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) |
Shard Merchant
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 19:55:00 -
[181]
With the number of ships in EVE which are seemingly designed to spank small ships, we don't really need to add BS on top. We need even more class differences, not a weapon that scales down automatically for the ship its hitting.
So far, the changes are trying to maintain the status quo we have on TQ. Obviously its not a popular thing for missile users to hear, but that status quo is crap. But I'm waiting on the next revision to see where it goes. _______________________________________________ CCP CENSORSHIP ALERT: CAN YOU SPOT IT? |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:02:00 -
[182]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 20/10/2008 20:05:31
Originally by: Shard Merchant So far, the changes are trying to maintain the status quo we have on TQ. Obviously its not a popular thing for missile users to hear, but that status quo is crap.
Yeah, the current missile damage formula on TQ is broken. Stupidly broken. Missiles are too good against slow small stuff, too useless against fast stuff and it's too difficult for non-nanos to mitigate damage. The new missile formula looks good in general, but it'll take a while to iron out the problems with interceptors taking excess damage from Cruise etc.
I wouldn't even look at T2 missile capabilities until T1 versions have settled down, tbh.
|
Kayosoni
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:06:00 -
[183]
Originally by: Shard Merchant With the number of ships in EVE which are seemingly designed to spank small ships, we don't really need to add BS on top. We need even more class differences, not a weapon that scales down automatically for the ship its hitting.
So far, the changes are trying to maintain the status quo we have on TQ. Obviously its not a popular thing for missile users to hear, but that status quo is crap. But I'm waiting on the next revision to see where it goes.
Just as in every RTS, there is always a bigger ship that specializes in killing ships smaller than itself. Missile destroyers in homeworld were pretty awesome against any strike craft right?
Class distinction should not go so far as to be Battleships only useful against other battleships, cruisers only useful against other cruisers, frigates only useful against other frigates, becuase then what is the point of flying anything? If battleships can't hit frigates, WHY EVEN BRING THEM TO A FLEET FIGHT? might as well just have 500 assault frigs vs 500 assault frigs.
Ships in different classes SHOULD indeed be able to hit ships smaller than themselelves, not every ship, buit a few that specializes. In return for being able to hit smaller ships, you are pretty much useless against your own ship class. -----------------------------------
|
Shard Merchant
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:10:00 -
[184]
Except that the Raven is not a specialist in killing small targets, and its not useless against other battleships. If you have a beef with missile damage (which I don't find valid), then its a trade-off for your weapons doing any damage type and consistent damage at any range. Your argument is voided further by the fact that drones are supposed to be the anti-smallship weapon of EVE. _______________________________________________ CCP CENSORSHIP ALERT: CAN YOU SPOT IT? |
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:13:00 -
[185]
Edited by: lecrotta on 20/10/2008 20:15:14
Originally by: Shard Merchant Except that the Raven is not a specialist in killing small targets, and its not useless against other battleships. If you have a beef with missile damage (which I don't find valid), then its a trade-off for your weapons doing any damage type and consistent damage at any range. Your argument is voided further by the fact that drones are supposed to be the anti-smallship weapon of EVE.
Word.
If arties, rails, beams on their respective BS cannot hit frigs or destroyers then cruise on missile BS should not be able to either.
|
Kayosoni
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:15:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Shard Merchant Except that the Raven is not a specialist in killing small targets, and its not useless against other battleships. If you have a beef with missile damage (which I don't find valid), then its a trade-off for your weapons doing any damage type and consistent damage at any range. Your argument is voided further by the fact that drones are supposed to be the anti-smallship weapon of EVE.
If you fit it as such, then it is. This is a benefit missiles have always had. You tradeoff raw dps for versatility, and like I said, because caldari ships are not fast enough to web their targets, this is an inherint must in missiles.
Make caldari ships just as fast with as little mass as every other ship, and you can nerf missiles. -----------------------------------
|
Kayosoni
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:16:00 -
[187]
Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 20/10/2008 20:15:14
Originally by: Shard Merchant Except that the Raven is not a specialist in killing small targets, and its not useless against other battleships. If you have a beef with missile damage (which I don't find valid), then its a trade-off for your weapons doing any damage type and consistent damage at any range. Your argument is voided further by the fact that drones are supposed to be the anti-smallship weapon of EVE.
Word.
