EVE Search - [Issue] Extremely Simple Fix to Make Missile More Viable at Range

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Issue] Extremely Simple Fix to Make Missile More Viable at Range

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tarminic 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.07.24 22:44:00 - [1] One of the biggest complaints about missile use in PvP is that in engagements above a certain size where distances or numbers are significant, long range missiles simply don't have enough time to reach a target before it warps off or is destroyed. I suggest something that will significantly minimize this without giving missiles any negative balance effects. Double Missile Velocity, Half Missile Flight Time This change would literally take five minutes of a developer's time. If anyone can think of a compelling reason as to why this would be a poor decision, feel free to post it. Otherwise, I would like your support on this issue. ---------------- Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3)
Brother Nightfall	Posted - 2008.07.24 22:56:00 - [2] Edited by: Brother Nightfall on 24/07/2008 22:56:59 Ha ha, I get it now... Man, he's good. EDIT: First post in a Tarminic thread aside, supported. Also, buff Precision Heavies plx
Tarminic 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.07.24 23:14:00 - [3] Edited by: Tarminic on 24/07/2008 23:13:59 Originally by: Brother Nightfall Edited by: Brother Nightfall on 24/07/2008 22:56:59 Ha ha, I get it now... Man, he's good. Trust me...if I was trolling, you'd know it. ---------------- Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3)
Siona Windweaver	Posted - 2008.07.24 23:29:00 - [4]
Herring Alcatraz Inc. Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.07.25 02:19:00 - [5] Oh hell yes. Kicking myself for not thinking of this first.
Siebenthal	Posted - 2008.07.25 02:42:00 - [6] This may be oversimplifying things but isn't flight time part of the trade off for not having to worry about tracking?
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2008.07.25 02:44:00 - [7] Originally by: Siebenthal This may be oversimplifying things but isn't flight time part of the trade off for not having to worry about tracking? If this goes in my proposal about making shield tankers damage mods go in the midslots must also be taken into consideration. Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav! Also Known As
Aristreia Saelorn	Posted - 2008.07.25 02:54:00 - [8] This is actually a change that should go in regardless of it's implications for making missiles a valid option for PvP. This would also improve missiles for PvE. Unlike turret weaponry, which strikes a ship instantly, missiles have to travel to their target and don't always reach their maximum range and are quite slow to begin with. If you doubled the velocity but halved the flight time, it would still give you the exact same base range, but would make that rank 4 Missile projection skill all the more important for PvP and PvE to train to level 5. Supported.
BiggestT Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.07.25 03:25:00 - [9] Originally by: Danton Marcellus Originally by: Siebenthal This may be oversimplifying things but isn't flight time part of the trade off for not having to worry about tracking? If this goes in my proposal about making shield tankers damage mods go in the midslots must also be taken into consideration. nonsense missiles get one dmg mod turrets get a damgae mod a med slot tracking/range mod and a low slot trakcing/range mod stfu But OP's idea sounds like win /signed poudly annoying fc's since 2007 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=828123 caldari drone boat enthusiast
Aeo IV Xomic OmniCorporation	Posted - 2008.07.25 08:04:00 - [10] signed. this also should reduce the amount of overkilling caused by launching a second volley of missiles at a ship that dies when the first volley finally hits

Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.07.25 08:21:00 - [11] Originally by: Tarminic One of the biggest complaints about missile use in PvP is that in engagements above a certain size where distances or numbers are significant, long range missiles simply don't have enough time to reach a target before it warps off or is destroyed. I suggest something that will significantly minimize this without giving missiles any negative balance effects. Double Missile Velocity, Half Missile Flight Time This change would literally take five minutes of a developer's time. If anyone can think of a compelling reason as to why this would be a poor decision, feel free to post it. Otherwise, I would like your support on this issue. Doing this would be a severe nerf to anti-missile systems, which already are subpar when compared to anti-turret systems. It might still be a good idea on the long run, you'd see more ships like the Typhoon in fleets, but there need to be a viable counter to them. ------------------------------------------
Venkul Mul	Posted - 2008.07.25 08:42:00 - [12] Originally by: Tarminic One of the biggest complaints about missile use in PvP is that in engagements above a certain size where distances or numbers are significant, long range missiles simply don't have enough time to reach a target before it warps off or is destroyed. I suggest something that will significantly minimize this without giving missiles any negative balance effects. Double Missile Velocity, Half Missile Flight Time This change would literally take five minutes of a developer's time. If anyone can think of a compelling reason as to why this would be a poor decision, feel free to post it. Otherwise, I would like your support on this issue. Never seen the original Dev post, so I can not vouchsafe for the truthfulness of the statement, but I have seen several people referring to a Dev statement saying that missiles have already the max speed manageable by the system. Apparently the the calculation for missile acceleration, trajectory and agility (they have a agility stat as they don't turn in 0 space) are pretty heavy. Making them faster will require more operations as they will need to check position/speed/trajectory more often. It is like for the drones: the absence of drone upgrade implants and the often broken effect of drone modules is linked to the load they impose on the system. Adding something to them will increase the load. After that, and adding that a simple exchange double speed for half flight time is a large boost for missiles and that it would require some other tradeoff to keep it balanced, I am favorable to this suggestion.
Rinaldo Titano Caldari Elite Force	Posted - 2008.07.25 08:48:00 - [13] /signed
Molock Saronen	Posted - 2008.07.25 10:21:00 - [14]
Jeirth Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.07.25 10:47:00 - [15] Originally by: Aristreia Saelorn Unlike turret weaponry, which strikes a ship instantly, missiles have to travel to their target and don't always reach their maximum range and are quite slow to begin with. As i understand it, missiles do not reach their theoretical maximum range (flight time x missile speed) due to the fact that after being launched, they accelerate to reach their maximum velocity, it would be nice to know what the acceleration figures are for the various missiles as then the number crunchers could produce a spreadsheet that would tell people what their true firing distances are. However, on topic Going twice as fast for half as long may also help with the nano issue. /Support
Dubh Sidhe Sidhe Industries Aegis Consortium	Posted - 2008.07.26 15:55:00 - [16] Originally by: Shadowsword Doing this would be a severe nerf to anti-missile systems, which already are subpar when compared to anti-turret systems. It might still be a good idea on the long run, you'd see more ships like the Typhoon in fleets, but there need to be a viable counter to them. A viable anti-missile system? for mid to large scale battles, have a couple of missile boats rack up on rocket launchers and fill them all with defenders. Each rocket launcher holds 10 defenders with a RoF of about 2 secs. If ya use a drake, that's 7 launchers giving one nasty missile defense grid. Granted the gangs DPS goes down quite a bit, but it will seriously hamper the opponents missile throw weight. As for Defenders, I'd say double their speed but leave flight time alone. 2x speed and 1/2 time on everything else sounds good to me.
Dzajic Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.07.26 16:04:00 - [17] I propose that all Achura Caldari players should get access to dev console and ability to kill any ship in game or delete anyone's character.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.07.26 16:12:00 - [18] Originally by: Dubh Sidhe Originally by: Shadowsword Doing this would be a severe nerf to anti-missile systems, which already are subpar when compared to anti-turret systems. It might still be a good idea on the long run, you'd see more ships like the Typhoon in fleets, but there need to be a viable counter to them. A viable anti-missile system? for mid to large scale battles, have a couple of missile boats rack up on rocket launchers and fill them all with defenders. Each rocket launcher holds 10 defenders with a RoF of about 2 secs. If ya use a drake, that's 7 launchers giving one nasty missile defense grid. Granted the gangs DPS goes down quite a bit, but it will seriously hamper the opponents missile throw weight. As for Defenders, I'd say double their speed but leave flight time alone. 2x speed and 1/2 time on everything else sounds good to me. Please, they don't work that way at all. At least learn how they work before commenting.
Dubh Sidhe Sidhe Industries Aegis Consortium	Posted - 2008.07.27 01:48:00 - [19] Originally by: Venkul Mul Please, they don't work that way at all. At least learn how they work before commenting. Please explain it to me oh great guru... Last time I checked, Defenders automatically target, chase and, hopefully, destroy an incoming missile. If someone tosses 6 cruises or torps out and you launch 4 defenders, you have a chance of reducing the incoming damage by 2/3 (not likely, but a chance). With the RoF of rocket launchers, you have the possibility of getting enough defenders out there to hopefully destroy all the opposing missiles. Also, Defenders seek out any hostile missile. You do not have to be the target. Biggest thing is, you have to wait until the bad guys launch before you can activate the defender launchers. I've flown missile defense in a kestrel with 4 rocket launchers. Sometimes it works, some times it doesn't. If there were no missile boats in an engagement, I'd just switch to normal rockets and provide what puny DPS I could. Defenders are not perfect. They're too slow to be of any real use. You cannot set them to auto fire. But they do work.. sometimes.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.07.27 07:42:00 - [20] Originally by: Dubh Sidhe Originally by: Venkul Mul Please, they don't work that way at all. At least learn how they work before commenting. Please explain it to me oh great guru... Last time I checked, Defenders automatically target, chase and, hopefully, destroy an incoming missile. If someone tosses 6 cruises or torps out and you launch 4 defenders, you have a chance of reducing the incoming damage by 2/3 (not likely, but a chance). With the RoF of rocket launchers, you have the possibility of getting enough defenders out there to hopefully destroy all the opposing missiles. Also, Defenders seek out any hostile missile. You do not have to be the target. Biggest thing is, you have to wait until the bad guys launch before you can activate the defender launchers. I've flown missile defense in a kestrel with 4 rocket launchers. Sometimes it works, some times it doesn't. If there were no missile boats in an engagement, I'd just switch to normal rockets and provide what puny DPS I could. Defenders are not perfect. They're too slow to be of any real use. You cannot set them to auto fire. But they do work.. sometimes. Simple, they block only missiles firet at you.

Lord Zoran House of Tempers	Posted - 2008.07.27 10:03:00 - [21] Edited by: Lord Zoran on 27/07/2008 10:03:26 nice idea, would probably make more people use missile ships in fleets or at least get some kills if they already are
Lt Angus Caldari Lt Angus Corp	Posted - 2008.07.27 11:02:00 - [22] Originally by: BiggestT Originally by: Danton Marcellus Originally by: Siebenthal This may be oversimplifying things but isn't flight time part of the trade off for not having to worry about tracking? If this goes in my proposal about making shield tankers damage mods go in the midslots must also be taken into consideration. nonsense missiles get one dmg mod turrets get a damgae mod a med slot tracking/range mod and a low slot trakcing/range mod stfu But OP's idea sounds like win /signed and you think having to use more slots to do what you do with 1 slot is an advantage of guns?? Shhhh, Im hunting Badgers
Captator Universal Securities	Posted - 2008.07.27 12:16:00 - [23] Would also neatly decrease the problem that some caldari pilots seem to have in working out how to hurt nanoships I like this idea.
Rupert VonDraken Shade.	Posted - 2008.07.27 13:10:00 - [24] To the OP... you are a fool. Think about the effect that missiles that go twice as fast will have on pvp - no longer will damage be mitigated by the speed of the target, since the missiles will be going so quick, that not even inties will be able to escape! Let me guess - you fly a drake/raven, and never do anything other than lvl4 missions in a 0.5 systems somewhere. Couple your ridiculous suggestion with the speed nerf, and small scale pvp will die. Once ppl accept that to be viable in fleet pvp they will have to train turrets, and accept that a valid pve fit will not work for pvp, the happier eve will be!
Jeirth Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.07.27 13:54:00 - [25] I believe the topic was raised before the proposed speed nano changes were brought up, at least i voted before i saw the dev blog. Since when was eve supposed to offer any way for someone to be immune to being damaged Anyway, with the proposed changes to speed/nano i suggest that this topic should be held in abeyance until after change testing
Malcanis We are Legend	Posted - 2008.07.27 17:11:00 - [26] Originally by: Shadowsword Originally by: Tarminic One of the biggest complaints about missile use in PvP is that in engagements above a certain size where distances or numbers are significant, long range missiles simply don't have enough time to reach a target before it warps off or is destroyed. I suggest something that will significantly minimize this without giving missiles any negative balance effects. Double Missile Velocity, Half Missile Flight Time This change would literally take five minutes of a developer's time. If anyone can think of a compelling reason as to why this would be a poor decision, feel free to post it. Otherwise, I would like your support on this issue. Doing this would be a severe nerf to anti-missile systems, which already are subpar when compared to anti-turret systems. It might still be a good idea on the long run, you'd see more ships like the Typhoon in fleets, but there need to be a viable counter to them. Does anyone actually ever use defenders? I mean apart fom Lol-fit small AC active hull-tank raven pilots? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Malcanis We are Legend	Posted - 2008.07.27 17:11:00 - [27] Originally by: Rupert VonDraken To the OP... you are a fool. Think about the effect that missiles that go twice as fast will have on pvp - no longer will damage be mitigated by the speed of the target, since the missiles will be going so quick, that not even inties will be able to escape! Let me guess - you fly a drake/raven, and never do anything other than lvl4 missions in a 0.5 systems somewhere. Couple your ridiculous suggestion with the speed nerf, and small scale pvp will die. Once ppl accept that to be viable in fleet pvp they will have to train turrets, and accept that a valid pve fit will not work for pvp, the happier eve will be! Cruise missiles already do over 10Km/s on unrigged ravens. Yet inties are not in danger from them. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Shiho Weitong State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.07.27 17:47:00 - [28] Wow. That's a lot of hate from people who have decided that missiles simply most not be an option in pvp. I use them already anyways and never get kills. Still happy. Still having fun. And losing a lot of ships, but hey, so what. As it is now, missiles can only be used to secondary small-ish support ships, so I think this is actually a good idea. And I hate you severely for getting it before me. /signed ----------------------- Why is it called common sense, when it's clearly very rare. I had a mind once, but alas, I seem to have forgotten where I left it.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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