Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 29 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Rex Lashar
|
Posted - 2008.10.18 21:45:00 -
[61]
Testing with Light, Heavy and Cruise vs AF
Cruise results are the only ones I recorded, as follows.
Ishkur 10% armor exp resist, 50% armor EM resist. Using Devastators (left) and Paradise (right) on armor. Speeds taken: standstill, max ship speed, and max ship speed using AB II.
0 Target Painters - 39m sig
0m/s ------ 45 --- 25 375m/s ---- 39 --- 22 932m/s ---- 23 --- 14
1 Target Painter - 56m sig
0m/s ------ 66 --- 37 375m/s ---- 48 --- 28 932m/s ---- 28 --- 16
2 Target Painters - 77m sig
0m/s ------ 90 --- 65 375m/s ---- 60 --- 33 932m/s ---- 35 --- 20
Its a 'real world' test, so numbers are not precise according to formula, because of some minor shield regen and speed variance.
For our testing with Light missiles (Hawk) vs Ishkur, we found they lose up to 50% damage when the Ishkur is moving at full velocity on afterburner. Ideally this should be perhaps 25% under this circumstance, since other AF go even faster (then you must consider speed setups and 'better' ABs). The light missile falloff needs to increase.
Cruise and Heavies lose about the same percentage damage at higher speeds, but do a high base damage and 2 TPs double that. Reducing falloff would make pure speed matter more, and make webs powerful. Increasing sig dmg reduction factor would make TPs more popular. I suggest changing both; minor falloff and minor sig dmg factor tweak. For both heavy and cruise.
---------------------------------------------
On a side topic.. Bombers.
They're going to need tweaking to survive these changes, but I feel it should be mentioned that their role of ganking frigates is a poor choice.
- Remove the "built-in" signature resolution bonus - Apply launcher fitting bonus to Siege launchers instead.
Now we have a real anti-BS/Capital frigate.
I suggest this because the idea of popping out of cloak, firing off a salvo, and recloaking before lock is suitable against battleships - not frigates.
|
MalVortex
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2008.10.18 22:01:00 -
[62]
A stealth bomber with torpedos would be completley worthless. You woudn't alpha anything, you'd be in sub 20km range at max, and your DPS would be only a minor improvement.
The signature radius bonus to cruise makes SBs an equal match for intys - a roll they long have been denied. Having a cloaking, insta-locking anti-frigate isn't a bad roll now that they can engage interceptors due to the new missile damage formula.
|
Rex Lashar
|
Posted - 2008.10.18 22:10:00 -
[63]
Range is easy enough to modify. And the proper counter to interceptors should be: another interceptor, destroyer, anti-frig cruiser, AF.. etc.
Turning SBs into an anti-frig platform is ridiculous. It neither a stealth task, nor a bombing task. They'd compete with a lot of other ships which are far more versatile and perhaps more effective.
What this does is give black ops gangs or frigate harassment gangs some punch to break through BS. It would be unique in the sense that its one of the first combat frigs that is actually as vulnerable to other frigs as BS are.
|
Pattern Clarc
Naglihiem
|
Posted - 2008.10.18 22:48:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Rex Lashar Range is easy enough to modify. And the proper counter to interceptors should be: another interceptor, destroyer, anti-frig cruiser, AF.. etc.
Turning SBs into an anti-frig platform is ridiculous. It neither a stealth task, nor a bombing task. They'd compete with a lot of other ships which are far more versatile and perhaps more effective.
What this does is give black ops gangs or frigate harassment gangs some punch to break through BS. It would be unique in the sense that its one of the first combat frigs that is actually as vulnerable to other frigs as BS are.
QFT
|
Fird
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 00:28:00 -
[65]
nothing constructive to say so mums the word
|
Vina
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 02:12:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Rex Lashar Range is easy enough to modify. And the proper counter to interceptors should be: another interceptor, destroyer, anti-frig cruiser, AF.. etc.
Turning SBs into an anti-frig platform is ridiculous. It neither a stealth task, nor a bombing task. They'd compete with a lot of other ships which are far more versatile and perhaps more effective.
What this does is give black ops gangs or frigate harassment gangs some punch to break through BS. It would be unique in the sense that its one of the first combat frigs that is actually as vulnerable to other frigs as BS are.
This is one thing I actually agree with you on, however I never liked that bombers used a battleship missile and tried to fix it for themselves. They should have their own missile type. Preferrably a pretty slow moving good sized torpedo with 500-ish sig radius so it's useful against battleships and really useful against capitals with big damage and slow rof. Honestly I'd rather see them using citadel torpedos if we had to go that route. -----------------------------------
my opinion is my own. |
Jason Edwards
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 05:05:00 -
[67]
Originally by: MalVortex A stealth bomber with torpedos would be completley worthless. You woudn't alpha anything, you'd be in sub 20km range at max, and your DPS would be only a minor improvement.
The signature radius bonus to cruise makes SBs an equal match for intys - a roll they long have been denied. Having a cloaking, insta-locking anti-frigate isn't a bad roll now that they can engage interceptors due to the new missile damage formula.
I agree, Torpedos would be terrible. You have to fire really really close to the target. Meaning you're going to be ripped apart.
Citadel Torpedoes I find interesting. Citadel Torpedoes can fly 100km. With 3 citadel torp launchers you are going to hit only about 300dps with good skills. The explosion velocity is about 150m/s which means just about everything is fast enough to avoid lots of dmg. adjusting the cruise missile bonuses on the stealth bombers so that you dont have extra dmg but rather explosion velocity and such.
Would be a much more reasonable stealth bomber. ------------------------ "There was this bright flash of light - and now this egg shaped thing is on my screen - did I level up?" |
Wrayeth
Trans Eve Organization
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 07:45:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Wrayeth on 19/10/2008 07:46:20 It is my opinion that this missile change will make most Caldari missile boats useless. Now not only will a target painter be needed, but a web as well - and shield tanks do not have enough slots. Unless Caldari missile boats all get an extra mid to fit a web, I can't see how they will remain viable (several already need another mid to begin with; this just makes the problem that much worse).
TBH, I don't see this nerf as doing anything good for the game - missiles were already balanced around signature radius being the determining factor in damage output vs. smaller targets, but with the effect of speed being massively increased while still keeping the basic signature radius penalty, it makes missiles far from a desirable weapons system.
I've been trying to find reasons to fly Caldari ships in PvP over Amarr or Minmatar of late, but they have been coming up lacking due to their inability to fit tackle while tanking well. Now, I fear, their disadvantages will make them totally useless. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
Falaricae
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 09:27:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Vina Edited by: Vina on 19/10/2008 02:31:45
also with these changes, I would say you really need to consider the sig radius on unguided missiles. If we equate guided missiles to long range turrets, and unguided missiles to short range turrets, you would use tracking computers with long range turrets, so you use target painters with guided missiles. however, close range turrets hit everything just fine without the need for tracking computers, but close range missile have absolute shit sig radius (torps have 533 with these changes which is completely ridiculous). Unguided missiles should in fact have lower sig radius than guided missiles after skills, since they are close range.
I agree this is how it should be, if we equate them to turrets. Do we want to do that? They seem pretty intuitive as they are now and we would make missiles just turrets with a flight time.
Originally by: Wrayeth Edited by: Wrayeth on 19/10/2008 07:46:20 It is my opinion that this missile change will make most Caldari missile boats useless. Now not only will a target painter be needed, but a web as well - and shield tanks do not have enough slots. Unless Caldari missile boats all get an extra mid to fit a web, I can't see how they will remain viable (several already need another mid to begin with; this just makes the problem that much worse).
TBH, I don't see this nerf as doing anything good for the game - missiles were already balanced around signature radius being the determining factor in damage output vs. smaller targets, but with the effect of speed being massively increased while still keeping the basic signature radius penalty, it makes missiles far from a desirable weapons system.
I've been trying to find reasons to fly Caldari ships in PvP over Amarr or Minmatar of late, but they have been coming up lacking due to their inability to fit tackle while tanking well. Now, I fear, their disadvantages will make them totally useless.
The testing on SiSi seemed to show that missiles where not balanced anymore after the speed changes. If you think you can show that they are, please do so, but explain your opinion in detail and have something to back it up or it will sound like another baseless whine.
|
Chavu
Minmatar Killer Koalas
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 10:05:00 -
[70]
Paradise cruise missiles doing 10 damage a piece to my 1200 m/s afterburning Vagabond of dooooom. Also I got under the tracking of a pulse abso nicely until he neuted me. Then I died and the client crashed to hell and back. With MWD, my vaga was taking about 50 damage a paradise cruise or so, certainly low damage enough to survive against a medium sized missile spam.
I find that overdrives and inertia stabilizers are fairly useless mods and I just slam on 3 nanofibers and call it a day. I can't think or many situations where I would use the new ODs or istabs over the new nanofibers.
MWD + AB, pt and lse vaga = the new pwnmobile?
Any ideas on what the Faction/Deadspace/Officer MWD & ABs will have as a bonus compared to T2? Speed? Sig radius reduction? Cap?
Generally I feel that missiles are moving towards the right track. -------- Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid. |
|
Jason Edwards
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 11:44:00 -
[71]
Not sure what changed... but my nemesis now was doing about 30dmg per cruise missile on an assault ship.
Stealth bomber is so utterly incapable of deal out dmg to anything it's ridiculous.
Cruiser and larger is basically the only ships I can deal any real damage to and only the newbiest of cruisers are going to die to a stealth bomber. ------------------------ "There was this bright flash of light - and now this egg shaped thing is on my screen - did I level up?" |
Cailais
Amarr VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 15:27:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Jason Edwards Edited by: Jason Edwards on 19/10/2008 12:06:23 Not sure what changed... but my nemesis now was doing about 30dmg per cruise missile on an assault ship.
Stealth bomber is so utterly incapable of deal out dmg to anything it's ridiculous.
Cruiser and larger is basically the only ships I can deal any real damage to and only the newbiest of cruisers are going to die to a stealth bomber.
Wow stealth bomber cant even effectively kill medium drones. Sigghh.
Well if a Stealth Bomber is a major threat to large vessels (say BC and above) then Id be happy with that - a SB that can just deal damage to small ships is kinda naff any way.
C.
Originally by: Tarminic Your continued whining is somewhat diminished by your continued willingness to give your money to CCP.
|
Megan Maynard
Minmatar Out of Order
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 15:29:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Jason Edwards Edited by: Jason Edwards on 19/10/2008 12:06:23 Not sure what changed... but my nemesis now was doing about 30dmg per cruise missile on an assault ship.
Stealth bomber is so utterly incapable of deal out dmg to anything it's ridiculous.
Cruiser and larger is basically the only ships I can deal any real damage to and only the newbiest of cruisers are going to die to a stealth bomber.
Wow stealth bomber cant even effectively kill medium drones. Sigghh.
Rigged with precisions hit my hyena pretty well going ~3500 m/s. (Don't get me started on that ship.)
|
Shard Merchant
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 16:20:00 -
[74]
Wrayeth, missiles use signature radius on TQ now, but its not as relevant as it should be. I can tell you it takes a lot more speed to 'evade' missiles than it does turrets. By lowering speeds, they'd effectively be making smaller ships easier to hit.
The idea is to lower speeds, but keep speed tanking. That's why the formula depends more upon the signature stat. Trust me when I say, even if your missiles did zero damage to smaller ships, Caldari ships would be far from useless. _______________________________________________ CCP CENSORSHIP ALERT: CAN YOU SPOT IT? |
Victoria Ehr
Caldari State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 17:01:00 -
[75]
I am starting to get worried about all these possible changes coming from CCP. All these changes to supposedly solve one problem, the speed (nano) issue.
Simply put structural speed limits on cruisers, nano HAC problem solved!
Leave inty's alone or cap their speed as well.
But now there are dozens if not hundreds of changes to modules and ships that are being done by CCP. They are about to go live and when that happens it is never good and it takes a looooong time to iron out the "new" problems.
Oh well, i guess we will just have to wait and see. -------------------------------------------- Glory to the State and Tibus Heth.
|
Armoured C
Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 18:14:00 -
[76]
will you let us know when the other types of missiles get there figures updated , as we know you are sorting T1 missiles but it would be nice to tell us when you have them fixed and move on to t2 missiles,
and i do believe there is still a problem with target paiters as noted earlier in the post, is there a update to this ?
AC
The EvE LifeÖ Blog bringing you the blogs that really matter working in conjunction with EVE Network NewsÖ |
iudex
Caldari State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 18:45:00 -
[77]
Dear devs,
when rebalancing Cruise Missiles please keep in mind that they deal the dps of a battlecruiser, even with maximum skills. Don't simply nerf them against smaller/faster targets, their damage reduction was compensated by the ability to hit cruiser sized and fast going targets. If you leave the damage the same and take away this ability, they will become useless.
Also please don't forget that their range is of no big use, any pvp pilot will confirm that shooting cruise missiles over 200km is hardly ever has a point, because of the long travel time. Up to 30 secons from launch till impact is a long time, too long in a pvp situation, hardly any FC accepts ravens in sniper fleets. Nor do missionrunners need that high ranges, so there should not be too many tradeoffs because of that high range.
_________________________________________ Faction Standings: Serpentis +7.60 // Angel Cartel +7.31 // Minmatar Republic -8.56 // Gallente Federation -9.71
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 19:01:00 -
[78]
Originally by: iudex Also please don't forget that their range is of no big use, any pvp pilot will confirm that shooting cruise missiles over 200km is hardly ever has a point, because of the long travel time. Up to 30 secons from launch till impact is a long time, too long in a pvp situation, hardly any FC accepts ravens in sniper fleets.
Complete rubbish.
But you do have a point about Cruise. A good counter to ECM boats is the cruise Raven, which currently does close to full damage to an enemy Falcon. With the current changes, the Falcon would get a damage reduction of about 70%.
That's too much. The whole point of the Cruise Raven in PVP is that it's a specialist anti-support ship (not a fleet sniper, Iudex... ) - it needs to be able to damage support cruisers more effectively. Especially if the cruise Raven is armour-tanked to enable it to fit ECCM and sensor boosters, preventing it from fitting damage mods.
So I'd advise that Cruise explosion velocity is increased somewhat, and explosion radius decreased. If necessary, base Cruise damage can be reduced to better achieve balance against other ships.
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 19:16:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Murina on 19/10/2008 19:17:09
Originally by: iudex Up to 30 secons from launch till impact is a long time, too long in a pvp situation, hardly any FC accepts ravens in sniper fleets. Nor do missionrunners need that high ranges, so there should not be too many tradeoffs because of that high range.
Ever hear of burn eden?.
Top skilled cruise users can hit at max range for considerably higher DPS than any other sniper BS in the game on TQ at the moment.
|
Dipluz
Caldari FroZen SoulS Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 20:00:00 -
[80]
CCP should not nerf Missiles, especially Cruise missiles, thats the only thing Caldari has left to snipe with, beacuse we damn suck with railguns (only range bonuses) and if you nerf the cruise missile we got nothing left! Only reason people whine about it is beacuse no Rave, almost ever shoots other battleships in fleet but they act as a super heavy anti support,
and for that their pretty good at considering if they wanna shoot battleships with other GUNS battleship shoot at that the target already is way dead before the missiles from a Raven has travelled the 200km needed to hit its target.
|
|
Dipluz
Caldari FroZen SoulS Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 20:17:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 19/10/2008 19:17:09
Originally by: iudex Up to 30 secons from launch till impact is a long time, too long in a pvp situation, hardly any FC accepts ravens in sniper fleets. Nor do missionrunners need that high ranges, so there should not be too many tradeoffs because of that high range.
Ever hear of burn eden?.
Top skilled cruise users can hit at max range for considerably higher DPS than any other sniper BS in the game on TQ at the moment.
Consider this man, have u ever known how much ISK they use on their ships? and just the amount they use in implants, yes thats the reason their good at it, but dont forget their missiles still have to travel to their target. I dont know how fast u get cruise missiles too at totally max, maybe 10km/s?, but consider you have a t2 fitted crow with good fleet bonuses ull maybe reach 13km/s then cruise missiles arent good for anything!
I say Save caldari! consider GUNS! and DRONES! their FAR better than any missiles no matter how you say it! you have even tracking modules that dosent even REQUIRE any range or activation on ur target just passive activation. and they hit godly! ive sniped many interceptors with my megathron but never killed 1 single interceptor in a raven !
So if you keep dying to a raven only means u need better skills on both flying/using and better fitting of your ships! Beacuse Caldari suck, and I know ive flown caldari for 3 years and even before the torp/cruise nerf 1-2 years ago they sucked! beacuse of travelling time no matter how u see it ! if there is no lag, a raven isnt almost on any killmails comparsion to any gun related battleships!
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 20:50:00 -
[82]
No, Dipluz, you suck, not Caldari. Now stop polluting this thread with whine, please.
|
iudex
Caldari State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 21:11:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: iudex Also please don't forget that their range is of no big use, any pvp pilot will confirm that shooting cruise missiles over 200km is hardly ever has a point, because of the long travel time. Up to 30 secons from launch till impact is a long time, too long in a pvp situation, hardly any FC accepts ravens in sniper fleets.
Complete rubbish.
But you do have a point about Cruise. A good counter to ECM boats is the cruise Raven, which currently does close to full damage to an enemy Falcon. With the current changes, the Falcon would get a damage reduction of about 70%.
That's too much. The whole point of the Cruise Raven in PVP is that it's a specialist anti-support ship (not a fleet sniper, Iudex... ) - it needs to be able to damage support cruisers more effectively. Especially if the cruise Raven is armour-tanked to enable it to fit ECCM and sensor boosters, preventing it from fitting damage mods.
So I'd advise that Cruise explosion velocity is increased somewhat, and explosion radius decreased. If necessary, base Cruise damage can be reduced to better achieve balance against other ships.
Why exactly is my post rubbish ? In the quotet section i'm talking about the limted use of cruise missiles at maximum ranges, i was asking the devs to take this confinedness into consideration and not nerfing cruise missiles too much and justify the nerf with the range. People were posting in other threads that cruise missiles were overpowered since they dealt so much damage on 200km+ compared to other sniper battelships. My concern is that the devs will leave the damage like it is now, but will nerf the cruise missile ability to hit sub-battelship targets and exculpate this move with the long range.
If you think a cruise missile is a good anti-support ship at ranges over 200km you will find your targets warp out before the missiles approach them, they don't even have to be alligned for that, 20-30 seconds are a long time. Whereas turret ships won't have any tracking issues at that ranges, a rokh might hit a small target at full damage, i've seen enough turret ships insta-popping frigates from a distance.
My point in the quoted part is that the high range of cruise missiles should not be overrated in a balancing process, cruise missiles should still be good against smaller targets after revamp or get more damage if not.
_________________________________________ Faction Standings: Serpentis +7.60 // Angel Cartel +7.31 // Minmatar Republic -8.56 // Gallente Federation -9.71
|
Shard Merchant
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 21:16:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Victoria Ehr I am starting to get worried about all these possible changes coming from CCP. All these changes to supposedly solve one problem, the speed (nano) issue.
Nope, your argument is void. In the process of looking at speed, they looked at missiles, and changing both allows for a fix to another problem: afterburners being useless in pvp. The speed issues were a systemic problem. Putting a hard cap is just plugging one symptom, at the expense of high grade setups giving zero advantage. Basically, balancing core mechanics is often like anything else in EVE: the more you put into it, the more you get back.
Originally by: iudex Dear devs,
when rebalancing Cruise Missiles please keep in mind that they deal the dps of a battlecruiser, even with maximum skills. Don't simply nerf them against smaller/faster targets, their damage reduction was compensated by the ability to hit cruiser sized and fast going targets. If you leave the damage the same and take away this ability, they will become useless.
Also please don't forget that their range is of no big use, any pvp pilot will confirm that shooting cruise missiles over 200km is hardly ever has a point, because of the long travel time. Up to 30 secons from launch till impact is a long time, too long in a pvp situation, hardly any FC accepts ravens in sniper fleets. Nor do missionrunners need that high ranges, so there should not be too many tradeoffs because of that high range.
Your point of view is skewed badly. They're not supposed to have higher DPS because it would negate the point of fitting Torps. Torps are meant to have higher damage in compensation for their reduced range and higher fittings. Cruise launchers are one of the easiest to fit BS weapons in the game. Their DPS at range is almost unbeatable. And their ability to hit small targets at all, with any damage type, is why they're not on par with turrets.
By the way, the statement: "their damage reduction was compensated by the ability to hit cruiser sized and fast going targets." is false. Cruise were never given a damage reduction, save for precision missiles. Precisions were given a slight damage reduction as a penalty for being able to hit better, because CCP found everyone was using them, and it negated the purpose of changing missile tracking the first time around.
In fact, both cruise and torps were given damage increases in ammo and launcher ROF. Then came the faction ammo. Overall, they do more damage now than at any point in the past.
The issue you have with using cruise at long range is the fault of missile velocity and physics implementation. In my opinion, missiles should accelerate up to a max, so it takes less time to reach the last half of their range. Missile arming distance should make a comeback as well. _______________________________________________ CCP CENSORSHIP ALERT: CAN YOU SPOT IT? |
Grim Vandal
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 22:13:00 -
[85]
The most wellcomed changes of mine regarding all these matters would have been to RECODE Destiny! You have done it with trinity but probably 50man years of work are not at all near enough to recode Destiny. Besides Destiny being actually pretty dumb the issue at hand is not that the devs lack imagination but again it is fu.ckin.g sadly the current technology which simply cant handle a more complex physic engine for the scale of eve.
This lead us to think of forumlas for missile damage (already in 2004) which further simply tries to fake missiles true "behavier". It is sad we are forced to chose that way but it is one of may things which ccp pays for due to their single server structure which on the other hand is so much needed for a truly awesome mmog.
For me the afterburner always seemed to be the more all out combat module compared to the mwd while it NEVER really filled that purpose until these days. For that I thank you very much devs. I truly love the way this is done while I also have to say at this point that WTZ destroyed quite a bit of this game.
For me when I look at things I would like to change I ALWAYS look at the bigger picture behind it and I am glad that you guys seem to have established that vision somewhat as well. hint WTZ problem should again be interlinked with any thoughts which are done about overall speed as it was in this case where missiles are TOTALLY interlinked with the changes to speed.
So I am glad you saw the problem of missiles in conjuction to speed and moreover you hopefully SEE the drones on your picture and the stealth bomber as well however you definately dont see WTZ in it, do you? And that is what you are still lacking in my opinion, lets call it the "Ultra Deep field" clicky or the less awesome version clicky2
I will get flamed to hell for even talking about WTZ yet again and I will be called quite stupid from many but truly in me I belive that at least some of you devs definatley feel and maybe even SEE the isse at hand and even beyond WTZ ...
Anyway thanks a lot for these changes it is while not the best approach (Destiny) quite a big step forward in my "book of pictures".
Greetings Grim |
Lana Lanee
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 22:53:00 -
[86]
so, conclusion. do i train for missiles or caldari or just stay gallente?
|
Extractor Bill
Caldari Universal Exports FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 23:22:00 -
[87]
Shard for you to want to add all these negative factors effecting missiles there would need to be some sort of strength to them.
With these changes missiles will almost never do full damage as everybody will be able to equip an AB and keep it running forever. I know on my setups I can run a AB forever and if I get speed AND all that damage reduction from missiles thats a huge win for the module.
Missiles need to have an environment where they can deal decent damage to their intended target under most circumstances which is how it is today if you do not take into consideration speed tanks. Lets face it missile dps is not fantastic and takes a back seat to turrets in this area since I have never seen them crit, their dps figures are low to begin with, and they have travel time, and are destructable by smart bombs and defender missiles (which will be boosted according to the live dev blog). Their strength before was flexibility and reliability, which these changes would dramatically impact since the effect of size and speed on missile dps would be greatly increased causing a major reduction to dps battlefield practice compared to TQ today. However this is not to say the new formula needs to be changed, it only means the values they have set for them are not right yet. Missiles should deal less damage to targets bellow their class, and that is definitely working correctly. I would suggest they increase raw damage values for missiles so that they do 10% more damage then on TQ today in the perfect circumstance (target is struck by the correct missile for its class when its moving at a natural speed), the same damage as on TQ today if the target is using a traditional armor or shield tank with a AB active and is hit by the correct missile class for their ship class, and up to 50% less damage if the target is struck by a missile of the correct class but the target is moving at full speed using a AB and fully fitted with a speed tank.
A ship using just a AB with a standard tank being hit by a missile weapon of the correct size category shouldn't cause dps reduction more then 10% in my opinion. That dps reduction should be minor because the AB alredy is giving a mobility boost to the ship, and the AB device can easily be sustained indefinitely with decent skills.
However a ship totally fitted to use speed as a defense with their afterburner accompanied by a full rack of modules to improve their speed tank should be able to attain a major reduction in damage by up to 60% with all factors included and using T2 modules. Note that I said modules meaning that a post patch speed tank would likely be heavy on speed and agility increasing modules, but likely would have to include some buffer like LSE's and use the AB damage reduction as their resistance. This would make speed tanking a viable defense but not the best for taking strong firepower since a pure tank ship would have more EHP to burn through, but the mobility advantage would make up for this. Turrets may need to be checked to make sure this works since if they land too reliablity on a speed tanked ship its curtains and quickly.
What they need to do for missiles now with these changes is to tweek the figures so that it works this way.
Now we can also go the route of making missile ships need to use modules to counter a variety of situations like target painters and webbers in addition to the scram. However you would need to do something about Caldari ships which rely heavily on missiles if you do that because after a shield tank is fitted they do not have 3 slots available for mid slot modules.
And to another poster who tried to use the ease of fitting missile launchers compared to turrets as justification for their weakness. I do not consider that a valid way to balance a weapon system an entire race largely depends on as their primary weapon type. Missile boats generally have more cpu and less grid then turret boats which makes fitting just as tight as turret boats.
|
Grim Vandal
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 00:06:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Extractor Bill stuff
If you think about it wouldnt it be so much more easy to "balance" missiles if there wasnt the need to bring them in line with guns just because 6 missile launchers need to do compareable dmg and dmg over time to guns ...
sure we have to think it all through these days... ... but if the devs wouldnt have created a nearly pure missile race this game would work so much better and probably more realistic... since a raven shooting 100 torps to kill another BS is kinda wrong physic wise in my book again ...
so besides fixing Destiny maybe we could just remove caldari, or probably not?
Honestly I love missiles and I am a missile ***** in any game however in this game the whole system is kinda disgusting still my missile skills are totally maxed ...
The most the devs should have went for as far as missile specialization is the MINMATAR race ... caldari simply doesnt work right in my book and as a dev I would have let them extinct quite early...
but here we are ... and this is by far the best change I can think of besides this being a rather small swing of changes imho ... there could be achieved so much more ... eg. start reading DigitalCommunist suggestion and you will be inspired up to pure awesomeness
Greetings Grim |
Veldya
Guristari Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 00:35:00 -
[89]
Seriously guys, release the friggin formula.
Without it we are just going to waste a ridiculous amount of time working out what the formula is every time you change things around and then seeing if we can break it with extreme fittings. You are just wasting our time atm.
Also, there is still nothing in missile combat which makes them remotely useful in fleet combat. This is a major flaw in the mechanics and it is something you should be looking to address while you are making changes to the system.
You really need to look at a ridiculously high velocity fleet missile with significantly lower damage which makes missile boats a bit more than useless, which they currently are.
|
iudex
Caldari State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 00:36:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Shard Merchant [Cruise missiles are] not supposed to have higher DPS because it would negate the point of fitting Torps. Torps are meant to have higher damage in compensation for their reduced range and higher fittings. Cruise launchers are one of the easiest to fit BS weapons in the game. Their DPS at range is almost unbeatable. And their ability to hit small targets at all, with any damage type, is why they're not on par with turrets.
There is a huge gap between cruise missiles and torp dps, cruise missile damage is only slightly above a heavy assault missile drake dps. A cruise raven has a dps of a railgun brutix or similar turret battlecruisers. If they'd get like 10-20 % more dps they'd still be far below torps.
At the moment cruise missiles have a base sig radius of 533 and an explosion velocity of 42 (without skills) on the testserver. I'm not sure how the new damage formula will work at the end, but this values show an intention to make cruise missiles bad against small/fast targets. So if we have a battelship-sized weapon system, that does the damage of a battlecruiser and which will then lose the precision that it has now, the weapontype will become usless.
And you're wrong if you think turret ships are bad against small targets, compared to missiles. I'm currently flying a Rokh in faction warfare fleets, with tracking rigs and modules, which does quite well against small targets. Especially if tracking is not an issue the Rokh hits even frigates for full damage, while the cruise missiles are always getting a damage reduction if the ship has signature radius smaller than ~230 (lower only with implant/rigor rigs).
_________________________________________ Faction Standings: Serpentis +7.60 // Angel Cartel +7.31 // Minmatar Republic -8.56 // Gallente Federation -9.71
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 29 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |