EVE Search - wth did you do to my missiles?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

wth did you do to my missiles?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.11.12 08:39:00 - [1] Originally by: Wayson I still do not know, and never will understand, why missiles had to be nerfed. Were they destroying PvP? Hahahahaha. Were they breaking PvE by making missions ridiculously easy? ... not really, as NPCs vomit defenders and there are swarms of small ships even in L4s. Blargh. They would have broken the tweaked role for small, AB-using ships. This brings missiles in line with turret guns against small fast targets. Quote: continues training Gallente Frigate III, onward to the Dominix! May I suggest stopping at Gallente cruisers and BCs — they eat L4s for breakfast, just like before
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.11.12 09:03:00 - [2] Originally by: Oftherocks Originally by: Tippia They would have broken the tweaked role for small, AB-using ships. This brings missiles in line with turret guns against small fast targets No, it doesn't, not even close. Turrets = zero damage; missiles = zero damage— how is that "not even close"?
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.11.12 09:14:00 - [3] Originally by: Oftherocks You aren't getting it. This isn't that Cruise missiles can't hit frigs for crap, it is that a BS with NO speed mods can now speed tank a cruise missile ship. No, that's not what this is about. Or, rather, if that's what you wanted to discuss, then maybe you shouldn't have answered my post. You see, I wrote: Originally by: Tippia They would have broken the tweaked role for small, AB-using ships. This brings missiles in line with turret guns against small fast targets Non-modded battleships are not "small, AB-using ships." Read before posting — tip of the day.
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.11.12 12:39:00 - [4] Originally by: Maulith Maybe you carebears might have to find someone to help you with your "tricky" level 4 missions? Now where on earth you going to find someone to help you in an MMO game?!?! Nah… My L4s are easier than ever, and they were entirely solo:able before the patch Then again, I fly a Battlecruiser.
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.11.12 14:33:00 - [5] Originally by: Ethaet No, you can't have my stuff. Scrooge.
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.11.12 18:06:00 - [6] Originally by: Taius Pax You are definitely not a good Raven pilot (or one at all) if you stuck an AB on it for missions in the first place. You need all the mids for the shield tank. If you need all mids on a Raven for tank, then maybe you should increase your skills and/or rethink your fitting. It's certainly not needed.
Tippia Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2008.11.20 10:18:00 - [7] Originally by: Rothgar Detris But as most ppl know, you can't really use drones most of the time, especially in missions that have reinforcement/multi-spawns. I think you'll find that, if this is the case, then "most people" are wrong. I fly a Myrmidon when I do L4s — you know that cute little battlecruiser which relies on drones for more than half its damage output? The last time I lost a drone in a mission was in July — I've learned to control them since then. Reinforcements are not a problem.
Tippia Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2008.11.20 11:46:00 - [8] Originally by: KhaniKirai Drones in missions, cause often added aggro from multiple spawns. The drones being further out then your ship, activate nearby aggressive spawns in several missions. So control your drones and keep them from doing that. Quote: As shield tanker, you really dont want that. Depends how you're shield tanking. If you PST, it's sometimes a lot easier to just get all the aggro at once so you don't have to manage it and go watch TV while the rats get themselves killed… Quote: Shieldtanking is less cap efficient then armor tanking, but its better to heal up quick, then take break and reload cap. Shieldtanking also allows you to tank without using any cap at all. That's kind of convenient. No sig for me, thankyouverymuch.
Tippia Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2008.11.25 12:56:00 - [9] Originally by: Karille Armor tanking ships give up their tank slots to damage mods, and they sacrifice valuable cap recharge for utility mods. …and while we're talking about cap recharge — any thoughts on CFCs to fill out those empty lowslots? No sig for me, thankyouverymuch.
Tippia Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2008.11.25 13:21:00 - [10] Originally by: Karille Tippia were you talking to me? Not so much to you as to expand on the discussion of what lowslots can be used for in various setups, and what the different tanking strategies have to give up. I find that shield tankers often forget these tiny low-slot mods that actually help their tank, either by making it less fiddly (cap-wise), or by outright strengthening it. No sig for me, thankyouverymuch.

Tippia Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2008.11.26 07:20:00 - [11] Originally by: Patent Pending Here's another wonderful gem from CCP: Missile calculations do not take into account the vector of the missile vs the vector the ship is flying. Why would it? If the missile explodes in every direction, why would it matter what direction the ship is flying? What matters is how fast you can get away from the centre of the explosion (speed) and how large a cross-section your ship has to catch the shock wave (sig radius). If you want to complain about something, complain about the fact that the missiles in ≡v≡ aren't clever enough to lead their targets and therefore always explode behind the optimal point of impact. No sig for me, thankyouverymuch.
Tippia Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2008.11.26 16:26:00 - [12] Originally by: Brea Lafail FOR BALANCE YOU SILLY GOOSE! Never ever ever ever bring physics into a game balancing argument Without the physics, there is no argument. Missiles don't care about the velocity vector or its location in space — only about its length (i.e. the speed). Turrets don't care about the speed itself, but about the direction and location of that velocity vector (i.e. optimal range and transversal). Both care about the size of the target. Balance. No sig for me, thankyouverymuch.
Tippia Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2008.11.26 20:48:00 - [13] Edited by: Tippia on 26/11/2008 20:52:46 Originally by: Patent Pending Exactly. If you are hit by a car from behind while you're going 100mph and the guy that hits you is 120mph, you feel the impact as being 20mph. If that crash was head-on, the impact is 220mph worth of hurt. Now do you understand? Yes. That's not how it works. The missile explodes where your ship is — you ride the shockwave in any direction. Quote: Which should not be as per what I put on my previous post. Given the physics, why? Given the game mechanics, why? Quote: Incorrect. Speed is a factor in that velocity vector. In other words, it is not affected by the speed itself, just like I wrote. Quote: Now however, a missile user... if you want to increase your chances of a better hit.. you CANT do anything about it […] If you're being targeted by a missile user, all you need to do is activate the afterburner. Yes? Easy to use — easy to avoid. Balance. Compare to turrets: requires piloting skill to use; therefore requires piloting skills to avoid. Balance! Quote: and missiles that always inflict minimal damage vs = sized ships …which, of course, is to vastly overstate the case. The damage isn't "always minimal" — it's just slightly less — and this is traded against the fact that missiles always inflict damage, however minimal, unlike turrets. Originally by: Hyveres And if you are not in close and scrambled when fighting a missileboat you simply warp out before he can kill you. Yes, and this obviously absolutely not the case for turret ships… nope. Nuh-uh! Nevar! So there! No sig for me, thankyouverymuch.
Tippia Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2008.11.26 21:47:00 - [14] Originally by: Patent Pending You really don't get it do you? […] You do not understand physics to begin with. Yes I do. You do not. You're arguing that the missiles should do damage according to a model that isn't in the game. You give no reason why it should change. Quote: Nor do you understand basic math either. 'Not affected' oh my god... Vector ≠ scalar. No, it is not affected by the scalar because the scalar could be pretty much any value, and still result in anything from no damage at all to full damage. What matters is the vector. Quote: If you imply that AB is a counter to missiles Nope. Quote: you conveniently forget that AB also provides many other benefits to its user. Speed with which to control the range of the engagement for example. AB is not a counter to missiles only. Quite true: it is not a counter to missiles — it is a counter to all kinds of weaponry, from ewar to slug throwers, to lasers, to missiles, to drones… Quote: Piloting skill to avoid missiles? LOL. Warp off before they reach you or turn on the AB. Ehm. Yes? You agree with me, then. Good. Like I said: easy to use; easy to avoid. Quote: Id hardly call 40% damage reduction of missile vs same sized ship 'slightly less' if that ship uses an AB. …and as it happens, the same holds true for maneuvering against turrets using an AB. Quote: Quote: Yes, and this obviously absolutely not the case for turret ships… nope. Nuh-uh! Nevar! So there! No it isnt. So you're claiming that if a turret ship doesn't have you scrambled, you still can't warp off… Interesting. Re-read what he wrote, and what I answered. No sig for me, thankyouverymuch.
Tippia Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2008.11.27 09:46:00 - [15] Originally by: Patent Pending sigh. increase the speed in transversal equation and you see a direct increase in the transversal result. 'does not affect it' ? c'mon now. its the primary factor in it. No. You see, you keep forgetting this tiiiiiiny factor called range. The scalar doesn't matter because it could be 1m/s and have a huge effect, or it can be 15,000m/s and have no effect at all. All because of range. Primary factor? Not even close. hit chance = 0.5^( speed sin(off-angle) / (range + tracking) )¦ + (max(0,range-optimal) / falloff)¦ ) Notice how speed appears in one place? Notice how it can be completely nullified by the angle off-target (i.e. the vector)? Notice how the speed can also be almost completely counteracted by the range and the tracking? Notice how there are two independent terms to the formula — just because one is zero doesn't mean you have a 100% hit chance. Notice how range appears as a factor in both terms? No. The speed is not important — the vector is, including its location in space. Quote: Really? Please do show me where a 0 transversal, 10ms ship receives any less damage than a ship at 2k m/s, 0 transversal when being fired at by a turret of = size to the ship (medium vs cruiser). You see, you keep forgetting this tiiiiiiny factor called range. The AB lets me dictate range to either get too close or too far away for you to hit me. This includes moving in and out of falloff, which (omgz!) means you start taking less damage even at 0 transversal. Quote: Do you consider 'approach' and clicking an AB to be 'difficult'? Like I said, easy to use; easy to avoid. I don't know where you got the idea that I said anything else, and why you keep giving me examples of how easy it is to avoid missiles as a counterpoint to my claim that it is easy to avoid missiles. And no, selecting "approach" is not a good way to use a turret ships, so if you were trying to use that as a counter-argument to my saying turrets are difficult to use, then you've only managed to prove that you don't understand how turrets work. You see, you keep forgetting this tiiiiiiny factor called range… (Not to mention the stupidity of letting the enemy completely dictate the transversal). Quote: No, that depends on the range primarily (range/tracking stats of turret/etc). Range is something that takes time to achieve. Missile mitigation via AB is instantly applied no matter the range or vector. A not so fast ship is easy to track farther away than it is at point blank. Flying close in or away from that ideal range takes time. You see, you keep forgetting this tiii… oh wait, you remembered it now that it served your purpose. …which doesn't change the fact that an AB can be used to counter to everything. Oh, and the mitigation isn't instant either — you need to accelerate first, which takes time. Quote: See my example of the missile vs turret ship duel. Your turret ship will have maximum missile damage mitigation just by having the AB on and it will have hit the missile ship 5 times or more before the first missile volley hits you. …which, of course, has nothing to do with the fact that you can warp away from turret ships just as well as you can warp away from missile ships. Since you obviously didn't read what you were responding to, I'll repeat it here for your convenience: Hyveres: If you're so far away that a missile ship cannot scramble you, you can just warp off to avoid death. Me: The same is true for turret ships. You: No, you cannot warp of against turrets ships that haven't locked you down!! (Yes, I'm very well aware that this wasn't your point, but given the context, that was what your answer meant, whether you wanted it to or not. That's why I asked you to read it again.) No sig for me, thankyouverymuch.
Tippia Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2008.11.27 12:25:00 - [16] Edited by: Tippia on 27/11/2008 12:28:49 Originally by: Opertone stop arguing, transversal velocity is the wrong parameter! …which is why I keep harping on about range. The angular speed is simply transversal / range, and shows up as such in the first term of the tracking formula: 0.5^( speed sin(off-angle) / (range + tracking) )¦ + (max(0,range-optimal) / falloff)¦ ) The bolded part can be rewritten as (transversal / range) / tracking, and since transversal / range = angular speed, the tracking formula could just as well be written as: 0.5^( (angular / tracking)¦ + (Δoptimal / falloff)¦ ) …and of course, the tracking parameter could be broken down into the relationship between sig resolution, sig size and turret accuracy, but that would clutter up the formula and make it less clear for the purpose of discussing the role of range. No sig for me, thankyouverymuch.
Tippia Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2008.11.28 06:33:00 - [17] Originally by: Tobin Shalim Originally by: Gypsio III d) You insist on firing kinetic missiles at T2 Gallente ships. kind of a problem, since all our ships give bonuses to kinetic missiles, hence that's what any Caldari pvp pilot would be using. …which leads back to the whole point of EFT myopia. The DPS output looks good on paper but is a completely irrelevant number until you figure out what it's applied against. That T2 Gallente ship can have en weakness to explosives that is somewhere along the lines of 5x as large as it is against kinetic damage. So you makes your choices and takes you chances: 125% kinetic damage against 85% kinetic resists (hits for 19% of base damage), or 100% explosive damage against 10% explosive resists (hits for 90% of base damage). So no, I don't think a Caldari PvP pilot would use kinetic missiles, unless he was rather daft (and, quite soon, rather dead) — he'd use what he thinks is the best damage type, moment to moment, against the kind of enemy he's facing. No sig for me, thankyouverymuch.
Tippia Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2008.12.03 08:51:00 - [18] Originally by: Bohoba Yep have yet to see one 1 ship 1 gun 1 race ccp is Why not biomass your character over it? No sig for me, thankyouverymuch.

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.