| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bi Tor
   |
Posted - 2008.07.05 16:38:00 -
[31]
Having flown missile boats against nanos for some time now, and almost always losing or watching the nano warp away. I also think that the interaction between missiles and nanos needs a rethink.
First, a description of what is actually happening. Missiles pursue there targets by attempting to intercept the actual target. This almost always causes the missile to detonate behind the target. Since the explosion is behind the target the explosion has to catch the target. This is bad, very bad.
What should happen. The missiles should pursue a point in space in front of the target. This point is the location where the ship will be when the explosion radius is equal to (or contained within) the signature radius of the target when the target occupies that point. This forces the target to fly into the explosion adding the velocity of the target to the explosion velocity and increasing the force of the blast. Since the velocity of the target adds little to the force of the missiles detonation that value is effectively negated.
NOTE: For a technologically advance society that is capable of space travel and hype-light communications this level of calculation would be the norm. Also, this is not a true intercept calculation, it is still a tail chase that has the warhead detonation in front of the target.
Net effect. Remove the Explosion Velocity calculation from the function. If a missile can catch you it will apply maximum damage. Small fast ships should be able to out run the missile.
Change in tactics. Small fast ships will actually be forced to out run the missile, by either orbiting the firing ship or running away. No longer will they be able to ignore the missiles while charging directly at the missile firing ship. I.E. currently a vaga will joust with a cerb since that gives the best firing solution for the vaga and the cerbs missile can not do any damage to the vaga because of it's nano enhanced speed (this applies for all nano's vs. missile boats.)
Compensations for the added damage. If the damages are to high either increase the explosion radius of the missile (effectively the deviations in the trajectory calculations.) Alternatively make a point defense system that actually works. This system would need to be automated, I turn it on/off and it decides at whom and when to shoot. These could be defensive turrets (CLOSE-IN WEAPON SYSTEM) or an improved version of the defender missiles. Another possibility is a smart bomb with extended range and reduced damage. A single pulse (fire action) might destroy cruise missile and smaller where two are needed for torpedoes and three or more to destroy Citadel Torpedoes.
Bite Me! |
Marcus Gideon
Gallente
Excessive Force
|
Posted - 2008.07.05 18:12:00 -
[32]
Genius! Pure genius!
You contribution to this thread is an awe inspiring wonder.
 Quote:
Make missiles better. Make defenses better to compensate.
That's... well, that's exactly what I suggested from the first post.
But thank you for your very obscure and roundabout way of saying
Quote:
/signed
I agree with Marcus, because he's so smart and handsome.
---
Don't take my rantings personally. I'm more than likely arguing the point at hand, and anyone playing "Devil's Advocate" will feel my wrath. |
Mazaron
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 01:19:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Mazaron on 06/07/2008 01:20:54
Here's a way to counter nanos using missiles.
Make them explode AHEAD of the target, so by the time the target reaches it the missile is mid-explosion, thus hitting the ship that just flew right into the explosion, that said though, repeated course changes can fix this, but that also means you lose a lot of speed changing direction
|
Marcus Gideon
Gallente
Excessive Force
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 01:29:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Marcus Gideon on 06/07/2008 01:29:17
*points at Bi Tor*
That's what he just said... but thank you for playing.
---
Don't take my rantings personally. I'm more than likely arguing the point at hand, and anyone playing "Devil's Advocate" will feel my wrath. |
Bi Tor
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 03:40:00 -
[35]
The ideas I suggested for discussions are not what you suggested. They are very different in fact.
1) I do not recommend increasing the Explosion Velocities. Unless the increases are limited to the small missiles. And no, most nanos can out run the missile fired at them, 8+km/sec for many nanos including cruisers. Since, based upon the current Explosion Velocity calculations there is a definite amount of damage that is avoided by fast moving small ships. I suggested a small increase in Missile Explosion Radius as compensation.
2) Secondary Effects are totally out imho. No other system gives those effects, why should missiles?
3) Missiles gaining smart guidance. There are but two types of smart guidance I can think of right now. One that allows for true minimum time intercepts and one that allows FoF missile to select a new target of opportunity if it's current target can not be intercepted.
AGAINST MISSILES
1) I make no comment about missiles gaining Sig Radius, and Structure Points.
2) Should all four races receive their own Close-in Weapon System. I totally agree with this point. I also suggested that basic anti-missile system needed to be fixed as another alternative for missile damage reduction (this also reflects all those systems that reduce turret efficiencies.) If missiles are not fixed to become a capable weapon in all combat regimens (PvP/PvE) then there is little reason for improved missile defenses.
I believe I stated the ideas clearly and with applicable supporting arguments, including the anticipated effects of the change.
Marcus, I do however take offense at your comments about my post and what you think I should have said. I disagree with much of your original posts.
Originally by: Sha'Aryn
If you've ever watched the Discovery Channel's Future Weapons, there's also an antimissile system in development called "Metal Storm" which fires magnetically propelled bullets at a rate up to 1 million rounds per minute.
I think maybe this would be the Gallente CIWS. But maybe the Minmatari have stolen it for their ships.
Bite Me! |
Marcus Gideon
Gallente
Excessive Force
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 12:23:00 -
[36]
Mr. Bi Tor...
I'm sorry you don't have a sense of humor. I was merely joking that you did agree with my defense measures, and were suggesting improvements to missiles to compensate.
1) Making missiles faster, in order to intercept with Nanos, would only make Nano pilots whine about how they aren't fast enough anymore. Whereas making the explosion faster, would still inflict damage without the missile overtaking them. And if they are still moving fast enough, they can take reduced damage which is why they use Speed Tank in the first place. But flying into the explosion would inflict more damage, and negate the Speed Tank entirely.
2) Secondary effects have been a topic on the forums in the past. I don't think they'd be priority here either, but if they were ever to be introduced, I thought it might be an opportunity.
3) Missiles gaining smart guidance is to balance the increased defense measures. If the missile can tell its been locked by a pilot or their AMDS, then it will attempt to dodge so as not to be destroyed prematurely.
4) Sig Radius and Structure Points are also part of the AMDS. It's to provide the mechanics by which a missile could die before impact, or survive long enough to hit the target regardless.
5) Again, increasing missile effectiveness would encourage people to use the new defenses. I agree, currently there may not be much need for new defenses if the missiles continue to suck.
---
Don't take my rantings personally. I'm more than likely arguing the point at hand, and anyone playing "Devil's Advocate" will feel my wrath. |
Kiki Arnolds
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 15:14:00 -
[37]
Your not gonna get missles changed to wtfpwn ceptors, the devs realize that ceptors need speed tanks, and that they are not the nano "problem". When a nano nerf is implemented, it will primarly nerf ships not INTENDED to speed tank. When considering your missle proposals, remember, unlike all the other weapons systems, MISSLES DON'T MISS.
ç¦ |
Mahn AlNouhm
The Bastards
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 15:21:00 -
[38]
Missiles don't miss, but they take 10 million years to get to the target.
.
.
.
|
Ehranavaar
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 21:20:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Psychotic Penguin
It would be really good if missiles could do some damage to nanos, just a little bit of damage be it by having special missiles for it or some other means that don't make missiles overpowered towards other targets.
if they just considered the effective speed of the explosion instead of an arbitrary number it would go far toward fixing the problem with nano ships and missiles. not all missiles explode behind the target some of them are actually in front of the target thus the blast front isn't X - ship speed it's X + ship speed.
|
Ehranavaar
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 21:26:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Sha'Aryn
If you've ever watched the Discovery Channel's Future Weapons, there's also an antimissile system in development called "Metal Storm" which fires magnetically propelled bullets at a rate up to 1 million rounds per minute.
I think maybe this would be the Gallente CIWS. But maybe the Minmatari have stolen it for their ships.
Metal Storm is NOT a magnetically propelled bullet emitter. the rounds are pretty conventional except the entire barrel is packed with them nose to tail and they are electronically fired at the rate desired by the user.
|
Bi Tor
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 03:04:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Ehranavaar
if they just considered the effective speed of the explosion instead of an arbitrary number it would go far toward fixing the problem with nano ships and missiles. not all missiles explode behind the target some of them are actually in front of the target thus the blast front isn't X - ship speed it's X + ship speed.
Interestingly enough the velocity at the point of the explosion and the ship may actually be much greater. If you include the velocity of the missile itself the true explosion velocity approaches their combined values.
impact velocity = missile Vector + explosion Vector(@ the point on the explosions sphere tangent to the signature radius of the target.) - target Vector
If this value is positive some part of the blast energy will intersect the sig. rad. of the target and damage will be done. However if this number is negative the target ship will out run the blast resulting in a miss for 0 dmg done. Forgive the simplifications I have not worked with 3d vectors for many years, I don't want to make to many errors.
The real trick is to determine what part of the explosions sphere is inside the signature foot print of the target. This would be pointless and take to many CPU cycles, especially since with proper guidance the detonation would placed to reach it's maximum potential inside of the targets sig. rad.
I still think removing the explosion velocity from the calculation is the best route.
I see no reason to increase the speed of the missile. If a ship has the ability to out run the missile it should. That defensive tactic is valid now, why not 20k years into the future. What I don't want is for a nano-fitted ship to fly towards the missile and escape the blast because the missile always detonates behind it's target.
I think missile should do more random damage, like turrets. I'm not familiar enough with turrets to fully understand how those damage fluctuations are determined. I do believe that terminal missile guidance should not be accurate enough to always score a perfect hit.
Bite Me! |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |