartbombs). I would very much like to have a chance to hit those "zoom zoom" buggas. Explosion velocity on heavies would be a very nice start.... a boost for target painters would be even better....
|
Efdi
Tritanium Workers Union
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 08:59:00 -
[13]
Originally by: AshtarDJ neuts if one of them "luckilly" gets in range
You mean the 24km scramble range of a T2 Warp Disruptor, which just happens to be the range of a heavy neut? Or is there some other lucky range I'm missing? _______________________________ Yes, I am an alt. No, I can't post with my main; he's forum banned. Yes, I will be happy to smack you with my main when I'm unbanned. |
Cpt Branko
Surge. NIght's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 11:13:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 27/05/2008 11:15:11
Originally by: MalVortex Cruise Missiles: They are left, ironically, with no target class to shoot at: Nothing of the battleship or battlecruiser size moves at the speeds you would really need these. Most ships will go much faster than your explosion velocity will ever hope to reach.
Cruise: Explosion Velocity: 500m/s (*750m/s with skills)
Precision Cruise: Explosion Velocity: 1000m/s (*1500m/s with skills)
Obviously, precision cruises are geared for shooting moving BCs (which all go over 1km/s) and non-nano T1 cruisers (which all move at roughly 1.4-1.6km/s). Which is very fine for a BS weapon system really.
However, for some odd reason, precision heavies are the horrible and utter suck - only useful for situation where a lot of DPS is mitigated via sig size (which is quite rare - being attacked by a T1/T2 close-range frigate is a situation where you'd use them really).
If you want weapons vs really fast ships, though, missiles don't (and won't) really cut it. Turrets are the best thing there is in that case (for instance, while a Drake won't touch a nano-HAC unless it gets to web it, a dual falloff rigged Hurricane or a unrigged Harbringer, particularly with gankier fits, will send it running for its life).
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
daremo shirnai
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 11:34:00 -
[15]
The cerb could have a chance against other nano-hacs if this was implemented... As it is now it's pretty useless.
|
Morfane
The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 15:54:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Tozmeister ...next to the medium and light webber drones which have still not been released after 2 years of existing only in the database.
I asked a dev about this at least year's fanfest. He said they were 'too uber' and would likely not ever be introduced.
Morf
|
Ishina Fel
Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 15:55:00 -
[17]
Have you considered bringing this to the CSM forum yet?
|
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 16:16:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Ishina Fel Have you considered bringing this to the CSM forum yet?
I'd be afraid crossposting would get both topics locked. My original hope was that this was just a longstanding typo, but given its a "feature", changing the missile will likley be much more difficult.
Ishina if you want to post in CSM regarding this topic and link back to here thats fine. I'll look into posting on CSM regarding precision heavies later this evening when I have time.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 16:27:00 -
[19]
Superb posts, impeccably researched and clearly presented. I echo your sentiments in the strongest manner possible!
Ideally, in our new "everyone has 2 polcyarbs" nano world, all precision missiles would be retooled to be effective against nano ships. But I realize that would take a lot of work.
What *doesn't* take a lot of work is implementing the fixes described to the precision heavy missiles to fix the obvious bugs making it a steaming pile of pure and utter crap.
|
Wesley Baird
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 17:02:00 -
[20]
Great post, deserves a dev response.
MDK Recruitment Info |
|
Gypsio III
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 17:09:00 -
[21]
And in case some of our nano friends are worrying that this might make their tactics obsolete, well, it's not that simple. Fixed Precision Heavies may well be able to effectively damage a nanoHAC, but without a web on them, they'd still have time to MWD to range and outrun the missiles, or just warp out.
Base explosion velocity on Precision Heavies must be fixed to 2000 m/s.
|
Relyen
Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 18:04:00 -
[22]
This is an excellent post and definitly deserves a dev response.
|
RuriHoshino
Stimulus
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 19:15:00 -
[23]
Signed. This was indeed a rare and enjoyable post, exactly what we need more of to encourage positive dev response and engaging players in civilised and meaningful discussions about the game.
Not to mention that the point is completely valid. As a proponent of the BattleDrake in pvp, I would like to see my HMLIIs used for something besides gimping my range and slowing my already marginal speed when I need to engage tackling ships. It would also give the T2 missiles a role in the game besides bring the worse choice compared to faction. ________________
|
Bronson Hughes
The. Conspiracy
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 19:32:00 -
[24]
Excellent post. Aside from making sense from a logical point of view, this would give Heavy Missile users far better capability against NanoHACs without overpowering them. The Drake and the Cerberus, probably the biggest consumers of heavy missiles from a PvP standpoint, would benefit greatly from this change. -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne |
Arous Drephius
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 19:41:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Arous Drephius on 27/05/2008 19:42:33 Very good post, hopefully CCP will do something about it.
EDIT: This is the sort of post we need in these forums, not "OMFG X AND Y ARE BROKEN, CCP FIX NOW PLS".
|
Caligulus
Colinear Exemptions
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 20:18:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Tozmeister You know the really ironic thing? they did used to have a 2000m/s explosion velocity when they were first released but the nano brigade whined very hard on the forums and CCP nerfed in down to its current pitiful state.
Then the inhabitants of Nanofag island got rigs. The speed explosion was immense and what was CCP's response to bring precision missiles back to the table? absolutely nothing. Heavy precisions have been broken for years but are lingering at the bottom of the priority list next to the medium and light webber drones which have still not been released after 2 years of existing only in the database.
Asleep at the wheel yet again CCP.
QFT, their to busy chasing new subscribers rather then trying to retain their existing ones.
In all sincerity and to stay away from dev bashing (since it's like shooting fish in a barrel around here), I sincerely hope that CCP stops messing around with this "new content" crap and fixes the long outstanding broken "features" of this game. ------------------------------------------------- **** You're out of your mind!
**** Well that's between me and my mind. |
Gypsio III
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 21:08:00 -
[27]
Quote: Where are the explosion radii you ask? Frankly, in the age of the MWD, these are irrelevant
This point deserves to be repeated. It's worth noting that this fact makes the missile precision bonus almost completely useless.
So the poor Nighthawk, already crippled by grossly inadequate powergrid and poor slot layout, has a useless bonus as well.
|
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 00:04:00 -
[28]
I have updated the OP to include Heavy Missile flight time issues. All new content is on the third OP page.
The gist: Add 2.25s to heavy precision flight time; even a return to their rightful velocity gives them insufficient range for a cruiser heavy missile (only ~2km better than a precision light missile at maximum skills; difference decreases below max skills).
If its any consolation, their precision bonus is the only thing right on these things it seems... Not that precision matters to this weapon tier anymore...
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 00:54:00 -
[29]
Numbers look good, but they don't suggest a change is needed. Sure precision heavy missiles blow. They can't catch nano-hacs. But precision light missies cannot catch interceptors and precision cruise missiles cannot catch nano-BS (well they can kinda catch nano BS, nano BS are kinda dead atm) The numbers you listed suggest balance across the board.
If you really want to dig deep into HML stats then you should also compare the DPS. HAMs and rockets sadly are outperformed by their long range brethern, while torpedoes are fantastic. This hodge-podge of balance has come about because HAMs are new in the eve universe, torps just got rebalanced and T2 ammo was nerfed a long time ago.
So no, I reject the opinion that T2 precisions should be >>> nano-ships (which I believe is what you are stating between the lines) Let's face it all T2 ammo (including turret ammo) needs to be looked at. As well as rockets and HAMs. As to how they should be balanced, I'd leave that up to the EVE devs.
Oh, and the original posts are nice and easy to read, cool beans.
Originally by: CCP Casqade Please refrain from making assumptions on game mechanics and then presenting them as facts before testing them yourself.
|
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 01:22:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Vaal Erit Numbers look good, but they don't suggest a change is needed. Sure precision heavy missiles blow. They can't catch nano-hacs. But precision light missies cannot catch interceptors and precision cruise missiles cannot catch nano-BS (well they can kinda catch nano BS, nano BS are kinda dead atm) The numbers you listed suggest balance across the board.
If you really want to dig deep into HML stats then you should also compare the DPS. HAMs and rockets sadly are outperformed by their long range brethren, while torpedoes are fantastic. This hodge-podge of balance has come about because HAMs are new in the eve universe, torps just got rebalanced and T2 ammo was nerfed a long time ago.
So no, I reject the opinion that T2 precisions should be >>> nano-ships (which I believe is what you are stating between the lines) Let's face it all T2 ammo (including turret ammo) needs to be looked at. As well as rockets and HAMs. As to how they should be balanced, I'd leave that up to the EVE devs.