If arties, rails, beams on their respective BS cannot hit frigs or destroyers then cruise on missile BS should not be able to either.
and how do missiles not hit something? How are they going to do that? -----------------------------------
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:19:00 -
[188]
Originally by: Kayosoni
Originally by: Shard Merchant Except that the Raven is not a specialist in killing small targets, and its not useless against other battleships. If you have a beef with missile damage (which I don't find valid), then its a trade-off for your weapons doing any damage type and consistent damage at any range. Your argument is voided further by the fact that drones are supposed to be the anti-smallship weapon of EVE.
If you fit it as such, then it is. This is a benefit missiles have always had. You tradeoff raw dps for versatility.
I have no problem with you fitting launchers on your raven that can fire small missiles but if you fit BS weapons you should have the same chance to hit that other BS do.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:20:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Shard Merchant Except that the Raven is not a specialist in killing small targets, and its not useless against other battleships. If you have a beef with missile damage (which I don't find valid), then its a trade-off for your weapons doing any damage type and consistent damage at any range. Your argument is voided further by the fact that drones are supposed to be the anti-smallship weapon of EVE.
I agree with all of this, and I'm not sure why you think I don't. I said right at the start of this "discussion" that the figures of Cruise vs. interceptor favoured cruise too much - but that T2 Cruise probably hasn't even been looked at yet. Then Lecrotta started ranting about Cruise Raven "sniper" fleets "instapopping" everything in sight and everything kinda went downhill...
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:22:00 -
[190]
Originally by: Kayosoni
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Shard Merchant Except that the Raven is not a specialist in killing small targets, and its not useless against other battleships. If you have a beef with missile damage (which I don't find valid), then its a trade-off for your weapons doing any damage type and consistent damage at any range. Your argument is voided further by the fact that drones are supposed to be the anti-smallship weapon of EVE.
Word.
If arties, rails, beams on their respective BS cannot hit frigs or destroyers then cruise on missile BS should not be able to either.
and how do missiles not hit something? How are they going to do that?
Im sure if ppl put as much thought into balancing missiles as they did speed the solution will reveal itself.
Maybe they can be allowed to hit but do 0 dmg....but balance must be done.
|
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:23:00 -
[191]
Originally by: Gypsio III Then Lecrotta started ranting about Cruise Raven "sniper" fleets "instapopping" everything in sight and everything kinda went downhill...
Show me where i even mention insta popping moron?...no?.....stfu then
|
Kayosoni
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:23:00 -
[192]
Edited by: Kayosoni on 20/10/2008 20:24:15 by the way, I've never said cruise should be able to kill inters/dictors going full speed. They Just need to stay as useful against cruisers are they currently are, and inters/dictors as they currently are (which is, not at all.)
I'm thinking that the new formulas put FAR too much emphasis on explosion velocity (still), and way not enough on sig resolution. Missiles should be almost completely based on sig resolution I think. it's the only good way to balance it. -----------------------------------
|
Kayosoni
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:26:00 -
[193]
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Shard Merchant Except that the Raven is not a specialist in killing small targets, and its not useless against other battleships. If you have a beef with missile damage (which I don't find valid), then its a trade-off for your weapons doing any damage type and consistent damage at any range. Your argument is voided further by the fact that drones are supposed to be the anti-smallship weapon of EVE.
I agree with all of this, and I'm not sure why you think I don't. I said right at the start of this "discussion" that the figures of Cruise vs. interceptor favoured cruise too much - but that T2 Cruise probably hasn't even been looked at yet. Then Lecrotta started ranting about Cruise Raven "sniper" fleets "instapopping" everything in sight and everything kinda went downhill...
yea... he did start ranting about something that already isn't in the game.. cruise instapopping interceptors going 5 km/s a waht not. I don't think any of us have been for that. -----------------------------------
|
Kayosoni
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:29:00 -
[194]
Edited by: Kayosoni on 20/10/2008 20:29:43 The more I think about it the more I realize just how ass backward missiles are.
Someone needs to go on sisi, get in a tempest or something with dual 650s and web an AF orbitting it at 9km and see how fast you kill it. Then do the same with a raven (with cruise.)
I bet it takes cruise longer even though they are the missiles that can hit smaller ships better, but they are long range. Why are long range missiles the ones with lower sig radius? shouldn't the long range ones be the ones with WORSE tracking? (like 1400s.)
jesus christ, missiles needs a complete reworking. -----------------------------------
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:29:00 -
[195]
Edited by: lecrotta on 20/10/2008 20:30:21
Originally by: Kayosoni
by the way, I've never said cruise should be able to kill inters/dictors going full speed. They Just need to stay as useful against cruisers are they currently are, and inters/dictors as they currently are (which is, not at all.)
Maybe but if a cruise can hit and dmg a frig or destroyer it is doing more than any other long range BS can do and so needs balancing with them or them with it.
Wanna do it by boosting the tracking to gunships so they can hit inties and destroyers?, or giving us a precision ammo that boosts the crap out of our tracking but has the same dmg and range as precision cruise that is fine also but balance must be had.
|
Kayosoni
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:31:00 -
[196]
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Kayosoni
by the way, I've never said cruise should be able to kill inters/dictors going full speed. They Just need to stay as useful against cruisers are they currently are, and inters/dictors as they currently are (which is, not at all.)
Maybe but if a cruise can hit and dmg a frig or destroyer it is doing more than any other long range BS can do and so needs balancing with them or them with it.
Wanna do it by boosting the tracking to gunships sp they can hit inties or giving us a precision ammo that boosts the crap out of our tracking but has the same dmg and range as precision cruise that is fine also fine but balance must be had.
You well know the reason why missiles have to be that fast. That is a completely invalid point (for multiple reasons, including how badly designed the game's physics engine is.) -----------------------------------
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:33:00 -
[197]
Edited by: lecrotta on 20/10/2008 20:37:10
Originally by: Kayosoni
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Kayosoni
by the way, I've never said cruise should be able to kill inters/dictors going full speed. They Just need to stay as useful against cruisers are they currently are, and inters/dictors as they currently are (which is, not at all.)
Maybe but if a cruise can hit and dmg a frig or destroyer it is doing more than any other long range BS can do and so needs balancing with them or them with it.
Wanna do it by boosting the tracking to gunships sp they can hit inties or giving us a precision ammo that boosts the crap out of our tracking but has the same dmg and range as precision cruise that is fine also fine but balance must be had.
You well know the reason why missiles have to be that fast. That is a completely invalid point (for multiple reasons, including how badly designed the game's physics engine is.)
Personally i think its stupid, you could use the same formula for guns and missiles (within reason) as they are both virtual and so are their targets and its only the graphics that need be different.
You click on a virtual weapon and the game does the calculations...the choice of graphics are unimportant i think. And trying to simulate real missiles instead of just doing a bit of math like guns is mental.
|
Kayosoni
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:37:00 -
[198]
Edited by: Kayosoni on 20/10/2008 20:38:31 Edited by: Kayosoni on 20/10/2008 20:37:51
Originally by: lecrotta
Personally i think its stupid, you could use the same formula for guns and missiles as they are both virtual its only the graphics that need be differant.
You think missiles should be instant hit? Also this game is kind of based on reality, hence why turrets can still basically hit any ship as long as it's not going faster than they can gimble. Missiles... are not the same. What you are suggesting, in essence, is deleting missils as a weapon system from the game. -----------------------------------
|
Shard Merchant
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:39:00 -
[199]
Kayo, a Raven can't be turned into an anti-frigate specialist because:
- we don't need more ships with that role - it only uses two weapons, both BS class
Fitting cruise is not specializing for small things, its exchanging DPS for range over Torps. Cruise missiles are not an anti-smallship weapon, but a long range weapon. I know that's what everyone is used to, but its also the reason Torps are not as popular. They get more damage at the expense of range AND the ability to hit a wider range of targets.
I'm not going to go through everything you've said. But there are two good ways to implement missiles in EVE.
1. The first is having proper physics. In the past it wasn't viable, but maybe in the future it will be. This means missiles do full damage if you get hit, but evading them would be the same as evading turrets - get transverse. The larger the missile, the lower the turning arc, and getting close to a BS would make their use dangerous due to splash. Currently they spin on a dime and explode in your face with no damage.
2. Second way is to make them even closer to turrets than they are:
- oversize missiles are only viable against small targets which are webbed to very low speeds and/or stationary. That's how BS guns work; do nothing at speed, but murder at standstill.
- turn cruise into a better ranged weapon through accelerating velocity (min to max), so the last 100km isn't as hard to cross as the first 100km
- turn torps into a better close range weapon by introducing missile arming distance. Cruise would have ~20km and torps ~5km, both reduced by skills. Simulates getting under tracking, and explains the lack of splash. _______________________________________________ CCP CENSORSHIP ALERT: CAN YOU SPOT IT? |
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:39:00 -
[200]
Edited by: lecrotta on 20/10/2008 20:42:40
Originally by: Kayosoni
Originally by: lecrotta
Personally i think its stupid, you could use the same formula for guns and missiles as they are both virtual its only the graphics that need be differant.
You think missiles should be instant hit?
The calculations could be made as quickly and the same as gunnery cos like i say we are all virtual, but a delay in the dmg message depending on range and a bit of a graphic difference so it looks like a fired missile must be easier?.
Maybe im wrong about it but it seems that trying to make real simulated missiles instead of just using the tracking formula from guns and having a different graphic plus delayed message must be easier?. .
|
|
Kayosoni
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:42:00 -
[201]
Edited by: Kayosoni on 20/10/2008 20:44:46 Edited by: Kayosoni on 20/10/2008 20:42:26
Originally by: Shard Merchant Kayo, a Raven can't be turned into an anti-frigate specialist because:
- we don't need more ships with that role - it only uses two weapons, both BS class
Fitting cruise is not specializing for small things, its exchanging DPS for range over Torps. Cruise missiles are not an anti-smallship weapon, but a long range weapon. I know that's what everyone is used to, but its also the reason Torps are not as popular. They get more damage at the expense of range AND the ability to hit a wider range of targets.
I'm not going to go through everything you've said. But there are two good ways to implement missiles in EVE.
1. The first is having proper physics. In the past it wasn't viable, but maybe in the future it will be. This means missiles do full damage if you get hit, but evading them would be the same as evading turrets - get transverse. The larger the missile, the lower the turning arc, and getting close to a BS would make their use dangerous due to splash. Currently they spin on a dime and explode in your face with no damage.
2. Second way is to make them even closer to turrets than they are:
- oversize missiles are only viable against small targets which are webbed to very low speeds and/or stationary. That's how BS guns work; do nothing at speed, but murder at standstill.
- turn cruise into a better ranged weapon through accelerating velocity (min to max), so the last 100km isn't as hard to cross as the first 100km
- turn torps into a better close range weapon by introducing missile arming distance. Cruise would have ~20km and torps ~5km, both reduced by skills. Simulates getting under tracking, and explains the lack of splash.
I never said cruise should hit frigates. I said missiles need to be completely reworked so that Cruise have long range, less DPS, and a harder time hiting things, while torps in fact, are closer range, high DPS, and hit smaller ships easier (like close range turrets.)
Doing this will require quite a re-work of ship bonuses though. not to mention if we wanted this to work right, cruise would have to use the grid siege launchers do, and vice versa. -----------------------------------
|
Kayosoni
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:43:00 -
[202]
Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 20/10/2008 20:42:40
Originally by: Kayosoni
Originally by: lecrotta
Personally i think its stupid, you could use the same formula for guns and missiles as they are both virtual its only the graphics that need be differant.
You think missiles should be instant hit?
The calculations could be made as quickly and the same as gunnery cos like i say we are all virtual, but a delay in the dmg message depending on range and a bit of a graphic difference so it looks like a fired missile must be easier?.
Maybe im wrong about it but it seems that trying to make real simulated missiles instead of just using the tracking formula from guns and having a different graphic plus delayed message must be easier?. .
That is completely ******ed. -----------------------------------
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:44:00 -
[203]
Originally by: Kayosoni
Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 20/10/2008 20:42:40
Originally by: Kayosoni
Originally by: lecrotta
Personally i think its stupid, you could use the same formula for guns and missiles as they are both virtual its only the graphics that need be differant.
You think missiles should be instant hit?
The calculations could be made as quickly and the same as gunnery cos like i say we are all virtual, but a delay in the dmg message depending on range and a bit of a graphic difference so it looks like a fired missile must be easier?.
Maybe im wrong about it but it seems that trying to make real simulated missiles instead of just using the tracking formula from guns and having a different graphic plus delayed message must be easier?. .
That is completely ******ed.
Why?
|
Kayosoni
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:45:00 -
[204]
Edited by: Kayosoni on 20/10/2008 20:46:20
Originally by: lecrotta
Why?
because a missile is not a ****ing laser. and it shouldn;t be the same shit. if it was the same shit, why would anyone ever have to think about what to do in the game to counter stuff? -----------------------------------
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:46:00 -
[205]
Right, just to clarify my entire stance on long-range missiles here, then I'm outta here until the next iteration of changes is applied:
1. Turrets are not the same as missiles and we can't make them the same. However, a general balance between turret tracking and missile damage mitigation is desirable.
2. The delayed damage of long-range missiles should be balanced by improved DPS - once they start hitting - relative to turret snipers. Current balance on TQ is generally satisfactory in this respect - Cruise Ravens fulfil a niche antisupport role, but are not fleet snipers. Hence their job in fleet/organised gang is to hit enemy support, rather than shooting at enemy sniper BS - that's your snipers' job.
3. So a Cruise Raven should be "effective" against a Falcon, bearing in mind its lack of tank, low speed and largish sig radius, and the missile flight time, but less effective than a HM Cerberus. How "effective" is not completely clear atm and will probably take careful balancing.
4. Precision Cruise should not be able to significantly damage, in a sensible timeframe, a MWDing interceptor - nor an ABing AF, probably. Similarly, precision Heavies should be pretty crappy against inties/AFs, without serious painter/web support anyway.
5. PVP balance is more important than PVE balance, and reading lots of "OMG L4 cruise Raven nerfed!" whines would probably be quite funny.
Erm, I think that's it for now.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:52:00 -
[206]
Edited by: lecrotta on 20/10/2008 20:55:37
Originally by: Kayosoni
Originally by: lecrotta
Why?
because a missile is not a ****ing laser. and it shouldn;t be the same shit. if it was the same shit, why would anyone ever have to think about what to do in the game to counter stuff?
Ok take a seat and relax im gonna tell you a secret...eve is not real its all a simulation and only works inside a computer.
Now understanding that and that you are not firing real missiles or lazors, the fact is that HOW the dmg is attained through formulas inside your pc is irrelevant as long as it works and the graphics show the correct simulation when you fire them and takes into account delays due to travel time.
|
Kayosoni
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:55:00 -
[207]
Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 20/10/2008 20:52:56
Originally by: Kayosoni
Originally by: lecrotta
Why?
because a missile is not a ****ing laser. and it shouldn;t be the same shit. if it was the same shit, why would anyone ever have to think about what to do in the game to counter stuff?
Ok take a seat and relax im gonna tell you a secret...eve is not real its all a simulation and only works inside a computer.
Now understanding that and that you are not firing real missiles or lazors, the fact is that HOW the dmg is attained through formulas inside your pc is irrelevant as long as it works and the graphics show the correct simulation when you fire them.
You don't even understand what I am saying. read it again and again until you do. -----------------------------------
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 21:01:00 -
[208]
Edited by: lecrotta on 20/10/2008 21:03:09
Originally by: Kayosoni
You don't even understand what I am saying. read it again and again until you do.
I understand exactly, what you do not understand is that a lot of the problems with balancing speed to dmg from missiles are caused by the way the calculations to missiles are made.
|
Bilaz
Minmatar Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 21:27:00 -
[209]
ok been to test server checking inty vs heavy missiles and/or drones. generally - intys are in big trouble. when on mvd - speed around 5000 plain scourge missiles hit like half of their damage compared to non moving inty (which is much more that inty can tank), but drones dont seem to catch up when on ab - things somehow better but not much. each missile hit for 20%( 100% - not moving inty)(which is more close to something inty CAN tank IF there were no nano modules onboard (and thats against single target - if i face 3+ heavy missile spammers i'm as good as dead with or without tank)), but pesky drones (even med ones) have 0 problems with disassembling inty. also on ab speed of inty(~1800) is only slightly higher that of hac with mwd (and 0 nano modules) that means that you wont be able to tackle SINGLE non-nano hac and/or stay alive for a long(30-60 seconds -(thats 20-40 au warp + jump in of your gang)) time. so atm for intys - ab tanking not working, mwd tanking not working. and i dont even want to see what happened to interdictors. So I hope something would change (atleast half of me, other is quite happy that intys is now useless piece of junk ) |
Siona Windweaver
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 21:34:00 -
[210]
Originally by: lecrotta I use "subject_ship_here", so everyone should use "Subject_ship_here".
insert; mandatory(go_back_to_wow) message.
Dear "Subject_name_here"
We all appreciate what you are trying to do. We really do, but it seems you have no idea whatsoever on how MMO's (EVE in particular) works. It is best that you just return to your previous MMO and try those forums instead.
Thank you.
insert; mandatory(can_i_have_your_stuff) message.
PS: Don't take away the diversity. Ever. PSS: There is a proven record that people trying to take away the diversity from a game fails, really really badly.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |