EVE Search - A Small Update on the Speed Changes

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

A Small Update on the Speed Changes

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
PirceHat	Posted - 2008.09.05 05:34:00 - [31] Edited by: PirceHat on 05/09/2008 07:21:05 The Chart. Click for Larger: *The source* http://oss.hwcommunity.com/other/missiles/missiledamage.htm Qualitative analysis of the data: Basically, I calculated a exponential best fit for the speeds, and set it so that the explosion velocity was inline with the best fit for the Upper limits speed with just an mwd. Than I brought explosion velocities into a similar best fit so that they where close with the targeted class after skills. They are displayed in red with the top of the error representing explosion falloff. This could be constant or you can do what I did and multiple .3(ExplosionVelocitySkill) to get the range of the falloff. This produces an nice even drop in damage levels to different ships under MWD and small overlap in classes. Exact tweaking is needed no doubt but it should work :p. The way its setup: Cruises will hit almost all battleships with MWD's on and nothing weighing them down for full damage, if someone nanod the fastest battleship they would go into falloff. They would be in falloff against most non-plated battle-cruisers, but only slightly. Plated BC's would of course fall into normal range. Nano'd bc's would need precision cruise, but they would get for hit full damage or slight falloff. Precision cruise would also hit in falloff on most of the cruisers, the fastest ones could be nanod out of that. Heavies would hit almost all cruisers, the t2 cruisers base mwd would be in a little bit of falloff (they would be in deep falloff against dictors). Full nanoz would require precision heavies, which will also hit dictors hard. Finally lights would hit most frigates and go into deep falloff against the fastest frigates, possibly not even hitting ceptors. Precision lights would **** up anything but a ceptor, which they would hit into falloff for.
Jim Raynor Caldari Shinra	Posted - 2008.09.05 07:58:00 - [32] Originally by: Zana Kito CCP, you obviously understand one of the major reasons why people wanted to fly stupidly fast in the first place.. avoiding missile and drone weapon systems. People also fly stupidly fast to avoid bubble camps and get out of bubbles in general. ------ I'll make a sig later.
Grim Vandal Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2008.09.05 09:23:00 - [33] Originally by: Jim Raynor Originally by: Zana Kito CCP, you obviously understand one of the major reasons why people wanted to fly stupidly fast in the first place.. avoiding missile and drone weapon systems. People also fly stupidly fast to avoid bubble camps and get out of bubbles in general. for me it is because of missiles why I always fit a mwd ... getting out of bubbles is nice but honestly it is way easier to avoid them and I dont need a mwd to do that. I said it way back when TomB created the missile formula that the problem of missiles and speed is linked. You cant balance or change one without the other. btw I am 75 mill sp caldari and minmatar specced and have my missiles skill maxed since a minimum of 2 years ago and god I love to admit that something is wrong but why you dont admit that as well jimmy, I dont know. Because honestly if you dont see a problem here who else should??? Greetings Grim
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2008.09.05 11:33:00 - [34] Edited by: Kalintos Tyl on 05/09/2008 11:33:02 torps are unguieded but they chase target? Fix plz. Same goes for HAM. Change misile turnign rate. To reflect turret tracking. Fixed. Ow i rforgot misiels are supoused to always hit. My bad.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.09.05 17:08:00 - [35] Edited by: BiggestT on 05/09/2008 17:10:48 Originally by: Grim Vandal Originally by: Jim Raynor Originally by: Zana Kito CCP, you obviously understand one of the major reasons why people wanted to fly stupidly fast in the first place.. avoiding missile and drone weapon systems. People also fly stupidly fast to avoid bubble camps and get out of bubbles in general. for me it is because of missiles why I always fit a mwd ... getting out of bubbles is nice but honestly it is way easier to avoid them and I dont need a mwd to do that. I said it way back when TomB created the missile formula that the problem of missiles and speed is linked. You cant balance or change one without the other. btw I am 75 mill sp caldari and minmatar specced and have my missiles skill maxed since a minimum of 2 years ago and god I love to admit that something is wrong but why you dont admit that as well jimmy, I dont know. Because honestly if you dont see a problem here who else should??? Are you saying something is wrong now or something is wrong post-patch? Post-patch sure, but if your saying missiles are omg the reason to nano now ummm...ok.. edit: WIth that logic you were saying missiles were stupidly over-powered befre nano was around? hmm dun think so.. Proudly annoying FC's since 2007 Remove m for manditory in mwd!
Jim Raynor Caldari Shinra	Posted - 2008.09.05 17:51:00 - [36] Originally by: Grim Vandal Originally by: Jim Raynor Originally by: Zana Kito CCP, you obviously understand one of the major reasons why people wanted to fly stupidly fast in the first place.. avoiding missile and drone weapon systems. People also fly stupidly fast to avoid bubble camps and get out of bubbles in general. for me it is because of missiles why I always fit a mwd ... getting out of bubbles is nice but honestly it is way easier to avoid them and I dont need a mwd to do that. I said it way back when TomB created the missile formula that the problem of missiles and speed is linked. You cant balance or change one without the other. btw I am 75 mill sp caldari and minmatar specced and have my missiles skill maxed since a minimum of 2 years ago and god I love to admit that something is wrong but why you dont admit that as well jimmy, I dont know. Because honestly if you dont see a problem here who else should??? Are you talking before speed is nerfed or after? Right now missiles aren't all that effective. Last time I played on SiSi when the speed changes were on there, I was killing speed fit HAC in roughly 10 seconds flat if not faster with a Raven using javelin torpedoes and 3 web drones. It was a while back but I might not have needed the drones though they sped the process up quite a bit. Right now though, like on Tranquility? Missiles aren't that great. I find t2 heavy precision missiles most especially depressing as my affinity for the Cerberus is pretty well known.. And for the guy who said 'torpedoes are unguided' all that means is that the explosive radius is not effected by skills/implants. The EVE engine can't support missiles that miss, that was tried years ago and it doesn't work, the engine does not support the physics for it unfortunately. ------ I'll make a sig later.
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2008.09.06 07:42:00 - [37] double dmg bonused 800mm t2 < unbonused siege luncher yep misiles arent imba
Dendo Ordoss Pernicious Creed Vendetta Alliance.	Posted - 2008.09.06 22:10:00 - [38] Originally by: Kalintos Tyl double dmg bonused 800mm t2 < unbonused siege luncher yep misiles arent imba stop making me sad when i think about the tempest
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2008.09.07 10:19:00 - [39] dont forget they have more dps and optimal all way + dont need to track^^. While 800mm will miss bc orbiting at 100m/s at 500m orbit.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.09.07 10:45:00 - [40] Originally by: Kalintos Tyl double dmg bonused 800mm t2 < unbonused siege luncher yep misiles arent imba then the problem is siege launchers, not "all missiles" if anything t2 heavy missiles need a buff..They suck (but i spose most ammo besides like spike sucks..) All the other missiles are definatley not over-powered atm Proudly annoying FC's since 2007 Please resize signature to the allowed size of 400 x 120 pixels. Navigator
Benedic The Aftermath	Posted - 2008.09.07 14:32:00 - [41] Devs who play the game are back from vacation! and there was much rejoicing
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2008.09.07 20:11:00 - [42] Originally by: BiggestT Originally by: Kalintos Tyl double dmg bonused 800mm t2 < unbonused siege luncher yep misiles arent imba then the problem is siege launchers, not "all missiles" if anything t2 heavy missiles need a buff..They suck (but i spose most ammo besides like spike sucks..) All the other missiles are definatley not over-powered atm yes their range need to be 4x reduced to match other cruiser weapons.
Tyby Viper Squad	Posted - 2008.09.08 07:08:00 - [43] Edited by: Tyby on 08/09/2008 07:10:20 Quote: Also, what happens if you change this term from a constant to a variable that depends on factors such as sig radius or possibly mass? Bigger lag???
Amy Wang	Posted - 2008.09.08 11:59:00 - [44] Edited by: Amy Wang on 08/09/2008 12:01:05 I dont really understand the premise (or design goal) that missiles and drones of a certain size class need to be able to hit ships of the same size class using an mwd and going quite fast. Turrets of the same size class can't hit such a ship why should drones or missiles? The only thing that needs to be adressed really is ships using an mwd, becoming unhittable for the most part and delivering considerable damage over drones and missiles themselves while doing so (before you ask, turret ships are a non-issue in this regard as they can't hit anything even remotely their size - if anything at all - while using an mwd as they outrun their own tracking).
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.08 13:04:00 - [45] Originally by: Amy Wang Turrets of the same size class can't hit such a ship why should drones or missiles? This is nonsense. Cruiser-sized weapons hit nanoships fine, unless they're going like over 10km/s or so. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Sensoura Opemtora	Posted - 2008.09.09 06:09:00 - [46] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Amy Wang Turrets of the same size class can't hit such a ship why should drones or missiles? This is nonsense. Cruiser-sized weapons hit nanoships fine, unless they're going like over 10km/s or so. Isn't that what the dev's are asking for assistance with? With the Anti-speed patch, missiles will be over powered, and tweaking the current formula being used results in missiles either hitting hard or not at all?
RedClaws Amarr Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.09.09 08:00:00 - [47] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Amy Wang Turrets of the same size class can't hit such a ship why should drones or missiles? This is nonsense. Cruiser-sized weapons hit nanoships fine, unless they're going like over 10km/s or so. Thats bull. Unless the ship has a crapload of tracking bonusses a cruiser with a mwd can orbit a cruiser without a mwd without being shot. Either because of the range (blasters) or tracking (pulses) If it does get hit once in a while the dps would be laughable.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.09.09 09:41:00 - [48] Originally by: RedClaws Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Amy Wang Turrets of the same size class can't hit such a ship why should drones or missiles? This is nonsense. Cruiser-sized weapons hit nanoships fine, unless they're going like over 10km/s or so. Thats bull. Unless the ship has a crapload of tracking bonusses a cruiser with a mwd can orbit a cruiser without a mwd without being shot. Either because of the range (blasters) or tracking (pulses) If it does get hit once in a while the dps would be laughable. the dps would be laughable until 20 people with the same fit are doing the dps.
Imiarr Timshae Caldari Funny Men In Funny Hats	Posted - 2008.09.09 12:32:00 - [49] Fendahl, I need to know, is this a : "Don't get a golem like you've been planning to do for the past month because the changes we are putting in will make it useless." or a "Get a golem, because what we're doing is so trivial that you'll probably not notice the difference." situation?
Reluah Retsam	Posted - 2008.09.09 12:40:00 - [50] Edited by: Reluah Retsam on 09/09/2008 12:42:46 Originally by: MotherMoon the dps would be laughable until 20 people with the same fit are doing the dps. At which point it becomes an issue of blob warfare and not speed. Edit, assuming it is 20v1, if it is 20v20 or close to in fairly even fleets, not having any form of counter to nano ships in your fleet (of which there are several) is your own fault not your targets.
Captain Narmio Baptism oF Fire Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.09.09 13:18:00 - [51] Originally by: RedClaws Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Amy Wang Turrets of the same size class can't hit such a ship why should drones or missiles? This is nonsense. Cruiser-sized weapons hit nanoships fine, unless they're going like over 10km/s or so. Thats bull. Unless the ship has a crapload of tracking bonusses a cruiser with a mwd can orbit a cruiser without a mwd without being shot. Either because of the range (blasters) or tracking (pulses) If it does get hit once in a while the dps would be laughable. I'm afraid Branko is right and you are not. I can tell you from extensive personal experience that if you can keep a speeding nano-cruiser within range of short-ranged medium guns, you will fry it even without a web. Cruisers can track cruisers fine, and MWDs do basically nothing to mitigate turret damage! As always, very few things can actually speed tank against equal-sized opponents. They use range control to minimise firing windows. If you disagree, then you have clearly not got experience with this.
Shandas Gallente Garoun Investment Bank	Posted - 2008.09.09 14:19:00 - [52] Originally by: Kalintos Tyl Edited by: Kalintos Tyl on 05/09/2008 11:33:02 torps are unguieded but they chase target? Fix plz. Same goes for HAM. Change misile turnign rate. To reflect turret tracking. Fixed. Ow i rforgot misiels are supoused to always hit. My bad. Actually, as is being discussed in this thread they don't always hit. ;) The term 'unguided' means they don't get bonuses from guided missile precision... I think 'unguided' is a bad term and should changed to something like 'Fire and Forget' (FaF). I fire the missile and the ship doen't control the missile anymore computers on the missile makes minor adjustments to the missile. A cruise missile or 'Guided' missile would get constant updates from the ship that fired them. Anyway, add a special bay on all ships (two or three on large ships) and change the name of defenders to CHAFF or something and there ya go a viable missile defense. Before anyone says anything, yes I know adding soemthing like that to all ships would be a pain. Of course you can then change the defender skill to CHAFF and make it increase the percentage that it will be effective against missiles. As far as Nano's, I think there needs to be a balance. Missiles shouldn't be the complete answer though.
Sheamis Kast Farlight Council	Posted - 2008.09.09 16:59:00 - [53] Originally by: Captain Narmio Cruisers can track cruisers fine, and MWDs do basically nothing to mitigate turret damage! As always, very few things can actually speed tank against equal-sized opponents. They use range control to minimise firing windows. That is the problem though, isn't it? You can't pull range on a missile ship, like you can with a gunship, so you need to be able to use speed to lower the incoming damage from missiles. Cruiser sized Pulse Lasers and Autocannons need to use tech II ammo to reach out to 20km and then they are still getting reduced damage, meanwhile blasters have no chance. Heavy Assault Missiles, on the other hand, can hit out to 20KM with just skills and can hit to 80+ KM with tech II missiles. With the speed getting lowered the way it is, it looks like the only counter you will need for nano gangs is a single Drake. It seems to be that the only thing that needs to be done here is to have a decrease in the explosion velocity for all missiles with a significant increase in the fall off. That way they will experience a more gradual reduction in damage as speed goes up. Speed tanked ships should be able to avoid missiles damage though, just not all of it.
Captain Narmio Baptism oF Fire Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.09.09 20:45:00 - [54] Edited by: Captain Narmio on 09/09/2008 20:48:54 Originally by: Sheamis Kast Originally by: Captain Narmio Cruisers can track cruisers fine, and MWDs do basically nothing to mitigate turret damage! As always, very few things can actually speed tank against equal-sized opponents. They use range control to minimise firing windows. That is the problem though, isn't it? You can't pull range on a missile ship, like you can with a gunship, so you need to be able to use speed to lower the incoming damage from missiles. Cruiser sized Pulse Lasers and Autocannons need to use tech II ammo to reach out to 20km and then they are still getting reduced damage, meanwhile blasters have no chance. Heavy Assault Missiles, on the other hand, can hit out to 20KM with just skills and can hit to 80+ KM with tech II missiles. Actually, cruiser sized pulse lasers can quite comfortably hit a 30km optimal. And cruiser sized autocannons need rigs to hit for half damage at 20km, unless you're flying something with a falloff bonus. So don't lump us Minmatar in with the problem. Anything that makes it harder to cover ground will penalise the "really short" short-range weapons (blasters and ACs) against the "middle ground" short range weapons (missiles and pulse). The issue is really pronounced at the Battleship scale, and less obvious but still present for cruisers/BCs. Luckily, however, this is a lot easier to solve than how to make sure large missiles can't hit smaller ships, and it's a lot easier to solve than what to do about extreme MWD speeds. See, this is a problem to do with equally sized ships of different races. The answer is to adjust the speed and agility of the ships to counteract differences in the weapon systems. That means broadening the gap. It also synergises quite nicely with the web changes, because speed and manoeuvrability will mean more than they currently do on TQ! Autocannon ships need to be very fast and very agile, because ACs are only a viable weapon system if you can control range against different targets - go close against lasers and kite against blasters. If you can't do that, your lower DPS, DPS loss at range and typically weaker tanks will leave you comically underperforming. Blaster ships need to be very fast, because if they can't close quickly they might as well fit mining lasers. We're talking about nearly-as-fast-as-Minmatar fast. However, they don't need to be at all agile - you typically want to just overload your MWD and spam approach. It's all about the straight line speed. That means that a Gallente pilot can close with just about anything, and a Minmatar pilot would need to be smart and rely on a sudden change of direction to dodge a charging Megathron. Pretty cool. Missile ships have great range and fairly decent DPS, they don't need to do much moving around - the Caldari should be well below average in the top speed department so that other ships have a chance to get close. They should be as bad as the Gallente at turning, too, because missile ships have no need to do any positioning to help them track. Pulse lasers have great range (the best of the short-ranged weapons by far), and they have almost blaster levels of DPS! Additionally, Amarr ships have some of the heaviest tanks around. As a result, Amarr are looking at being last in the speed and agility columns by a fair margin. Both MWD speeds and base speeds should be proportional to these goals. It should be most pronounced at the battleship level, but repeated for battlecruisers and the tier III cruisers. Other ships have more specialised roles (the Zealot, say) and should be balanced on a case-by case basis. In addition to the broadening of speed differences between ship classes, maintaining speed parity between the races as determined by the needs of the different weapon systems will go a long, long way towards balancing the weapons in the post-speed-patch game world.
Captain Narmio Baptism oF Fire Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.09.09 20:54:00 - [55] I hit the character limit with that monsterpoast there, so I didn't get to say this in conclusion: The current mass and agility figures as they exist on Multi/Sisi do not at all reflect the parity between races I'm talking about. In fact, in places, they actively seem to work against it. I would very much like to hear from the developers about the mass changes and what their thinking is regarding balance between races. There's a great opportunity with this patch (specifically the web changes and broadening the gap between classes) to make short ranged combat very interesting. However there's also a possibility to leave some races behind with weapons and hulls designed for a game world that no longer exists.
Sheamis Kast Farlight Council	Posted - 2008.09.10 04:52:00 - [56] Edited by: Sheamis Kast on 10/09/2008 04:52:34 Originally by: Captain Narmio Actually, cruiser sized pulse lasers can quite comfortably hit a 30km optimal. And cruiser sized autocannons need rigs to hit for half damage at 20km, unless you're flying something with a falloff bonus. So don't lump us Minmatar in with the problem. <Other Weapons> Pulse lasers have great range (the best of the short-ranged weapons by far), and they have almost blaster levels of DPS! Additionally, Amarr ships have some of the heaviest tanks around. As a result, Amarr are looking at being last in the speed and agility columns by a fair margin. I freely admit that lasers are the best anti-nano weapon system at the moment, and that the Amarr battleship lineup can actually use their Pulse Laser range effectively. However, for the ships smaller than battleships... Only the Zealot can get the 30km optimal you are talking about and that is due to an optimal range ship bonus, and it is the only cruiser/battlecruiser sized ship in the Amarr lineup that gets this bonus. I really don't think we need to balance an entire races speed and agility based on what one ship can do. Without bonuses Focused Medium Pulse II with Scorch gets: 20km optimal with 3.8km falloff Heavy Pulse II with Scorch gets: 23km optimal with 5km falloff Neither of these weapon systems are hitting at 30 KM for respectable damage. Furthermore they both drop their damage output to use Scorch. A Drake with HAMs out damages (assumes the same number of damage mods on each ship, and counting drones for both) a Harbinger with Focused Medium Pulse IIs and Scorch ammo. The same Drake can also fit more of a tank than the Harbinger and a MWD making it faster as well. Why do the Amarr need to be the slowest and the least agile again? Amarr ships only have this tank you are talking about on the ships with no damage bonuses (still talking about sub-battleship class ships), making their DPS lacking. Even then, the Maller and the Prophecy do have goos tanks, but they are vastly out DPSed by their piers, whose tanks are not significantly worse. In the case of the Prophecy, the Brutix only has a slightly worse tank but vastly out damages the Prophecy. Lasers only get the kind of damage you are talking about when they can use MF ammo, and then their optimal is less than web range (assuming we are still talking about cruisers/battlecruisers). If they wanted this extreme damage you believe they get they need to forgo basically any tank to fit the largest in-class lasers which have ridiculous fitting requirements. You are basically suggesting that laser ships be the slowest out there allowing Autocannons to get under their guns, blasters boats to get close and out DPS them, and missile ships to pull range and out DPS them. If these ships want tanks they need to ditch DPS because, contrary to popular belief, Amarr ships are either tank or gank. What good will these ships really be if they are always fighting at a disadvantage? Laser ships do need to be fast, maybe not as fast as the Gallente or Minmatar, but definitely faster than the Caldari. Laser ships actually need to be able to maintain their range advantage for some time during a fight to make up for the fact that once the opponent gets into his preferred range he will out class the laser ship.
Sheamis Kast Farlight Council	Posted - 2008.09.10 05:15:00 - [57] Character limit Besides your stance on Amarr laser ships, I actually agree with you a whole lot. I think it would make for better gameplay if the Gallente had the highest top speed, but poor agility; much like a charging Rhino. The Minmatar should be the second fastest with the greatest agility, allowing them out maneuver the Gallente blaster boats for some time, and perform tighter orbits against the Amarr laser ships. The Caldari should be the bricks of space with their strong tanks and best range. The Amarr Laser ships should be somewhere in the middle of everything, being not much slower or agile than the Minmatar. Once they are plated up (like Amarr ships have to be due to the laser cap use) they should still be somewhat more agile then the Gallente ships allowing them to dodge the initial charge and make use of their range benefits.
Captain Narmio Baptism oF Fire Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.09.10 13:57:00 - [58] Damn those character limits, eh? :D On the medium laser range issue, I guess the harbingers I've fought were using locus rigs when I remember them hitting me comfortably at 35. So max HAM range (without range bonuses or rigs) is more than max Heavy Pulse range, yeah. But max Megapulse range is significantly better than max Torp range. It does really look like in the short range stakes, Caldari don't have a clear range advantage, both lasers and missiles compete fairly well. You also mentioned the "gank or tank" nature of Amarr. That's a good point, as the shield-tanking Caldari often don't have to make that choice. On the other hand, you have 8-lows ships like the 'geddon where a solid tank fits alongside three HS easily. You mentioned that lasers don't really have a damage advantage. Well, maybe I'm just used to flying Minmatar battleships so my perception is skewed, but the Amarr battleships can put out phenomenal amounts of damage before anyone can get close on TQ, and it's only going to get nastier post-patch. It's why the RR-geddon is so ubiquitous in 5-30 man BS gangs. But then the torp raven is in a much-similar situation gank-and-tank wise. You've made some good points. Compared to the Caldari perhaps the Amarr shouldn't be so much "the slowest" as I originally suggested. It would make sense that the Caldari were the slowest with average agility, and that the Amarr were the least agile with average speed. Everyone, then, has some area that they can use to their advantage. I don't agree that the Amarr should be close to the Minmatar or even that they should be in the middle. There's a big gap between the weapons systems, we can't rectify that with a small gap between the ships.
Sheamis Kast Farlight Council	Posted - 2008.09.10 18:42:00 - [59] It is hard to talk about the Amarr on a whole. Their battleships are very powerful while their cruisers, like the Omen, strugle to even fit guns and a any sort of tank, let alone a speed mod. Work needs to be done on them to bring all of their ships into some sort of role. Then again, I hear that Minmatar battleships could use some buffs too, and this is sort of off topic at this point. Back to the topic of missiles. With the web nerf, an frigate has no problem getting under the guns of a cruiser, but against a missile ship this option doesn't exist. Furthermore there is no option for E-war, even if defenders worked you would need to give up the same number of launcher hard points as your opponent has to counter him. Linking speed with signature radius for damage reduction, as was suggested before, seems like a good idea. What if we also reduced the explosion velocity and falloff of missiles? A ship with an afterburner and a tight orbit can reduce damage from guns even when fighting the same ship class and while webbed. The explosion velocity would be somewhere around the average base speed for the ship size of the launcher. This would allow a ship with an afterburner to get reduced damage from missiles from a peer classed ship. The explosion velocity + falloff should be somewhere around 150-175% of the base AB speed of the intended target ship class. Since signature radius and speed are linked running a MWD would offer very little in the way of damage reduction. I think that some actual anti-missile e-war is in order. A mid-slot module, like the tracking disruptor, that reduces the range and "tracking" of missiles. The "tracking" could be accomplished my reducing the explosion velocity and falloff for the target ships missiles, we could call that script Detonator Scrambling. The Range could could be handled by reducing the missile velocity, we could call that script Thruster Destabilization. The Minmatar e-war could even be given a bonus in this, given that target painters are kind of lame, since they are the race that most relies on speed and hence needs an answer to missiles.
Amaeros	Posted - 2008.09.10 23:23:00 - [60] Although I certainly agree with the need to modify missile damage calculations based on speed, especially when the need is reinforced by the aforementioned data, I would like to add that I personally, at least, am STRONGLY in favor of fixing defenders. Either replace them with some form of physical counter-measure (same result, except they don't have to destroy the missile but divert it harmlessly) or give them their own launchers that automatically deploy defenders against incoming missiles while the module is active (perhaps using some small amount of cap?). That said, let us not forget the other side of this - missiles do less damage than other weapon systems because they reliably hit their targets. If any form of defense against them becomes as powerful as the methods used to prevent damage from turrets, missiles will become entirely useless. So long as missiles remain a reliable form of damage against ships of the same class as the weapon was designed for (and larger, of course), count this Drake and Raven pilot strongly in favor of these changes.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: 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.