Oh, and the original posts are nice and easy to read, cool beans.
I'm going to have to vehemently disagree here. This post is specifically regarding broken stats on P-HMs, not missiles in general, not-T2. I have ideas on how to improve all of those, but this isn't the forum nor the thread for them.
If you truly understood the OP, you'd realize that precision heavy missiles are worse in every aspect than precision cruises. This is indefensible. The only reason they "can't catch" nano-HACs is that their rightful stats are gone.
Precision light's can catch Interceptors, so long as the interceptors are not pimped out (at which point, you need a specialist ship, not a HAC or BC, no matter which weapon used). It takes a decent chunk of time to put out a lethal amount of damage for these interceptors, but the ability is present.
Nor is my intention to destroy nano-ships. I specifically wrote this post in the Game Development forum so that this could get a lot of Sisi testing. I enjoy flying nano-ships as much as the next person; the inability for a cruiser-class missile user, no matter what they do, to ever impact a nano-HAC, is not fun. It is bad gameplay, it is broken gameplay.
Given that missile damage % imparted stays the same as you increase lineally in 500m/s increments from base, and given that precision lights versus interceptors are largely fine, I fail to see how this change would "break" Nano-HACs. These HACs have far more EHP, combat options, and DPS than an interceptor. If Precision Lights are a decent option versus Interceptors, and nano-HACs have say, 30 times more EHP, then the 45% DPS increase going from lights to heavies would, if anything, be underpowered, not over. This is especially true when the "meh" nature of HML DPS is taken into account, and that Precision Heavies have lower base damage compared to their T1 variants. I do not propose to tweak this maximum damage potential in any way.
My proposed stat changes conform to old precedents, are calculated with the ingame formula, and look to be a good starting point for widescale balance testing.
Thank you for taking the time for replying. I'm glad the OP was easy to read
|
|
Ruah Piskonit
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 09:18:00 -
[31]
Good post, and insightful too.
Do you think there should be a change to the negative effects from loading P-HMs too? Or would that derail your already through post which should be responded to. ----
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 15:31:00 -
[32]
Well, changing the penalty associated with precision missiles is rather subjective and debatable.
Fixing the bugged heavy precision missiles (which is what this thread is about) isn't. The missiles are clearly bugged with a lower explosion velocity than they should have.
I think we have a better chance of getting it rectified if we keep the thread on focus.
|
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 19:40:00 -
[33]
:bump:
Still Hoping for a Dev Response
|
Lili Dash
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 22:12:00 -
[34]
/signed
also would really be interesting to see a dev response... but I doubt they care about the pvp status of any Caldari ship let alone their weapons systems sadly :( (and the few non cal ships that use missiles)
|
Tozmeister
Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 08:20:00 -
[35]
Bump.
Also, people on here keep saying they are 'bugged', They are NOT bugged.
This was a deliberate change made by a Dev some 2 years ago in response to nano-fanboiz whinings who didn't then rebalance them after the introduction of rigs.
I also support and vote for changing nighthawks precision bonus to a explosion velocity bonus. Currently the Golem (a Marauder Class PvE focused ship) is the only Caldari ship to get this bonus which is the most useful bonus a missile ship can have. Surely the 'Missile Race' should the ships with the best missile bonuses? the recent Khanid MkII project gave them universal damage modifiers and/or RoF bonuses while Caldari are still stuck with their Kinetic-only bonus and range.
Give us a ship in each class category with a missile explosion velocity. I suggest Hawks for small class. Nighthawks for medium class and leave the Golem as is.
On the subject of Hawks, and sorry for derailing this important thread, I noticed in Khanid MkII all the ships that got extra missile launcher slots got extra CPU to fit them but when the Hawk got changed from a 2/2 layout to a straight 4 missile launchers that it got 0 cpu for fitting. Can anyone explain why? And yes, I am aware assault frigates are getting a major overhaul sometime soon(tm) i just had to get that off my chest. Just don't let the overhaul be done by the same dev that nerfed PHM's and gave highthawks and hawks useless 'boosts'. +++????+++Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start+++
|
Goberth Ludwig
eXceed Inc. eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 13:21:00 -
[36]
Great post hope it gets attention from devs.
- Gob
|
Opertone
SIEGE.
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 13:28:00 -
[37]
absolutely
/sign this thread
besides all missiles need an explosion velocity boost regardles of their current effectiveness, with the introduction of rigs and overheating the missiles have become useless against nano targets. Some other game mechanics are broken too.
missiles need a velocity and explosion velocity boost
missiles are designed to hit the target, or are missiles just made to bring fireworks and party?
|
Stakhanov
Metafarmers
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 13:43:00 -
[38]
/signed much
Moar explosion velocity !
|
NoNameNewbie
Raynor Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 15:22:00 -
[39]
pretty good post
/signed
|
SATAN
BURN EDEN Terra Incognita.
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 16:38:00 -
[40]
CCP are Nanofags at heart, when they get away from playing WoW the ship of choice is a Vega or something else that lets them play Eve in easy mode. They will never fix/nerf/introduce anything that will take away their ability to play eve in this manner.
We have all known that Speed is fits are overpowered since day 1, and they have not even attempted to do anything about it. What makes you think that they will fix heavy missiles? Every module in this game is incapable of dealing with ships going faster than 5k.
Bottom line is learn to fly fast ships, cause that is the only way to deal with fast ships. Sad but true.
|
|
JVol
The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons
|
Posted - 2008.06.01 01:50:00 -
[41]
Stats wise you would think a nighthawk with P-Hm would be a nanno's nightmare. Its not. I had a rapair hold me down for a solid 5 minutes and take almost no damage, was sad . Would be nice to see this change implemented. Even if they had'nt insta poped it, it should've done enough damage to make him break contact and be unable to perma hold a high skilled NH pilot.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.06.01 02:02:00 -
[42]
I would suggest copying this to the assembly hall, and see if it attracts the attention of some CSM.
It seems like small concrete obvious changes like this would be pretty easy to implement.
|
Tiirae
The New Era HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2008.06.01 13:36:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Tiirae on 01/06/2008 13:37:58
Originally by: Vaal Erit HAMs and rockets sadly are outperformed by their long range brethern, while torpedoes are fantastic.
What? Am I missing something here... HAMs do a lot more DPS than HMs, and Rockets do much more damage than Light Missiles. The whole torp rebalance was to bring *them* in-line with the other classes.
Also, when polycarbs are rebalanced so they are not more powerful than their module versions (bringing them inline with the other rigs), nano-ships will have their velocity dropped a fair bit. I would think that this change will make PHM's useful again without changing their stats. Perhaps this is why CCP doesn't want to change them now.
|
PR0D AK71V
Mad Hamster Infestation
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 00:52:00 -
[44]
good post as it stands, precision heavies are useless and serve no purpose... even if polys get nerfed, nanocruisers with gang bonis will be able to do over 5k with not so expensive fits.
/signed
|
Dristra
Shadows of the Dead R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 06:47:00 -
[45]
I support this change. Support the introduction of well thought out Amarr solutions!
I believe rats should avoid you if you have high standing with them. |
Amastat
Omegatech
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 08:42:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Amastat on 02/06/2008 08:46:00 Very good read MalVortex. It looks like CCP is ignoring this thread too though, unfortunately. Hope that changes - though, nows probably not the best time to post these sort of threads afterall, with the expansion only a week away and all.
Your post was a good one though, I would recommend you copy it and repost in the future when CCP has the time to actually pay attention here.
Missiles overall need loving, your post shows all the reasons why they are another dead mechanic of t2 missile design. However - on the issue of balance, buffing these missiles would allow missile users to have effective nano countermeasures, while the majority of ships - gunboats - have no advantage at all.
There is so many nanofags in this game, don't be surprised if a horde eventually tries to shoot this thread down; people don't like to give up cruise-mode ships afterall. ____________________
"All warfare is based on deception... we must seem unable...seem inactive...and crush him " - Sun Tzu |
Zeveron
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 08:54:00 -
[47]
/signed
|
white kight
SwEaTy ArMpIT RaIDeRs R-I-P
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 09:05:00 -
[48]
Signed. Precision heavies do about the same damage on small ships as standard heavies. I got about 90 something on a frigate with standards and about 92 or something with precision. That should not be right. PLease sort this. Props to the OP for bringing up this blatant fail.
|
BhallSpawn
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 09:15:00 -
[49]
missles need to be fixed in general double the speed half the flight time and make them do dmg to smaller targets
tech 2 missles are a joke in general I don't want new graphics I don't want new features I want the game to be less laggy in fleet combat, and fix missles..
|
Doddy
Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 11:31:00 -
[50]
While the general precision missile points are a larger issue concerned with nanos, the precision heavies stats are just plain stupid and need buffed (or un-nerfed as it seems), at least so they only have the same problems of precision missiles in general.
|
|
San Rintu
Asshats and Alcoholics
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 19:48:00 -
[51]
Edited by: San Rintu on 02/06/2008 19:48:16 Very well justified post. I was aware of the current disproportionate figures between the Standard, Heavy and Cruise Precision missile but it simply was not this obvious how awfully bugged these missiles have become.
I think the key factor to take away from this is that if the proposed figures were implemented, we would not suddenly see nano fitted HACS going pop in 5 seconds. By standard, the damage put out by a heavy missile is still relatively low despite its absolute figure that it will inflict upon a target.
A well versed nano pilot will still have plenty of time to form some means of escape or implement a new tactic to engage the ship utilising Precision Heavies before any lasting damage is created. After all, the bonus would see the missiles hit comfortably to around 50-60km which a nano ship tends to duck in and out of with moderate ease, especially an Ishtar.
The key advantage here is that in numbers (much like nanos) they are an absolute deterrent to a nano fleet. If we per se had several drakes/cerberus' spewing them out, they would be an extremely effective anti nano weapon, as much as several nano Ishtars in unison are an effective anti battleship fleet platform.
The modifaction of the Heavy Precision should at least be piloted on Sisi imho. In the day and age of the nano gang, it is about time that a sensible existing weapon is given it's chance rather than blindly swinging the nerf bat at any ship that moves over 2km/s.
|
Albaluna74
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 08:38:00 -
[52]
Bump
|
Shaemell Buttleson
Darwin With Attitude oooh Shiny
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 09:11:00 -
[53]
Signed from someone who PVP's in Caldari ships.
|
Ceallach
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 22:04:00 -
[54]
/signed by someone who trained to t2 missiles, realized they sucked balls, and trained to t2 blasters and Gallente ships.
|
Lady Killigrewe
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 00:23:00 -
[55]
/signed -- I'm Gallente and I agreew with this. The maths and arguement presented make perfect sense.
It does make me wonder though why there has been no dev response to this; considering after all that this is the BUG forum which I thought they would be checking daily as we are now often directed to post our petitions here.
|
BSengUK
Sicarri Covenant Lex Talionis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 00:28:00 -
[56]
WoW -- now I know why I have to cross train to gunnery :(
I started this game as Caldari for a reason - missiles looked fantastic on my friends screen. I have unfortunately found however that the best missile race seems to be getting the preverbial ****** end of the stick.
This simply shows that the previous nerf has not been revoked as it should have been when rigs were introduced. No doubt if this change were to come about the nano-'pilots' would winge and moan again until they once more became nerfed.
Shame there has been no response to this. Would be very interested to see what response they would give to a very well presented point of view; one which is very hard to disagree with unless you start looking at the very 'few and far between' exceptions to the general game mechanics.
/signed
/signed again
|
Mister Xerox
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 07:03:00 -
[57]
Precision/Javelin missiles of all types are in dire need of some heavy adjustments, and have been since their release. Fury/Rage also need to be examined and tweaked.
Currently they are trumped by every caldari navy missile available.
Javelins need to have 2x the flight speed of their T1 counterparts, and 50% the flight time. Precisions, likewise, need to travel twice as fast but with 75% the flight time of their T1 counterpars. Both also need to have the speed nerf cut by 75% or, better yet (and more logically), removed altogether.
The Rage/Fury versions should have the same flight time and 25%-50% less velocity than their T1 counterparts, and do considerably more damage with a smaller explosion radius.
Currently T2 ammo, for the most part, is across the board less worthy than T1 faction ammunition because T1 offers 100% the damage of T2 with none of the pointless (and annoyingly stacked) nerfs. Since every other module out there that is defensive or offensive in nature has been 'stacking nerfed' then all of the nerfs on ammo should likewise have less impact on the ship fitting them in the same manner. After 3 weapons loaded any additional weapons should have negligable additional disadvantage.
|
I SoStoned
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 07:23:00 -
[58]
Originally by: SATAN CCP are Nanofags at heart, when they get away from playing WoW the ship of choice is a Vega or something else that lets them play Eve in easy mode. They will never fix/nerf/introduce anything that will take away their ability to play eve in this manner.
We have all known that Speed is fits are overpowered since day 1, and they have not even attempted to do anything about it. What makes you think that they will fix heavy missiles? Every module in this game is incapable of dealing with ships going faster than 5k.
Bottom line is learn to fly fast ships, cause that is the only way to deal with fast ships. Sad but true.
While I agree that Eve is rife with 'speed tanks wins (almost) all', I would like to point out that CCP has several times stepped in to nerf speed. They removed the multi AB/MWD stacked superships. They removed the bonuses on nano/i-stabs during the craze of super-nano BS, about the same time they nerfed the ****ens out of war declarations. They've done other things to nerf speed, but hardly enough to be effective at bringing the 'speed tank' in line with other forms of tank.
And yet they still give Snake implants a whopping 53% speed bonus, while neglecting energy emission & signature resolution implants (that have a max 32.3% modification).
|
San Rintu
Asshats and Alcoholics Lex Talionis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 20:55:00 -
[59]
It is very interesting to see such an extremely one sided thread without as much as a glance from a dev as of yet. I understand that these are important times in the roll out of Empyrean Age but at least a half arsed 'we'll look into it' would be nice.
As far as some comments have gone on fixing all of the missiles, I tend to disagree on a small level. As with most other races, many will not choose Void over a Faction Antimatter or Hail over a Faction EMP. The damage increase on them is negligible for the drawback you receive. Conflageration crystal seem to get more of a looking but it is still more likely to see Faction Multi's drop.
With all the close range weapons in game, the T2 damage ammo tends to not be worth the drawbacks in comparison to a max loss of 10-20dps in utilising the faction counterpart. It is by far the long range and the specialty ammo in the case of the precision missile that needs the revision.
|
Venkul Mul
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:22:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Morfane
Originally by: Tozmeister ...next to the medium and light webber drones which have still not been released after 2 years of existing only in the database.
I asked a dev about this at least year's fanfest. He said they were 'too uber' and would likely not ever be introduced.
Morf
nice to know, seeing they are stack nerfed between themselves for all I know, so not so good. It appears that drones in whatever format are always "too uber". |
|
Drevas
Infinite ISK
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:06:00 -
[61]
Very nice post. These missiles definitely need to be looked at.
/Signed |
BiggestT
Fun Inc Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 02:02:00 -
[62]
/signed
its bullsh*t when u have to use faction ammo coz precisions are a joke, and furies wont get anything moving slightly fast. GIVE US BETTER PRECISION!! also, boost the nighthawk pwgrid, it sux lame-a*s |
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 07:06:00 -
[63]
Edited by: MalVortex on 14/06/2008 07:06:38 *Bump*
Factional Warfare is out, so now theres plenty of time to look at this for the next patch ^_^.
|
Cpt Constantinus
Celestial Janissaries
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 09:50:00 -
[64]
I think they should boost the explosion velocity of all missiles by at least 50% because even if you missile manages to hit the target, the low explosion velocity will negate most of the damage.
|
Albaluna74
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 12:29:00 -
[65]
/bump
|
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 16:16:00 -
[66]
best post on the forums in a very very long time.
lets cross our fingers and pray that a dev actually takes his time to look at the op and understand that eve do actually need a weapon against nano ships that work.
thank you op for doing the research and posting this.
|
Draaken
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 17:02:00 -
[67]
Very well-structured, well-written post - and it makes sense on top!
/signed! _____ Ain't no mountain high enough |
Bloodhands
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 04:43:00 -
[68]
Very well thought out post and easy read. This deserves a posting from a dev about feasibility.
/signed
|
Veldya
Guristari Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 08:18:00 -
[69]
Missiles need to be overhauled, they are ******** in the current design where speed is the ultimate factor which determines the damage.
Light missiles should be designed to damage small ships. Heavy missiles should be designed to damage medium ships. Cruise missiles should be designed to damage large ships.
I can get a nano battleship that will avoid the vast majority of damage from light missiles, the mechanics are just comedy gold.
|
Veldya
Guristari Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 09:18:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Veldya on 18/06/2008 09:18:47 Even current anti-missile warheads are designed with proximity fuses where they detonate when they get within a certain range of a target, the concept I believe is to detonate in front of the incoming object forcing it to travel through the blast radius.
Given you can jack up a missile to have a velocity of over 12k m/s there should be mechanisms in place to use fast missiles against fast ships. If a missile is fast enough to catch up to and hit a ship then I fail to understand how a species that has any kind of grip on the word intelligent can make a warhead that has a worse detonation velocity than that of the missile's propellant.
|
|
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 09:21:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Veldya Edited by: Veldya on 18/06/2008 09:18:47 Even current anti-missile warheads are designed with proximity fuses where they detonate when they get within a certain range of a target, the concept I believe is to detonate in front of the incoming object forcing it to travel through the blast radius.
Given you can jack up a missile to have a velocity of over 12k m/s there should be mechanisms in place to use fast missiles against fast ships. If a missile is fast enough to catch up to and hit a ship then I fail to understand how a species that has any kind of grip on the word intelligent can make a warhead that has a worse detonation velocity than that of the missile's propellant.
If you wanted to get really technical, the explosion of the missile would inherent all the momentum of the missile itself. a 10kms missile would have 10kms + explosion velocity along its heading, and 10kms - explosion velocity 180* to its heading....
|
Veldya
Guristari Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 10:34:00 -
[72]
Originally by: MalVortex
If you wanted to get really technical, the explosion of the missile would inherent all the momentum of the missile itself. a 10kms missile would have 10kms + explosion velocity along its heading, and 10kms - explosion velocity 180* to its heading....
If we wanted to get really technical we could rip a lot of holes into the EVE mechanics. However, we are just raising balance mechanics. One races' major weapon of preference should not be totally obsolete against nano ships.
We are not talking about shooting a laser around a corner, we are talking about pretty realistic laws of physics which help to support a change in the mechanics for logical reasons. Having one race's lighter weapons are useless against faster ships and a rival race has exceptionally fast ships then it is an embarrassment to the game designers.
They should just place a hard cap on the amount you can minimise damage via speed stacking for the appropriate weapons types. Ie, small weapons vs small ships should always do a part of their damage.
|
Ignition SemperFi
The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 20:39:00 -
[73]
/signed signed and signed
This! because even with missile rigs its in no comparison to to poly rigs.
And yes the nanofagtry may complain because now they have to look out for 3 ships instead of just 2(huggin/rapier/bringing back the cerb)
HOw can heavy precision missiles be WORSE than assault precision missiles? ------ People Say Im paranoid because I have a gun, I say I dont have to be paranoid because I have a gun. |
Methem
interimo
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 21:22:00 -
[74]
Javelin Rockets and HAMs could use a boost also.
The description says they are suppose to move faster than the t1 version(which they do), but the explosion velocity is terrible.
Base explosion velocity: t1 Rocket-2000 jav Rocket-500
t1 HAM-750 jav HAM-750
t1 Torp-250 jav Torp-500 (javelin torps are at least better than t1)
|
FlameGlow
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.06.24 11:59:00 -
[75]
/signed Cmon, boost missiles, this is long overdue. Or scrap the dump explosion velocity completely and only use missile velocity to see if missile can catch target and signature radius to see if damage is reduced. Boost defenders too then, maybe ppl would actually use them, for start they should have good rate of fire independent of launcher used.
|
Chillshock
|
Posted - 2008.06.24 13:46:00 -
[76]
This actually looks less like a needed boost and more like a needed fix.
Come on. This has got to be a mistake.
Also: very good post. Lots of theory-craft but thats whats behind nature, right?
|
Zarch AlDain
Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.06.24 16:59:00 -
[77]
Excellent post. Well reasoned and explained.
Zarch AlDain ---- My corp is recruiting. See the recruitment thread here.
|
Miyamoto Uroki
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 14:45:00 -
[78]
Totally endorse this product/service.
/signed
Originally by: Puupuu dude... your face
|
Lea Re
Mercenary Forces
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 21:29:00 -
[79]
/signed
|
Albaluna74
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 10:22:00 -
[80]
/bump
|
|
el caido
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 18:55:00 -
[81]
Let me say first, that I am no missile enthusiast. Since the great missile nerf years ago, I have always been a proponent of guns. :)
While I strongly agree that Precision Heavies need some love, I am tentative to support any drastic changes to Light or Cruise. And to address the meandering posts of others in this argument: missiles in general do not need a major overhaul. People often overlook the strength in missile versatility and instead only look at raw DPS.
Back on topic: the ever-growing overpowered nanocruiser threat is a problem in itself, which should certainly be addressed by CCP in its own way. That said, the balancing act concerning Precision Heavies is rather difficult because of all the ships that can use them. We must look beyond the Caldari cruisers/BCs and also at the Khanid vessels and numerous other ships which supplement their firepower with a launcher or two in their 'spare highslots'. Going too far with the fix could lead to other issues concerning drones, etc.
This is an excellent argument well-deserving of CCP attention; superb work, MV. :)
|
Gypsio III
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 21:34:00 -
[82]
I think that the basic balancing principle behind Precision Heavies should be this:
1. They should be better than Precision Cruise at damaging nanocruisers 2. They should be better than Precision Lights at damaging nanocruisers 3. They should be ineffective against interceptors
I haven't gone over the numbers properly, but I do have some balance concerns, which could very easily make Precision Heavies underpowered - as they are now - or overpowered, if excessively boosted. I think the fundamental problem is twofold - explosion velocity falloff and MWD sig-radius bloom.
MWD sig radius bloom means that everything fast takes full sig-related damage from missiles. That limits the ease of balancing Precision missiles - the sig radius effect becomes irrelevant, and velocity becomes all-important. It's all rather crude, in comparison to the tracking formula, which has a rather nice balance between turret sig radius, target sig and tracking.
Meanwhile, explosion velocity falloff is 1500 m/s, meaning that a ship travelling more than 3000 m/s faster than a missile's explosion velocity takes virtually no damage. The problem is that this is a rather blunt tool - 3000 m/s is simultaneously not much and a lot in speed terms. It's not that hard, with the multiplicative effects of pimped fits, gang mods, implants etc., to get a ship to move more than a lot faster than its vanilla version, potentially taking you into the immune zone. On the other hand, without those pimpings, 3000 m/s is quite a lot, relative to the range of speeds and missile explosion velocities out there.
So while I believe that it's obvious that Precision Heavies need a boost, it's not obvious exactly what that boost should be. Simply fitting them into a nice mathematical pattern would not necessarily make them balanced.
I'd suggest a reworking of the missile damage calculator that, while keeping the emphasis on absolute speed, improved the contribution from sig radius effects. A similar effect might be achievable by some fancy reworking of Precisions' explosion velocity, explosion velocity falloff and explosion radius effects. But someone else can fiddle with that.
|
Chomapuraku
Caldari Templar Republic R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 19:39:00 -
[83]
/signed
i trained up t2 lights and hams, and i haven't bothered with heavies because the precisions are completely useless. a ham cerb is a nice mid- and long-range dps powerhouse, while a t2 precision assault cerb is great for cutting frigs to ribbons, but a cerb with heavies? all it can do is 100+ km dps against fully tackled targets (which other ships can do waaay better). make it so precision heavies allow a heavy missile boat to break a speed-tank on the slower, non-specialized nano-boats.
give missile boats a role in pvp by fixing precision heavies!!
Originally by: Tuberider amazing part about eve, is its always the guys that lose the smallest ship/loot that make the most noise when it happens
|
Ulstan
Caldari State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 21:03:00 -
[84]
Quote: 1. They should be better than Precision Cruise at damaging nanocruisers 2. They should be better than Precision Lights at damaging nanocruisers 3. They should be ineffective against interceptors
I agree. I think this could be solved by increasing the explosion radius of heavy precision missiles enormously to well above that of the base missile - if it's going to be used for shooting at MWD'ing cruisers, it can have a pretty big radius.
I would think a heavy precision missile that took a 50% radius penalty against MWD'ing cruisers could work out - afterall, there's no reason the radius needs to be small enough to hit a MWD'ing cruiser for full damage, since the damage will be reduced anyway due to the MWD'ing cruisers speed.
|
L0nz0p
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 21:14:00 -
[85]
/signed
|
Gypsio III
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 21:41:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Ulstan
Quote: 1. They should be better than Precision Cruise at damaging nanocruisers 2. They should be better than Precision Lights at damaging nanocruisers 3. They should be ineffective against interceptors
I agree. I think this could be solved by increasing the explosion radius of heavy precision missiles enormously to well above that of the base missile - if it's going to be used for shooting at MWD'ing cruisers, it can have a pretty big radius.
I would think a heavy precision missile that took a 50% radius penalty against MWD'ing cruisers could work out - afterall, there's no reason the radius needs to be small enough to hit a MWD'ing cruiser for full damage, since the damage will be reduced anyway due to the MWD'ing cruisers speed.
Excellent idea about the sig radius thingie. I think we can do something similarly imaginative with explosion velocity falloff on Precisions also - maybe reduce the actual explosion velocity, but increase the explosion velocity falloff, such that normal inties (in the case of precision lights) still take a similar amount of damage, but there's no longer such an abrupt cutoff where no damage is caused.
The sig radius of a MWDing inty is about 150 m, with a MWDing cruiser having a sig around 1000 m or so. So, and this is completely off the top of my head and may well be hilariously broken, we could give (all after TNP V and GMP V effects) the new Precision Heavies an explosion radius of around 1500 m (hey look, another use for Target Painters!), and an explosion velocity of, ooh, 2000 m/s, with an explosion velocity falloff of, oohhhh, 3000 m/s or so?
So they'd be useless against inties, even if they could hit them. You'd need painter support to deal full sig-related damage to a nanocruiser, and even then a typical nanocruiser, travelling at 3500 m/s, would take a ~25% damage reduction on explosion velocity. But the immune speed would be increased to 8000 m/s, although very little damage would be taken during the last 2000 m/s of that - and that assumes that the missiles have the speed to hit in the first place.
The devil is naturally in the detail, but I think the principle is rather more sophisticated and flexible than the current crude and unforgiving mechanics.
Heh, an interesting tactic for the nanopilot would be, upon seeing some new Precision Heavies coming his way, to just turn off MWD and let inertia carry him away. With an explosion radius of 1500 m, they won't do much to a HAC of sig radius 150 m or so, witout the MWD bloom effect. But then he's more vulnerable to tackle and normal missiles... an interesting tactical choice, maybe?
And wow... this would make even the Nighthawk's Precision bonus useful!
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 22:25:00 -
[87]
I had this sort of notion that the AOEfalloff attribute should be something other than the flat 1.5km/sec that it is now.
And something more like the same as the base explosion velocity. Of course, increasing base explosion velocity at the same time, (in some cases) such that the net result is about the same.
I mean, the difference between cruise (500m/sec) and torps (250m/sec) is really negligable - one hits up to 3500m/sec, and the other hits up to 3250.
-- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? |
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 23:26:00 -
[88]
The entire missile damage formula needs to be scrapped and rewritten (yet again). Throwing out speed or signature radius and just going with "worst case" is dumb, and leads to all or nothing situations. At least the signature explosion of MWDing ships gives turrets enhanced tracking - leaving it up to pilot skill to maintain the transversal. There is nothing close to that in missiles. Worse, missiles would gain no benifit from that signature bloom except in massive overgunning - torps versus double webbed MWDing cruisers, for example. Heavies versus your standard cruiser won't see any appreciable damage loss from signature radius reductions.
AOE falloff is more complicated than being made out as. Take a look at ElectroFreaks missile damage formula - its not a strict "1500m/s faster = no damage". 1500m/s faster than your explosion velocity will equate to 36.78% or so damage transfered. AoE Falloff is a dumb stat though.
Finally, the numbers I proposed for Precision Heavies woudn't kill interceptors, save possibly 4.5kms or slower Taranis. Those are run over and killed by every other HAC though, so thats just leveling the playing field. No Precision heavy missile ship could tackle something moving that fast anyways, so they get driven off.
As to other ships: Primary Heavy Missile Ships: Caracal Line Drake Nighthawk Sacrilege
Any ship without a missile velocity bonus will completley cap out w/ precision missiles going at 5625m/s. This removes the entire 10% damage departed bracket, as the missiles will no longer hit. The Sacrilege, along with all missile supported Cruisers/HACs, cannot use precision heavy missiles while nanoed. Remember, they still carry a -5% velocity penalty per tube. Keeping their speed up (the primary roll these hybrid missile users aim for) would be far more difficult when loading precision heavies. This makes them easier to tackle and be killed - a fair trade off for their increased offensive firepower versus other fast nanocruisers.
The Caracal line simply can't be nanoed in the way other NanoHacs can, and precision heavies would undo the work of any serious pimpage. The lighter, 3 rigged Navy Caracal also carries another tube for more speed reduction.
The Drake and Nighthawk are impossible to nano. The Drake is slow and vulnerable to gangs, but is also the only BC that can be easily permatackled by pretty much anything. The Nighthawk has serious fitting issues and dubious ship bonuses (5% explosion radius lawls), giving it *some* roll in a gang would be nice (besides a very slightly better Drake at 20x the cost). No Field CS can be permatackled by a 4kms NanoHac - why are we making excuses for the Nighthawk? Why are these excuses the same for every similar missile using Caldari Ship?
Thanks for the continued support to this issue.
|
Bomale
|
Posted - 2008.06.28 01:31:00 -
[89]
Allo Malvortex...
When I look to specifications of :
Scourge Heavy Missile ( 37,5 km ) / Terror Assault Missile ( 9,0 km ) Scourge Fury Heavy Missile ( 18,0 km ) / Terror Rage Assault Missile ( 7,5 km ) Scourge Precision Heavy Missile ( 17,0 km ) / Terror Javelin Assault Missile ( 36,7 km )
ASSAULT Javelin increase is range from 9,0km to 36,7km, HEAVY Pecision decrease range from 37,5km to 17,0km !!!
Really with you about Heavy Missile.
|
Cha Jeng
Zenith of Things
|
Posted - 2008.06.28 02:08:00 -
[90]
/signed
fix them please they dont' stack up in the least
|
|
Ol' Delsai
Caldari Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.28 11:16:00 -
[91]
Great post, nicely developed. I fully agree with the demonstration and the conclusion.
Actually, Heavy precision are useless
Perhaps this issue should also be brought to the attention of CSM,these guys seems to make a good job out there
|
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.28 12:19:00 -
[92]
I did bring it to the CSM - it was trolled by Caldari haters and then ignored.
The CSM by and large is composed of either carebares, who won't care, or 1337 pvpers, who see Caldari PVP inferiority as an acceptable situation as they aren't effected. The few sane ones on the board are outvoted and the issue therefore never raised. Read the transcripts of the Nighthawk, which got rejected by the CSM, to the "fix large autocanons lawls", which got widespread approval, despite having no evidence, examples, or reasoning.
The political process at work. I'm far more hopeful that a Dev one day reads this and goes "huh, that makes sense" and it gets changed at some uncertain impossible future, compared to the CSM jointly deciding to demand CCP intervention in a Caldari matter.
|
PirceHat
|
Posted - 2008.06.29 21:30:00 -
[93]
Your forgot the Cerberus in your list of heavy missile users :).
Basically /signed. While I am not convinced that any specific change has been mentioned that would be right *something* needs to be done about nano's vs. missiles, especially heavy missiles. |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.06.29 23:00:00 -
[94]
Originally by: MalVortex I did bring it to the CSM - it was trolled by Caldari haters and then ignored.
Why you feel the need to misinterpreter things? your thread It was supported. As all the threads in the CSM forum after some time it dropped from the first page. It was not trolled, maybe the argument about precision missiles in PvE was not appropriate as the focus was PvP, but it was not trolling.
BTW: why you haven't liked it to this thread? if you want further support for it linking it here so it has more visibility is the way to go. |
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 00:09:00 -
[95]
Edited by: MalVortex on 30/06/2008 00:09:35 I woudn't consider it a misrepresentation, no. When you get into pointless, time and space consuming arguments to not fix this because some moron uses T2 missile ammo in PVE... Thats trolling. Even if there was a place for Precision Heavies in PVE (and there most definitely is not, the entire argument becomes irrelevant, as this entire fix is aimed at PVP!
Its trolling pure and simple; as are the "no, lawls" replies that dotted that thread.
Also, don't take this as a whine about that CSM threads fate. Its an objective analysis of its outcome - I'm quite pleased with how this thread has fared and its continued support.
edit: cross linking it both ways is not a bad idea though.
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 00:46:00 -
[96]
Originally by: MalVortex I did bring it to the CSM - it was trolled by Caldari haters and then ignored.
You probably would get more support for a general revision of all T2 ammo instead of focusing on just one, especially since precision missiles in general is one of the better types. There is even a topic for that already in the csm forum if i remember right. |
Gypsio III
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 08:49:00 -
[97]
My faith in the CSM disappeared when I read some quite astonishing comments about the propoosed PG boost for the Nighthawk:
Quote: [ 2008.06.15 18:22:00 ] Leandro Salazar > just wanted to say that while playing with EFT I also noticed a small pg issue with the NH, it has a lot of other strong points and is fairly popular despite that, so only a fairly small boost would be acceptable imho, too much would make it overpowered
Quote: Serenity Steele > Almost every ship class has a lame-duck ship in 1/4 races of EvE. Is the NightHawk any different to the lame duck for field command ships?
Quote: [ 2008.06.15 18:24:24 ] Serenity Steele > It just occured to me that the request to CCP should just check the usage/ownership/production of the NH in comparison to other field command ships and see if it's drastically out of line.
Leandro is talking about PVE, when the entire focus of the thread was PVP. Just another classic "lol Caldari PVP" attitude. Serenity Steel's attitude was one of casual disregard - she made no effort to understand the problem or investigate the supporting material provided. She just didn't want to know. Her second comment is extraordinary - the belief that a census would tell us anything about the PVP balance of any ship is staggering. That kind of comment only makes sense if she, too, assumed that the thread was about PVE.
I can handle "LOL Caldari PVP, stick to Motsu noob" comments from the general playerbase, it's no more than I expect, and an attitude that I benefit greatly from in space. But seeing it so brazenly among certain members of the CSM itself left me aghast in horror.
|
Ulstan
Caldari State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 19:47:00 -
[98]
Quote: The CSM by and large is composed of either carebares, who won't care, or 1337 pvpers, who see Caldari PVP inferiority as an acceptable situation as they aren't effected. The few sane ones on the board are outvoted and the issue therefore never raised. Read the transcripts of the Nighthawk, which got rejected by the CSM, to the "fix large autocanons lawls", which got widespread approval, despite having no evidence, examples, or reasoning.
Yeah, that was deeply disappointing. It was obvious that none of them flew a nighthawk in PvP and just didn't care to see it's PvP performance improved.
The much more vague and much less supported "make large AC's more betterer" idea on the other hand, received enthusiastic support. Guess we know which race's ships the CSM flies.
Sounds like we need a CSM for each race!
|
BhallSpawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.01 04:47:00 -
[99]
/signed buff missles
|
SDragoon
|
Posted - 2008.07.01 05:47:00 -
[100]
Well the problem is that precision missiles seem to just double the explosion velocity. When in real eve terms, ships are either non-mwd and go about 200-500, or MWD and going 3km-9km. Simply doubling the explosion velocity isn't really going to do anything when the gap between speed brackets is a factor of 5.
Also what is up with fury missiles? They have huge range and tech 2 penalties, all for the same damage as faction missiles. |
|
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 19:21:00 -
[101]
i refuse to let this thread drop out of page 1 without a dev reply even if i will have to bump it back up once a day until the servers go down for good
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 19:50:00 -
[102]
Originally by: SDragoon Well the problem is that precision missiles seem to just double the explosion velocity. When in real eve terms, ships are either non-mwd and go about 200-500, or MWD and going 3km-9km. Simply doubling the explosion velocity isn't really going to do anything when the gap between speed brackets is a factor of 5.
Also what is up with fury missiles? They have huge range and tech 2 penalties, all for the same damage as faction missiles.
Scourge Heavy missile: explosion velocity 750m/sec. Precision heavy missile: 1000m/sec.
That's no where near double. It it were double, I think these would be ok. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? |
Albaluna74
|
Posted - 2008.07.05 08:37:00 -
[103]
Originally by: ArmyOfMe i refuse to let this thread drop out of page 1 without a dev reply even if i will have to bump it back up once a day until the servers go down for good
/bump
|
Ruciza
Minmatar The Feminists
|
Posted - 2008.07.05 22:36:00 -
[104]
Originally by: MalVortex
The numbers here speak for themselves. Nano-Hacs are untouchable by missiles (even the awkward Cerberus will have a free -36% to incoming damage); even if they do hit for 20%, they still have to go through T2 resistances and tens of thousands of EHP on top of any active tank / shield regen the ship will boast.
I'm afraid the numbers do not speak for themselves. Please provide actual nanofits on Hacs and Recons and give the damage reduction for them at maximum skills. Compare to the damage reduction if the nanoships had used their slots and rigs for a full tank, passive or active. Compare to their damage increase if they had used the slots for damage modules. Consider the advantageous choice of missile damage type and the existence of flare rigs and missile implants.
|
Albaluna74
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 00:23:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Ruciza
I'm afraid the numbers do not speak for themselves.
Precision Light exp velocity: 3000m/s (frig weapon) Precision heavy exp velocity: 1000m/s (cruiser weapon) Precision Cruise exp velocity: 1000m/s (BS weapon)
Do numbers speak for themselves now?
|
Ruciza
Minmatar The Feminists
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 10:13:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Albaluna74
Originally by: Ruciza
I'm afraid the numbers do not speak for themselves.
Precision Light exp velocity: 3000m/s (frig weapon) Precision heavy exp velocity: 1000m/s (cruiser weapon) Precision Cruise exp velocity: 1000m/s (BS weapon)
Do numbers speak for themselves now?
No they don't. If the numbers really suggest to change something, it could as well be a nerf of precision cruise, not a buff of precision heavies. It's not that easy.
To have a convincing argument you need more than screaming for more damage, just like half of the other threads on the forum. The OP is lacking for anything but numbers without any further context but nebulous/mystic (and populist) claims of the the overpoweredness of nanofits ('thousands of hp', 't2 resists', 'modern nanohacs' ).
|
Bleedingthrough
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 10:57:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Ruciza Edited by: Ruciza on 06/07/2008 10:29:21 To have a convincing argument you need more than screaming for more damage.
lol?! The claims of the OP are IMHO totaly valid and his suggestions reasonable.
But: You lack some convincing arguements.
|
Karina Bellac
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 11:05:00 -
[108]
What I love about missiles currently is that the actual missile travels faster than the explosion 'shock front'. |
Bleedingthrough
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 11:08:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Karina Bellac What I love about missiles currently is that the actual missile travels faster than the explosion 'shock front'.
Actually, in space only relative speed differences should matter... but this is an other topic. *g
|
Ruciza
Minmatar The Feminists
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 11:26:00 -
[110]
Edited by: Ruciza on 06/07/2008 11:27:04
Originally by: Bleedingthrough
Originally by: Ruciza Edited by: Ruciza on 06/07/2008 10:29:21 To have a convincing argument you need more than screaming for more damage.
lol?! The claims of the OP are IMHO totaly valid and his suggestions reasonable.
But: You lack some convincing arguements.
I don't need arguments, the OP has a point to make, not me. His argument is MORE DAMAGE! I ask for some substance.
|
|
Jim Raynor
Caldari Shinra Shinra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 11:47:00 -
[111]
Light: 2625m/s Precision Light: 4500m/s
Heavy: 1125m/s<-higher than cruise missiles Precision Heavy: 1500m/s <-OH HI!!! IM BROKEN BECAUSE I AM THE SAME VALUE AS A BATTLESHIP CLASS WEAPON PLEASE CHANGE MY VALUE TO ABOUT 2200-3000m/s CCP
Cruise: 750m/s Precision Cruise: 1500m/s
Even the most rabid Caldari hater has to admit this is broken. It's been broken since T2 missiles came out, how long does this have to remain broken before it is fixed?
Can we please please get this stuff fixed? ------ I'll make a sig later. |
Carth Reynolds
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 12:40:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Ruciza Edited by: Ruciza on 06/07/2008 11:27:04
Originally by: Bleedingthrough
Originally by: Ruciza Edited by: Ruciza on 06/07/2008 10:29:21 To have a convincing argument you need more than screaming for more damage.
lol?! The claims of the OP are IMHO totaly valid and his suggestions reasonable.
But: You lack some convincing arguements.
I don't need arguments, the OP has a point to make, not me. His argument is MORE DAMAGE! I ask for some substance.
I don't understand how you don't follow the logic train at play here. Missile using cruisers and battlecruisers rely entirely on a frigate class weapon system to deal even modest amounts of damage to nano cruisers. Using a proper medium missile will generally result in negligable amounts of damage to the average non-pimped nano cruiser.
Gun users have more options available for engaging a nano ship. Using their own MWD to cut the angular velocity, painting the target, using tracking enhancers and computers and so forth. Missile users have one option: use precison lights or wait to die while watching your missiles follow a target until they burn out.
I have personally seen this discrepency in my own play time. When armed with HML's my Cerb manages to deliver an astounding 0 - ~10 damage per missile to the nano ships I've seen (specifically a Vagabond who ignored me and a Sac who murdered me). Since that day I've generally armed my Cerb with Assault Launchers because they are simply a better weapon system for the situations I find my Cerb in.
So, while the OP is indeed asking for more damage, I don't think it's unreasonable to want a cruiser class missile that can actually hit the average modern cruiser.
|
Bleedingthrough
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 12:42:00 -
[113]
Edited by: Bleedingthrough on 06/07/2008 12:44:25
Originally by: Ruciza
His argument is MORE DAMAGE! I ask for some substance.
Wrong! This is not about HM but HPM (you know the drawbacks, do you?)and not simply about more dps but a reasonable balancing of diffrent missile types regarding their roles.
Compare the damage of LightPrecitionMissiles with HeavyPrecitionMissiles:
Vs. 2250 km targetspeed both do the same damage over time (unskilled, unriged, rof taken into account). If the target moves faster you are better off using light missiles.
The point of equal dps should be somewhere near 3.5 - 5 k considering the role of HPM, dps to nano-cruisers.
|
Jim Raynor
Caldari Shinra Shinra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 12:53:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Carth Reynolds
Originally by: Ruciza Edited by: Ruciza on 06/07/2008 11:27:04
Originally by: Bleedingthrough
Originally by: Ruciza Edited by: Ruciza on 06/07/2008 10:29:21 To have a convincing argument you need more than screaming for more damage.
lol?! The claims of the OP are IMHO totaly valid and his suggestions reasonable.
But: You lack some convincing arguements.
I don't need arguments, the OP has a point to make, not me. His argument is MORE DAMAGE! I ask for some substance.
I don't understand how you don't follow the logic train at play here. Missile using cruisers and battlecruisers rely entirely on a frigate class weapon system to deal even modest amounts of damage to nano cruisers. Using a proper medium missile will generally result in negligable amounts of damage to the average non-pimped nano cruiser.
Gun users have more options available for engaging a nano ship. Using their own MWD to cut the angular velocity, painting the target, using tracking enhancers and computers and so forth. Missile users have one option: use precison lights or wait to die while watching your missiles follow a target until they burn out.
I have personally seen this discrepency in my own play time. When armed with HML's my Cerb manages to deliver an astounding 0 - ~10 damage per missile to the nano ships I've seen (specifically a Vagabond who ignored me and a Sac who murdered me). Since that day I've generally armed my Cerb with Assault Launchers because they are simply a better weapon system for the situations I find my Cerb in.
So, while the OP is indeed asking for more damage, I don't think it's unreasonable to want a cruiser class missile that can actually hit the average modern cruiser.
Exactly. It's a really bad time to be flying Caldari in EVE right now. Nano warfare makes Caldari look really really sad. Precision are supposed to be our defense against nanoships (remember the drawback on precision is HUGE) and they don't even have the correct explosive velocity values.
CCPs murdering of the Cerberus and crowning the Sacrilege as the king of missile cruisers also makes me very very sad. I don't mind the Sac being good or anything but wow it sure makes a Cerberus LOOK LIKE A COMPLETE JOKE.
me -> ------ I'll make a sig later. |
Sergeant Spot
Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 14:05:00 -
[115]
Excellent OP, and good thread as a whole.
I've got mixed feeling on the current nano-craze, but the least CCP could do is toss the most badly affected race this small and minor bone.
The only reason I can think of for them NOT doing so is that they are thinking of a more serious nerf to nanos, but thoughts on that would be for another thread.....
Play nice while you butcher each other.
|
Ruciza
Minmatar The Feminists
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 16:25:00 -
[116]
Edited by: Ruciza on 06/07/2008 16:30:55
Originally by: Carth Reynolds
Missile using cruisers and battlecruisers rely entirely on a frigate class weapon system to deal even modest amounts of damage to nano cruisers.
Irrelevant. It's about the absolute damage, not what you think is a "frigate weapon", which is an empty word in itself.
Originally by: Carth Reynolds
Using a proper medium missile will generally result in negligable amounts of damage to the average non-pimped nano cruiser.
Irrelevant. What a "proper" missile is lies in the eye of the beholder. Empty words. No substance.
Originally by: Carth Reynolds Gun users have more options available for engaging a nano ship. Using their own MWD to cut the angular velocity, painting the target, using tracking enhancers and computers and so forth. Missile users have one option: use precison lights or wait to die while watching your missiles follow a target until they burn out.
And you want to sit there and F1-F5 and kill everything in a 100km radius around you with your "proper missile" while picking your nose. While the others are using resources on tracking enhancers and do work to hit.
Originally by: Carth Reynolds I have personally seen this discrepency in my own play time. When armed with HML's my Cerb manages to deliver an astounding 0 - ~10 damage per missile to the nano ships I've seen (specifically a Vagabond who ignored me and a Sac who murdered me). Since that day I've generally armed my Cerb with Assault Launchers because they are simply a better weapon system for the situations I find my Cerb in.
And why is this not WAD?
Originally by: Carth Reynolds So, while the OP is indeed asking for more damage, I don't think it's unreasonable to want a cruiser class missile that can actually hit the average modern cruiser.
But why? Give us some fits and tactics to compare. Give us some situations and numbers on absolute damage.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 01:02:00 -
[117]
With absolute maxed skills an no rigs a Cerberus using precision heavy missiles can generate an explosion velocity of 1500 m/s - see the opening posts regarding the damage this yeilds and note that above 3500 m/s or so you damage becomes negligable especially when you consider you're punching through T2 resists - the end result is single digit damage numbers against even Vanilla T2 nano ships.
Gun users, especially pulse laser and autocannons can still deliver DPS on target with reliability on a nano ship traveling 4 - 5 k/s thanks to ballooning signature radiuses. Given a gun user can cut transversal by using their own MWD and maneuvering the native ability to generate DPS on fast moving targets is increased even more.
Missiles on the other hand don't care what you're own ship is doing - transversal is irrelevent and only absolute speed is necissary to evade the damage. Currently, the only weapon system that generates appreciable (I.E. significant enough to actually be able to generate a kill) is a precision light missile. The munition is a frigate class weapon system, generating very low damage meaning that even in the best of circumstances a Vagabond can simply slow down to autocannon velocity and generate more DPS than a Caracal could ever hope to when armed with Precision lights.
Gun users get plenty of options to expand the abilities of their guns to hit fast moving targets. Along with good use of on board navigation possibilities they can also load up on tracking enchancers and tracking computers that can handily boost their ability to hit fast moving targets, along with the requisite rigs. Missile users on the other hand have a single choice: rigs. To choose to use rigs to generate missile damage against a fast moving ship means not only dramatically increasing the uninsured cost of your ship but also removes other ship options such as polycarbs, aux thrusters, resist rigs, extender rigs and so forth.
As the OP pointed out the precision heavy missile is simply worse in every attribute when it comes to delivering effecient damage to a nano ship than a Cruise missile - and the simple fact that a battleship class weapon is better suited to hitting a small fast target than a cruiser class weapon points to an extreme discrepency in how the cruiser class weapon operates. The OP went over this point with great detail and clarity, and the only counter argument generated is "you want more DPS and that's unfair unless you can prove it".
Look at the success of the missile using ships against nano boats - you're not going to find steller successes simply because once a ship has been built to counter a nano ship it's DPS generation under the best of circumstances is laughably low. A HAM Cerb for example can generate around 500 DPS, a HML Drake around 420 DPS, and a HML Caracal around 250 DPS. A precision light Cerb will generate under 200 DPS (well under at that) under the best of circumstances, a precision light Caracal will barely break 100 DPS, and a precison light Drake will struggle to get more than 250 DPS. All of these ships will already be flying slow enough that they are at a maneuverability disadvantage, and even the Vagabonds DPS will exceed the Drake in this circumstance.
Regardless of belief of how the system works, missile using ships need an option other than using tiny launcher shooting tiny missiles to have a hope of bringing down the increasingly common nano ship. The OP's proposed changes don't mean that nano ships will be doomed, but it WOULD mean that nano ships would once again take notice of their presence beyond anticipation of an easy kill mail. Increase the base velocity of the cruiser class missile or have the decency to give us a set a low and mid slot modules that increase the explosion velocity of our missiles - I don't care which solution is chosen as long as something is done to resolve the issue.
|
Albaluna74
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 14:21:00 -
[118]
/bump
|
Damned Force
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 14:39:00 -
[119]
Edited by: Damned Force on 08/07/2008 14:40:19
Quote:
Originally by: Carth Reynolds So, while the OP is indeed asking for more damage, I don't think it's unreasonable to want a cruiser class missile that can actually hit the average modern cruiser.
But why? Give us some fits and tactics to compare. Give us some situations and numbers on absolute damage.
Because nothing and absolute nothing should be able to make a same class ship 100% immune to a same shipclass weapon!!!!!!
And some numbers why prec heavys are broken Ship used Cerb: If i fit heavy missilel with CN scourge do around 400 dps on 190km with missile velocity 8400 and explosion velocity 1125 If i fit with Precision scourge i do around 300dps on 90km with missile velocity 7300 and explosion velocity 1500
Thats with my maxed missileskills.....So lets summarise: I loose around 25% dps, over 50% range, 13% missile velocity to gain 375 explosion velocity!!!!!!!
|
Bleedingthrough
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 22:59:00 -
[120]
Edited by: Bleedingthrough on 08/07/2008 23:00:06
Originally by: Damned Force Edited by: Damned Force on 08/07/2008 14:40:19
Quote:
Originally by: Carth Reynolds So, while the OP is indeed asking for more damage, I don't think it's unreasonable to want a cruiser class missile that can actually hit the average modern cruiser.
But why? Give us some fits and tactics to compare. Give us some situations and numbers on absolute damage.
Because nothing and absolute nothing should be able to make a same class ship 100% immune to a same shipclass weapon!!!!!!
And some numbers why prec heavys are broken Ship used Cerb: If i fit heavy missilel with CN scourge do around 400 dps on 190km with missile velocity 8400 and explosion velocity 1125 If i fit with Precision scourge i do around 300dps on 90km with missile velocity 7300 and explosion velocity 1500
Thats with my maxed missileskills.....So lets summarise: I loose around 25% dps, over 50% range, 13% missile velocity to gain 375 explosion velocity!!!!!!!
Dont forget about the speedmalus makes them even more usefull. ;(
|
|
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 01:25:00 -
[121]
I'm very happy to report that the CSM voted on this issue and decided to escalate it to CCP.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 04:40:00 -
[122]
Originally by: MalVortex I'm very happy to report that the CSM voted on this issue and decided to escalate it to CCP.
That is indeed excellent news. One way or another it was a fantastic effort.
|
Damned Force
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 07:48:00 -
[123]
Originally by: MalVortex I'm very happy to report that the CSM voted on this issue and decided to escalate it to CCP.
Great, so in 1-2 years we can count with a fixed heavy prec missile
|
Caffeine Junkie
2 Guys In Motherships
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 17:54:00 -
[124]
/signed.
Nothing special, not big or clever, just 20 fighters and one hell of a tank.... |
Albaluna74
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 12:18:00 -
[125]
Originally by: MalVortex I'm very happy to report that the CSM voted on this issue and decided to escalate it to CCP.
I cannot see anything about this op.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=819225
|
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.07.15 03:53:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Albaluna74
Originally by: MalVortex I'm very happy to report that the CSM voted on this issue and decided to escalate it to CCP.
I cannot see anything about this op.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=819225
Its on the queue to go to CCP. A lot of issues have been escalated before the precision heavy one. At least, thats my understanding of the situation.
|
Damned Force
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.07.15 08:43:00 -
[127]
Originally by: MalVortex
Originally by: Albaluna74
Originally by: MalVortex I'm very happy to report that the CSM voted on this issue and decided to escalate it to CCP.
I cannot see anything about this op.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=819225
Its on the queue to go to CCP. A lot of issues have been escalated before the precision heavy one. At least, thats my understanding of the situation.
Just pity to see that lot of unimportant issues going trough with 8:0 quotes and every balancing issue for caldari just with 5:4 if even goes trough. Some of the CSM's dont even think about, just vote NO if is about any caldari related thing and PVP :(
|
Flashh Gorden
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.07.15 11:58:00 -
[128]
Good post. Totaly agree about the heavy missiles. What ship these days uses the size of its sig radius as a form of defence? The last time I got a huge benefit from a precision bonus to my ship, was hitting a small gun batterie at a reinfocred pos in my Manticore. The whole concept of precision needs to be reworked in explosion velocity in my opinion.
|
Ulstan
Caldari State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 15:37:00 -
[129]
Edited by: Ulstan on 16/07/2008 15:40:11 Holy crap, it's Jim Raynor!!!!!
Now there's an old face I haven't seen around in a while. I remember us arguing for fixes to missiles waaaaaay back in the MOO days (when they were across the board terrible).
As far as Ruciza goes, there's a class of folks that thinks because missiles are widely used in PvE, they should really suck in PvP, and he falls into this category. Such trolls not really worth arguing with, as they refuse to accept basic assumptions of the need for balance. When shown that one weapon system or ship is manifestly inferior to its competitors and doesn't do the job it is supposed to, their typical response is "Yeah, and?"
|
Jim Raynor
Caldari Shinra
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 20:42:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Ulstan Edited by: Ulstan on 16/07/2008 15:40:11 Holy crap, it's Jim Raynor!!!!!
Now there's an old face I haven't seen around in a while. I remember us arguing for fixes to missiles waaaaaay back in the MOO days (when they were across the board terrible).
As far as Ruciza goes, there's a class of folks that thinks because missiles are widely used in PvE, they should really suck in PvP, and he falls into this category. Such trolls not really worth arguing with, as they refuse to accept basic assumptions of the need for balance. When shown that one weapon system or ship is manifestly inferior to its competitors and doesn't do the job it is supposed to, their typical response is "Yeah, and?"
Yes I have returned and it seems I have all kinds of things to complain about!!!!!!!!! ------ I'll make a sig later. |
|
Ignition SemperFi
The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 02:40:00 -
[131]
/resigned
although some people have some good suggestions I highly recommend the changes Mal is asking for.... no matter what else may come in the way of nano-nerf(too many options)
Just to bring them back in line. ------ People Say Im paranoid because I have a gun, I say I dont have to be paranoid because I have a gun.
Garmon - "I LOK ON TO ROMULAN WARBIRD AND GO POW POW POW" |
Wiccy84
The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 17:47:00 -
[132]
/signed
and seriously can we have a dev at least COMMENT on this, if it was enough to push it through the CSM it should warrant at least a dev response!
|
FlameGlow
Caldari State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 18:29:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Wiccy84 /signed
and seriously can we have a dev at least COMMENT on this, if it was enough to push it through the CSM it should warrant at least a dev response!
What? you expect someone from high and mighty "balance team" to come and say something to mere mortals? And they are not exactly notorious for quick responce either.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 19:37:00 -
[134]
An this is the reason why they have stopped replying.
Originally by: FlameGlow
What? you expect someone from high and mighty "balance team" to come and say something to mere mortals? And they are not exactly notorious for quick responce either.
Way to go insulting someone if you want a reply.
|
Ignition SemperFi
The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 22:41:00 -
[135]
I know your making the speed nerf with tons of other stuff.
But heavy precision missiles still need to be brought in line ------ People Say Im paranoid because I have a gun, I say I dont have to be paranoid because I have a gun.
Garmon - "I LOK ON TO ROMULAN WARBIRD AND GO POW POW POW" |
Xofii
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.10.01 08:05:00 -
[136]
Have they fixed this yet? If not could Nohz please at least respond why this is not an issue, it clearly looks like someone missed a decimal.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.01 08:11:00 -
[137]
Missiles will be changed across the board with the speed changes, so the heavy precision fix will (hopefully) be bound up with the general speed fix.
|
Ignition SemperFi
The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.10.02 09:26:00 -
[138]
I have faith in Nozh.... he is going to fix citadel torps.... so maybe just maybe he looks at this issue, if they arent going to go through with the nano nerf ------ People Say Im paranoid because I have a gun, I say I dont have to be paranoid because I have a gun.
Garmon - "I LOK ON TO ROMULAN WARBIRD AND GO POW POW POW" |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |