Originally by: Stab Wounds

---

Originally by: AstroPhobic

---

MISSILES USERS HAV EXPLOITS THEIR MISSILES HIT ALL THE TIME NO MATTA WHAT LEARN 2 PLAY THE GAME WITHOUT UR INVINCULNERABILITY FIELD WITH ALL DAMAGE TYPES EXPLOITING ALL WEAKNESS EXPLOITS LEARN 2 PLAY HAX.

---

thanks dood i never talk like that sorry

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Um, where's this 43% reduction of base damage coming from?

-Liang

---

Originally by: Gypsio III

---

Nerfs only affect the incompetent.

---

Originally by: Stab Wounds

---

Devs said they are going to nerf missiles but I don't think they should. Most caldari ships can't fit mwd, web, and point for pvp now they want to nerf us some more so speed fits can get hit by missiles for 0 damage again when the nanonerf comes out.

So my caldari pilots do you really want them to nerf you more?

---

Quote:

---

and why does caldari only have a bonus to kinetic missiles? caldari should get bonuses to all missile damage types because we are the MISSILE RACE. gayllente get an extra damage system drones with bonus to all damage types.

---

Quote:

---

The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.

---

Originally by: Grimpak

---

**** all this nonsense.



NERF PLAYERS I SAY!

---

Originally by: Torvalis Moschino

---

To be honest, if they left missiles the way they are, it would be a stealth boost to the split weapon systems every body seems to hate.

( so would that be a minmatar boost?)

---

Originally by: El Yatta

---

Look, ffs, I thought we had an agreement. State Protectorate are not allowed to post on the forums, and I wont be forced to bash my own head against the screen in despair, when they do.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 13/08/2008 19:55:44

Originally by: Torvalis Moschino

---

To be honest, if they left missiles the way they are, it would be a stealth boost to the split weapon systems every body seems to hate.

( so would that be a minmatar boost?)

---

Actually, if they leave them the way that they are it's a huge Caldari boost, and Matari ships have less of everything save speed (which is utterly unimportant).

Thus, no, it's not a Matari boost, because Matari give up alot for a boost to a typically unbonused weapon platform, while Caldari give up nothing for a boost to a bonused platform. :)

-Liang

---

Originally by: Naomi Knight

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 13/08/2008 19:55:44

Originally by: Torvalis Moschino

---

To be honest, if they left missiles the way they are, it would be a stealth boost to the split weapon systems every body seems to hate.

( so would that be a minmatar boost?)

---

Actually, if they leave them the way that they are it's a huge Caldari boost, and Matari ships have less of everything save speed (which is utterly unimportant).

Thus, no, it's not a Matari boost, because Matari give up alot for a boost to a typically unbonused weapon platform, while Caldari give up nothing for a boost to a bonused platform. :)

-Liang

---

Thats why because you cant remove speed from caldari due to has none. Oh and a boost to the weapon platform sure it is well everything is a boost for it ,if you can do more than zero dps ,which caldari missile ships do against any nano ships atm.

It hurts minmatars that after this nerf caldari will be able to fight back,isnt it?

---

Originally by: Naomi Knight

---

Thats why because you cant remove speed from caldari due to has none. Oh and a boost to the weapon platform sure it is well everything is a boost for it ,if you can do more than zero dps ,which caldari missile ships do against any nano ships atm.

It hurts minmatars that after this nerf caldari will be able to fight back,isnt it?

---

Quote:

---

The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.

---

Originally by: Grimpak

---

that's why players should be nerfed.



ok that's it. I want to start a petition to nerf players. who's with me?

---

Originally by: CCP Oveur

---

...every forum whine feels like a baby pony is getting killed

---

Originally by: Derek Sigres

---

I don't particularly agree with Liang's scenario on the subject regarding orbit speeds at > 1km but the fact of the matter is there is potential for a HAM drake to kill a Megathron at hull rubbing ranges.

---

Quote:

---

If missiles needed to make a change in my book it would look something like:

Legitimate bonus for Precison heavies (i.e. 2km explosion velocity to differentiate it from the Precision Cruise, remove the speed nerf on the missile as no other precison missile has this).

---

Quote:

---

Then add a simple variable for point blank combat - precision missiles have a MINIMUM range - below which they do steadily decreasing damage (0 damage at 0 meters - no time for warhead to arm), standard missiles have a smaller minimum range but it exists anyway. Unguided missiles (rockets) have incredibly small minimum ranages (50m say for rockets - they only fly 10km anyway, 1km for HAM's, 4km for torps) and the real issues have been assuaged. Standard Heavy missiles will still suck against fast moving targets, and precision missiles have a point blank range downside. Removing damage at point blank ranges ensures that 1) megas aren't ougunned by an AB'ing raven orbiting at 1km and 2) point blank range offers a degree of safety from the missiles that currently doesn't exist.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Originally by: Derek Sigres

---

I don't particularly agree with Liang's scenario on the subject regarding orbit speeds at > 1km but the fact of the matter is there is potential for a HAM drake to kill a Megathron at hull rubbing ranges.

---

Well, the *biggest* problem doesn't lie with the Drake even though the Drake overpowers the cruiser/battlecruiser field easliy. The *biggest* problem is with the Raven completely usurping all gank roles under 30km and having no problems at all with absolutely ganking anything smaller than it.

People are not joking in the slightest when they make the comparisons about Ravens killing AF's in 2 volleys and unfit Stabbers permatanking Megathrons. And while I don't object to having to use different tactics to kill different ships, the fact of the matter is that the web nerf means that no close range turret can at all even vaguely compete with similar close range missile platforms.

Quote:

---

If missiles needed to make a change in my book it would look something like:

Legitimate bonus for Precison heavies (i.e. 2km explosion velocity to differentiate it from the Precision Cruise, remove the speed nerf on the missile as no other precison missile has this).

---

+1

Quote:

---

Then add a simple variable for point blank combat - precision missiles have a MINIMUM range - below which they do steadily decreasing damage (0 damage at 0 meters - no time for warhead to arm), standard missiles have a smaller minimum range but it exists anyway. Unguided missiles (rockets) have incredibly small minimum ranages (50m say for rockets - they only fly 10km anyway, 1km for HAM's, 4km for torps) and the real issues have been assuaged. Standard Heavy missiles will still suck against fast moving targets, and precision missiles have a point blank range downside. Removing damage at point blank ranges ensures that 1) megas aren't ougunned by an AB'ing raven orbiting at 1km and 2) point blank range offers a degree of safety from the missiles that currently doesn't exist.

---

Errrr... I dunno about that. That doesn't really help the crux of the problem that has been raised over and over and over: It's utterly pointless to fly a blaster mega with max skills if you have Caldari BS4 and Cruise/Torps 4.

-Liang

---

Originally by: Derek Sigres

---

The absolute minimum ranges are up for debate certainly. The issue we see isn't that missiles do damage out to their max range and depend only on absolute speed or signature radius for reduction it's the fact that absolute speed is impossible to attain at point blank range. If we're concerned about the mega's ability to track a battleship under 60% web with tracking bonused guns because the raven doesn't have the issue (and as such outganks it, which is really an unforgivable sin) then we find the issue is with the fact that a raven has no minimum engagement range. Setting minimum ranges on missiles means you SIMULATE the effects of poor tracking at close ranges and could be done with a pure reduction on damage or as a linear (or even exponential) increase in explosion radius (your missile guidance isn't good enough to hit that close).

If you're going to nerf missiles then at least this plan makes sense at resolving the ONE legitimate gripe you can have about the trackingless system in play.

---

Originally by: Naomi Knight

---

Originally by: Derek Sigres

---

The absolute minimum ranges are up for debate certainly. The issue we see isn't that missiles do damage out to their max range and depend only on absolute speed or signature radius for reduction it's the fact that absolute speed is impossible to attain at point blank range. If we're concerned about the mega's ability to track a battleship under 60% web with tracking bonused guns because the raven doesn't have the issue (and as such outganks it, which is really an unforgivable sin) then we find the issue is with the fact that a raven has no minimum engagement range. Setting minimum ranges on missiles means you SIMULATE the effects of poor tracking at close ranges and could be done with a pure reduction on damage or as a linear (or even exponential) increase in explosion radius (your missile guidance isn't good enough to hit that close).

If you're going to nerf missiles then at least this plan makes sense at resolving the ONE legitimate gripe you can have about the trackingless system in play.

---

As you said small ships has no chance to negate dmg against missiles when moving at low speed. They only can do this at high speed ,what they do nowadays and mostly make missile ships obsolete.
I do think minimum ranges for missiles are not a good idea it is very simmilar with guns but completly eliminates any counters.For example any bs could keep 0-1km range to a raven and suffer no dmg at all only drones.
So i would say that they should have minimum target sig randius like 100m for torps this way frigs would be completly unharmed from torps, only would be able to harm them if you put them many target painters or they turn on mwd then explo velocity would still hurd missile dps.

And add in that missile ships usually has much less drones then gun ships. And drones are good against small ships.

---

Originally by: Haradgrim

---

Originally by: Grimpak

---

that's why players should be nerfed.



ok that's it. I want to start a petition to nerf players. who's with me?

---

I'm sparticus! err, I'm with you!

---

Quote:

---

The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Derek, I think you're missing part of my point: missiles are (or were), roughly speaking, staying the same. In the face of that, webs were being nerfed... which was a direct nerf to the tracking of blasters and autocannons.

I don't mind that the Raven/Drake does DPS at 0m... I mind that now the Raven clearly outdamages these other turret based gank boats even at their best. In the Great Blaster Thread of Gamedev it's been put forward that missiles maybe should stay the same, but the tracking formula changes thus:

sig_radius *= min(1, (optimal+falloff)/range)

This would mean that as a ship gets deeper into your optimal + falloff (meaning it's closer to you) it's apparent sig radius gets bigger. This might make webs more of a "hold them down and gank them" rather than a "OMG I can actually hit something!" module.

-Liang

---

Originally by: Derek Sigres

---

But then you have to realize that getting closer to ANY ship makes you easier to hit - this doesn't resolve the issue you have - it simply exacerbates current ones and stands to make battleships more prevelent in combat. HAC's reduced size would mean little when being engaged by battleships and god forbid they had MWD turned on - thier sig would become capital sized in no time at all.

The problem seems to be that much of eve breaks down once you hit certain limits. A one size fits all algorithm for determining success or failure clearly isn't the solution we're looking for. In this case something is needed to bridge that 0M - 1km gap that turret ships face currently. A better solution in my mind is to make webs variable - with 60% at their optimal and increasing in strength as you close - If the web was 90% at 3km then there's no issue at all here, and as long as the steps were staggered properly you'd find there is still an increased survivability at closer ranges for certain ships.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Originally by: Derek Sigres

---

But then you have to realize that getting closer to ANY ship makes you easier to hit - this doesn't resolve the issue you have - it simply exacerbates current ones and stands to make battleships more prevelent in combat. HAC's reduced size would mean little when being engaged by battleships and god forbid they had MWD turned on - thier sig would become capital sized in no time at all.

The problem seems to be that much of eve breaks down once you hit certain limits. A one size fits all algorithm for determining success or failure clearly isn't the solution we're looking for. In this case something is needed to bridge that 0M - 1km gap that turret ships face currently. A better solution in my mind is to make webs variable - with 60% at their optimal and increasing in strength as you close - If the web was 90% at 3km then there's no issue at all here, and as long as the steps were staggered properly you'd find there is still an increased survivability at closer ranges for certain ships.

---

The problem isn't at 0-1km... though it is most exacerbated there. The problem is that blasters simply cannot hit things in web range because of how transversal plays out. Webs have been hiding this for a long time.

90% web at 3km would only barely help your average blaster ship.

-Liang

---

Originally by: Stab Wounds

---

Devs said they are going to nerf missiles

---