EVE Search - why is the explosion velocity only 85m/s on a rocket?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

why is the explosion velocity only 85m/s on a rocket?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Resamo	Posted - 2008.11.17 06:57:00 - [1] i am just curious as to why rockets were reduced from 3150m/s to 85m/s is this not a little extream? A rocket does reduced damage against a tech 1 frigate with 0 skills and 0 speed mods thats webbified? rockets get reduced damage vs battleships that are moving without any speed mods? Is this a typ-o, i am sitting here looking at the 85m/s explosion velocity and i cant really wrap me head around it. A torpedo now has 71m/s explosion velocity, a heavy assault missile has 101m/s and a rocket has 85m/s??? So a heavy assault missile hits fast targets better then a rocket?? I am just wondering if i am reading this right? all the explosion velocities seem slow to me (light missiles explode slower then cruisers can move before moduals) but the rocket one just makes no sense. As a person who ocasionaly uses rocket's i am really concerned. Maybe i just dont understand the new formula, if thats the case could someone explain it to me? and i would love ccp to put out some damge graphs showing me my damage reduction as it relates to speed and signature radius with the new missile changes and formuals.
Stork DK Minmatar Armada.	Posted - 2008.11.17 07:44:00 - [2] CCP rushed out their Christmas expansion too early. So bugs unite \o/
Max Hardcase Art of War Exalted.	Posted - 2008.11.17 07:47:00 - [3] the key stat is the drf which sorta describes the steepness of the falloff.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.11.17 07:56:00 - [4] Why? Because CCP hates solo PvP. It was not fair that missiles could do effective damage without bringing a blob of painter/web ships to support them, so now they suffer damage reduction against everything but an AFK capital ship.
MenanceWhite Amarr Ministry of War	Posted - 2008.11.17 07:58:00 - [5] Edited by: MenanceWhite on 17/11/2008 07:59:09 changed missile damage formula It's been mentioned on countless topics over the last week. But OP as ignorant as they are just HAD to make another topicc asking about it. --- Originally by: Torfi There's alot. That can be done. With.. corpses Originally by: Oveur
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.11.17 09:33:00 - [6] Originally by: MenanceWhite Edited by: MenanceWhite on 17/11/2008 07:59:09 changed missile damage formula It's been mentioned on countless topics over the last week. But OP as ignorant as they are just HAD to make another topicc asking about it. It is not about the formula it is about the huge nerf what hit missile ,I wonder who told ccp that missiles were overpowered and needed a nerf
Falaricae	Posted - 2008.11.17 10:01:00 - [7] Edited by: Falaricae on 17/11/2008 10:03:28 Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: MenanceWhite Edited by: MenanceWhite on 17/11/2008 07:59:09 changed missile damage formula It's been mentioned on countless topics over the last week. But OP as ignorant as they are just HAD to make another topicc asking about it. It is not about the formula it is about the huge nerf what hit missile ,I wonder who told ccp that missiles were overpowered and needed a nerf Well about every other person that commented on the initial implementation of the speed nerf, complained about missiles beeing overpowered. To sum it up: "Missile boats, they will be the best anti everything ship, regardless of their own class, as they work without webs now, and with the speed changes, they will shred all cruiser sized ships and below with ease."
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.11.17 10:14:00 - [8] Originally by: Falaricae Edited by: Falaricae on 17/11/2008 10:03:28 Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: MenanceWhite Edited by: MenanceWhite on 17/11/2008 07:59:09 changed missile damage formula It's been mentioned on countless topics over the last week. But OP as ignorant as they are just HAD to make another topicc asking about it. It is not about the formula it is about the huge nerf what hit missile ,I wonder who told ccp that missiles were overpowered and needed a nerf Well about every other person that commented on the initial implementation of the speed nerf, complained about missiles beeing overpowered. To sum it up: "Missile boats, they will be the best anti everything ship, regardless of their own class, as they work without webs now, and with the speed changes, they will shred all cruiser sized ships and below with ease." Now it is the otherside missileships are hardy good against their class and useless below it. And dont have the dps to compete with bigger ones.
Cpt Cosmic	Posted - 2008.11.17 10:20:00 - [9] Originally by: Resamo i am just curious as to why rockets were reduced from 3150m/s to 85m/s is this not a little extream? A rocket does reduced damage against a tech 1 frigate with 0 skills and 0 speed mods thats webbified? rockets get reduced damage vs battleships that are moving without any speed mods? Is this a typ-o, i am sitting here looking at the 85m/s explosion velocity and i cant really wrap me head around it. A torpedo now has 71m/s explosion velocity, a heavy assault missile has 101m/s and a rocket has 85m/s??? So a heavy assault missile hits fast targets better then a rocket?? I am just wondering if i am reading this right? all the explosion velocities seem slow to me (light missiles explode slower then cruisers can move before moduals) but the rocket one just makes no sense. As a person who ocasionaly uses rocket's i am really concerned. Maybe i just dont understand the new formula, if thats the case could someone explain it to me? and i would love ccp to put out some damge graphs showing me my damage reduction as it relates to speed and signature radius with the new missile changes and formuals. if your targets signature is big enough you can still hit for full dmg with the new system. now compare explosion radius of light missiles and rockets.
KhaniKirai	Posted - 2008.11.17 11:50:00 - [10] Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: MenanceWhite Edited by: MenanceWhite on 17/11/2008 07:59:09 changed missile damage formula It's been mentioned on countless topics over the last week. But OP as ignorant as they are just HAD to make another topicc asking about it. It is not about the formula it is about the huge nerf what hit missile ,I wonder who told ccp that missiles were overpowered and needed a nerf People, that didnt use missiles, that though, everyone was using missiles in pvp, people that have no clue about missile mods and rigs. Basically most people, that think missiles were overpowered, never used them and these people were also badly trained for their own turret stuff. At this moment, if your skills are low in missiles, you dont see much difference, but training skills up barely has any use. The more skill you had trained, the more your dps fell back from before. Biggest issues: -speed of npc targets and their sigs didnt get patched. -lack of modules, that increase missile explosion velocity. -lack of modules, that decrease missile radius impact -skills percentage of target navigation prediction and guided missile precision are not increased to overcome the big big penalties. The t2 fury cruise, you cant get the radius down enough with max skills, rigs and implants to overcome the new penalties. Same with the explosion velocity, no matter what skills, implants, rigs you use. (again t1 people dont notice this) -drone bays of caldari ships still non-existent or still small, even when you now NEED drones. -mass of caldari ships still incredible big, but for what? Why is this penalty still there? Ranges of some t2 hams got reduced instead of being improved. Even t2 hams cant get full damage on targets bigger then their intended target. Yeah, difference with low skills is minor compared to before, thats why loads of people dont see the problems. The people with high skills and that also have high skills in turrets, they can see the difference pretty easy.
MenanceWhite Amarr Ministry of War	Posted - 2008.11.17 12:54:00 - [11] Prepatch missiles were something like this: I had a char with 10m SP in missiles. But I decided to make an Amarr char to start at new with: Oh okay lasers, hey why does my frigate long range laser only have 12km in range? My kestrel could hit for 25+ without any problem :( Rockets with some skill would have the same range as long range lasers with high damage-low range ammo and still do more damage... And then came the torp change which made the torp deal as much damage as large blasters, with longer range and without the tracking problems. Why can he kill frigates that are orbitting him at 5km with cruisemissiles when I have no chance with my megapulse / megabeam? Defenders are broken, there's no way to properly defend vs missiles since theyre cappless and tracking free... except for SPEED! LOL or long range. The only problems with missiles were problems with damaging primary etc in time during fleet and that precision heavy were crap. also, the amount of missile users switching to turret making "wtf why do I do no damage o_0r" threads didnt make it better. of course people would whine about missiles on the speednerf patch. --- Originally by: Torfi There's alot. That can be done. With.. corpses Originally by: Oveur
FlameGlow Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.17 13:01:00 - [12] Originally by: MenanceWhite Prepatch missiles were something like this: I had a char with 10m SP in missiles. But I decided to make an Amarr char to start at new with: Oh okay lasers, hey why does my frigate long range laser only have 12km in range? My kestrel could hit for 25+ without any problem :( Cause you suck at character creation? My amarr alt had 16 km optimal with microwave lenses on his punisher since his day 1. Don't remember what it was with radio, never used them. _____________ I don't care what is nerfed, as long as it's not my "undock" button.
Hyveres Caldari	Posted - 2008.11.17 13:01:00 - [13] Note: OP is not talking about other missiles , just rockets. The short range , anti small ship weapon. Which is ineffective against its "intended targets"
Rastigan Caldari Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.11.17 14:14:00 - [14] Edited by: Rastigan on 17/11/2008 14:15:21 Originally by: MenanceWhite Prepatch missiles were something like this: Oh okay lasers, hey why does my frigate long range laser only have 12km in range? My kestrel could hit for 25+ without any problem :( Rockets with some skill would have the same range as long range lasers with high damage-low range ammo and still do more damage... Maybe because your skills/fittings arent up to par ? Kestrels can hit for longer than 25km and so can small lasers. Dont forget T2 missiles/rockets/etc also have harsher penalties -speed% for t2 long range rockets. Quote: And then came the torp change which made the torp deal as much damage as large blasters, with longer range and without the tracking problems. Large Blasters can ** nanohacs, torpedoes not so much... Quote: Why can he kill frigates that are orbitting him at 5km with cruisemissiles when I have no chance with my megapulse / megabeam? Huh ? Precision lights had a hard time going 1 point of damage vs interceptors.. Let alone cruise missiles. Quote: Defenders are broken, there's no way to properly defend vs missiles since theyre cappless and tracking free... except for SPEED! LOL or long range. Defenders suck, no argument there. Quote: The only problems with missiles were problems with damaging primary etc in time during fleet and that precision heavy were crap. Precision heavy's didnt scale as well as precision cruises thats for sure. Quote:** also, the amount of missile users switching to turret making "wtf why do I do no damage o_0r" threads didnt make it better. of course people would whine about missiles on the speednerf patch. Missiles were suboptimal for PvP pre-patch, this patch certainly didnt help them at all.
Resamo	Posted - 2008.11.17 23:40:00 - [15] Originally by: MenanceWhite Edited by: MenanceWhite on 17/11/2008 07:59:09 changed missile damage formula It's been mentioned on countless topics over the last week. But OP as ignorant as they are just HAD to make another topicc asking about it. I want to know why rocket explosion velocity is so low, but thanks for your extreamly usefull post i will take the fact that i now know how ignorant i am and turn that into the reason why rocket explosion velocity is near that of torpedoes. Thanks to you the universe is clear of confusion. Does anyone know the actual reason why rocket explosion velocity is so damn low? i can understand a reduction across the board but making it so rockets cant even hit moving battleships for full damage has me confused. (i would also love to take a look at the forumal itself does anyone actualy have it?_
Resamo	Posted - 2008.11.17 23:42:00 - [16] Originally by: Cpt Cosmic signature is big enough you can still hit for full dmg with the new system. now compare explosion radius of light missiles and rockets. Is this true? i would love to see the actual formual to confirm this.
supr3m3justic3 Caldari Hakata Group Blade.	Posted - 2008.11.17 23:55:00 - [17] Formula: Power+Greed+Beer+Icelanders=MEGANERF ____
Marine HK4861 Caldari Radical Technologies	Posted - 2008.11.18 00:33:00 - [18] Originally by: Resamo Originally by: Cpt Cosmic signature is big enough you can still hit for full dmg with the new system. now compare explosion radius of light missiles and rockets. Is this true? i would love to see the actual formual to confirm this. This is the closest player derived formula at the moment: Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(MIN(sig/Er,1) , (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^(0.586 * log(drf)) ) Where sig = ship's signature vel = ship's velocity Er = Explosion Radius of missile Ev = Explosion Velocity of missile drf = Damage Reduction Factor of missile from this thread. Note that CCP will not and never have released any actual ingame formulas.
Sigras	Posted - 2008.11.18 01:12:00 - [19] Originally by: Marine HK4861 This is the closest player derived formula at the moment: Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(MIN(sig/Er,1) , (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^(0.586 * log(drf)) ) Where sig = ship's signature vel = ship's velocity Er = Explosion Radius of missile Ev = Explosion Velocity of missile drf = Damage Reduction Factor of missile from this thread. Note that CCP will not and never have released any actual ingame formulas. ummmm . . . is this true, velocity doesnt even factor in if the target's signature radius is big enough? doesnt this render all MWD's moot for speed tanking?
Dracthera	Posted - 2008.11.18 01:16:00 - [20] I wouldn't worry about the new explosion velocity. It's a part of a new formula, and essentially with this latest patch CCP introduced a concept similar to falloff to missiles as we had one for turrets.
Lurana Lay Gallente	Posted - 2008.11.18 01:31:00 - [21] Originally by: Dracthera I wouldn't worry about the new explosion velocity. It's a part of a new formula, and essentially with this latest patch CCP introduced a concept similar to falloff to missiles as we had one for turrets. Yeah, except that they overdid it.
Arkeladin	Posted - 2008.11.18 01:53:00 - [22] Originally by: Sigras Originally by: Marine HK4861 This is the closest player derived formula at the moment: Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(MIN(sig/Er,1) , (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^(0.586 * log(drf)) ) Where sig = ship's signature vel = ship's velocity Er = Explosion Radius of missile Ev = Explosion Velocity of missile drf = Damage Reduction Factor of missile from this thread. Note that CCP will not and never have released any actual ingame formulas. ummmm . . . is this true, velocity doesnt even factor in if the target's signature radius is big enough? doesnt this render all MWD's moot for speed tanking? Somewhat, yes. The devs want less MWDs, more ABs - which is why the famous quote from a dev: "ABs are now a viable way for ships to speed-tank missiles:", All part of that infamous "nano-nerf", don't ya know.
Chssmius Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.11.18 03:41:00 - [23] Edited by: Chssmius on 18/11/2008 03:44:41 Originally by: Sigras Originally by: Marine HK4861 This is the closest player derived formula at the moment: Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(MIN(sig/Er,1) , (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^(0.586 * log(drf)) ) Where sig = ship's signature vel = ship's velocity Er = Explosion Radius of missile Ev = Explosion Velocity of missile drf = Damage Reduction Factor of missile from this thread. Note that CCP will not and never have released any actual ingame formulas. ummmm . . . is this true, velocity doesnt even factor in if the target's signature radius is big enough? doesnt this render all MWD's moot for speed tanking? Ahh, no(the key is nested MIN functions), if the ship signature is small enough(think drone) or the explosion radius of the missile large enough(think heavy, cruise, torp) then velocity plays no part in determining damage reduction but the cases where that can happen are fairly rare. The thing that gets me is the degree to which damage reduction is built into the missiles themselves when using this formula. Example, light missile have a Er of 50, an Ev of 170, and a drf of 2.8. An unpainted, rifter that isn't moving gets light missile damage reduced by 30%! This same unpainted rifter moving at about half speed will start to get more damage reduced. If fitted with an AB, unpainted, and flown by a decent pilot the rifter will get a whopping 74% damage reduction from light missiles at top speed. Put an MWD on it and it will still get about a 60% damage reduction at 3.5 km/s and that is with a sig of 210!
Sigras	Posted - 2008.11.18 08:31:00 - [24] thanks for the clarification; dont know why i read this as max
Sigras	Posted - 2008.11.18 14:17:00 - [25] Originally by: Chssmius Edited by: Chssmius on 18/11/2008 04:17:34 Edited by: Chssmius on 18/11/2008 04:05:25Ahh, no(the key is nested MIN functions), if the ship signature is small enough(think drone) or the explosion radius of the missile large enough(think heavy, cruise, torp) then velocity plays no part in determining damage reduction but the cases where that can happen "should be" fairly rare, but they are not. What gets me is the degree to which damage reduction is built into the missiles themselves when using this formula. For example, light missile have a Er of 50, an Ev of 170, and a drf of 2.8. An unpainted, rifter that isn't moving gets light missile damage reduced by something like 30%. From there the curve looks pretty flat until you reach ~600 to ~800 m/s(the latter is with perfect skills) then it starts to dive again. I shouldn't have to tell you it is worse with other missiles. (Also, precision lights only do marginally more damage against small signature targets at very high speeds. So much so that the only case I can think of where it is advantages to use precision lights is against an ABing interceptor.) This statement was incorrect after messing around with the formulas some more the only case where precision lights can do more damage is against light drones. For everything else(unless say, a frigate flown by a pilot with a full halo set) , it can't go fast enough as it would need an MWD(and the resulting sig bloom which leads to...) and/or the targets signature radius is sufficiently large that other light missiles will always out damage it. EDIT: For my vanity. EDIT2: Added full Halo implant case. Again; though the point stands, doesnt this render MWD's moot for speed tanking? 500% speed buff + 500% Sig Radius nerf = no changes right?
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2008.11.18 14:26:00 - [26] Originally by: Sigras Again; though the point stands, doesnt this render MWD's moot for speed tanking? 500% speed buff + 500% Sig Radius nerf = no changes right? In general, yes. MWD is a 500% self-painter. Note that shiny MWDs have less sig bloom, and that inties have a MWD-sig-bloom reduction bonus. In general, missile damage vs. a MWDing target is pretty similar to a target travelling at base speed - or a webbed ABing target. And damage against a webbed MWDing target is pretty similar to damage against a webbed target that has no speed mod active - the additional speed and MWD sig bloom almost cancel each other out in both cases - although it requires full speed to have been achieved.
Sigras	Posted - 2008.11.18 17:02:00 - [27] that blows . . . basically no reason for an MWD except to get up close and eventually fall off of an AB'ing target . . . hmmmm or to increase the cap of a thorax, vigilant, deimos lol
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2008.11.18 17:14:00 - [28] Originally by: Sigras that blows . . . basically no reason for an MWD except to get up close and eventually fall off of an AB'ing target . . . hmmmm or to increase the cap of a thorax, vigilant, deimos lol Well, in that respect, missiles now work just like turrets always did - for tracking, the effect of the 500% speed boost of MWD was always cancelled out (assuming perpendicular motion) by the 500% MWD sig bloom. (I think this is right?). MWDs won't go away - the tactical mobility provided by a MWD is invaluable, and a AB just can't do it. Not to mention that you can't dictate transversal with a AB against a MWDing opponent, and your AB-speed tank against missiles disappears when you get webbed - which you will, because you're slower than a similar MWDing ship.
Max Hardcase Art of War Exalted.	Posted - 2008.11.18 18:51:00 - [29] MWD will slightly increase your damage reduction with the navigation skills.
Roemy Schneider BINFORD	Posted - 2008.11.18 19:00:00 - [30] correct; acceleration control easily takes you to/beyond +600% while the signature remains at +500% afterburners more than double your speed (unless you're in some heavy-weight like a stealth bomber) - since its all multiplicative, this results in a better damage reduction - but leaves you vulnerable to being overrun/caught by MWDs about the rockets; ... due to really low explosion radius and, as max already said, the steepness because of the drf.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2008.11.18 19:23:00 - [31] Ah of course, Acceleration Control... 25% bonus... I thought something sounded wrong, thanks.
Chssmius Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.11.18 20:06:00 - [32] Originally by: Max Hardcase MWD will slightly increase your damage reduction with the navigation skills. Compared with an AB, no. Compared with a ships max unboosted velocity, yes, but only a little. With good skills and a good AB you will actually be flying at about 2.6(1+~1.6) times you max unboosted velocity, and 0 sig bloom(1+0) means(signature/velocity) (1/2.6)^(0.586(drf) = ~0.562(for regular light missiles, small means less damage). That is the fraction of full damage at max unboosted speed. With good skills and a good MWD you will actually be flying at about 7(1+6) times your max unboosted velocity, and 6 sig bloom(1+5) means(signature/velocity) (6/7)^(0.586(drf)) = ~0.911(for regular light missiles). That is the fraction of full damage at max unboosted speed. So with an MWD at full speed you will be taking more damage than with an AB at full speed but only slightly less than at max unboosted speed. This all assumes no painters, webs, and that the equation that uses velocity is always the minimum of the three possibilities.
Resamo	Posted - 2008.11.18 23:48:00 - [33] Edited by: Resamo on 18/11/2008 23:57:24 wrong thread!
Resamo	Posted - 2008.11.18 23:50:00 - [34] Edited by: Resamo on 18/11/2008 23:53:50 Edited by: Resamo on 18/11/2008 23:52:38 another bs sheild hit 23:49:18 Combat Your Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo hits Pith Conquistador, doing 1006.8 damage.
Lauri Andromedae	Posted - 2008.11.19 11:33:00 - [35] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Why? Because CCP hates solo PvP. It was not fair that missiles could do effective damage without bringing a blob of painter/web ships to support them, so now they suffer damage reduction against everything but an AFK capital ship. This is MMORPG. Solo PvP is stupid idea anyway. If you wanna play alone do missions alone. It's great for the game that solowtfpwngankmobiles gets nerfed. More gangs, less solo bull****.
Mara Starr	Posted - 2008.11.20 12:57:00 - [36] Lauri your point makes sense if you only look at the words, but my experience has led me to believe otherwise. EVE is great in the sense its one of the MMORPGS that you don't need other people to get things done and you can succeed on your own. Case in point if I want to make a little money on the side I can run missions or do some mining is a relatively safe system. I could even solo PVP because in the world of EVE it totally makes sense to do solo PVP and its one of the more dynamic and engaging elements of the game. If I wanted to have to do everything in a large group than I would have joined goonsquad or better yet become a WOW player, obviously I didn't and a lot of other EVE players feel the same way I'd think.
sdthujfg	Posted - 2008.11.20 14:40:00 - [37] Originally by: Lauri Andromedae Originally by: Merin Ryskin Why? Because CCP hates solo PvP. It was not fair that missiles could do effective damage without bringing a blob of painter/web ships to support them, so now they suffer damage reduction against everything but an AFK capital ship. This is MMORPG. Solo PvP is stupid idea anyway. If you wanna play alone do missions alone. It's great for the game that solowtfpwngankmobiles gets nerfed. More gangs, less solo bull****. Just because it is an MMORPG doesn't mean you have go hug a blob to enjoy the game. You're just trolling the thread because you fail at solo and are a bitter noob.
Shereza	Posted - 2008.11.20 14:57:00 - [38] Originally by: Lauri Andromedae This is MMORPG. Solo PvP is stupid idea anyway. If you wanna play alone do missions alone. It's great for the game that solowtfpwngankmobiles gets nerfed. More gangs, less solo bull****. This is also a "sandbox" game which means it should be what we make of the framework CCP gives us and that framework should not force group activities. If I want to play with myself and not play with others I shouldn't be penalized for that beyond the penalties imparted by other players. If you want an MMORPG that is also a MMGRORPG (Massively Multiplayer Grouping Required On-line Role Playing Game) go play Final Fantasy XI or Everquest.
Furb Killer Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2008.11.20 14:58:00 - [39] In other topics merin is trolling that solo pvp doesnt matter anyway...
Ni'Kuth	Posted - 2008.11.20 16:34:00 - [40] Quote: This is MMORPG. Solo PvP is stupid idea anyway. If you wanna play alone do missions alone. It would be great if CCP made this true for all aspects of Eve. Instead of only PvP. Back on topic, rockets has always been the black sheep of the missile line. I really haven't a clue why, although it could be because there is no way of making it a solid weapon without making small short ranged turrets worthless. Torps were a great deal better than blasters and ACs prepatch, with the only thing holding them back was the need for TPs, as well as nanos (although Nanos outransversed large turrets, so it was somewhat the same).
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2008.11.20 16:39:00 - [41] Originally by: Ni'Kuth Torps were a great deal better than blasters and ACs prepatch, with the only thing holding them back was the need for TPs, as well as nanos (although Nanos outransversed large turrets, so it was somewhat the same). "Were"? Torps are even more powerful than ACs and blasters now.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Home 0f Bored Occultists	Posted - 2008.11.20 17:52:00 - [42] Rockets are the most piece of **** weapon system there is. End of story. ----------------------------------------- [Video] The Cruise
The Vixen Coalition of Nations	Posted - 2008.11.20 18:15:00 - [43] Originally by: Shereza Originally by: Lauri Andromedae This is MMORPG. Solo PvP is stupid idea anyway. If you wanna play alone do missions alone. It's great for the game that solowtfpwngankmobiles gets nerfed. More gangs, less solo bull****. This is also a "sandbox" game which means it should be what we make of the framework CCP gives us and that framework should not force group activities. If I want to play with myself and not play with others I shouldn't be penalized for that beyond the penalties imparted by other players. If you want an MMORPG that is also a MMGRORPG (Massively Multiplayer Grouping Required On-line Role Playing Game) go play Final Fantasy XI or Everquest. If you want to play by yourself go play Neverwinter Nights, Oblivion or Freelancer. I never have understood why people would bother playing solo on an MMO... unless they just needed subconscious validation that other people are as reclusive as them... but then again, that would be false validation, because most of those players are playing with each other, thus making it a little social.
KhaniKirai	Posted - 2008.11.20 18:30:00 - [44] Originally by: Gypsio III Originally by: Ni'Kuth Torps were a great deal better than blasters and ACs prepatch, with the only thing holding them back was the need for TPs, as well as nanos (although Nanos outransversed large turrets, so it was somewhat the same). "Were"? Torps are even more powerful than ACs and blasters now. Could you motivate that with some facts?
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2008.11.20 19:45:00 - [45] Originally by: KhaniKirai Originally by: Gypsio III Originally by: Ni'Kuth Torps were a great deal better than blasters and ACs prepatch, with the only thing holding them back was the need for TPs, as well as nanos (although Nanos outransversed large turrets, so it was somewhat the same). "Were"? Torps are even more powerful than ACs and blasters now. Could you motivate that with some facts? Easily. It's fairly obvious, though. Pre-QR: torps needed a painter to deal full damage to all tier 1-2 non-Caldari BS, and a web was needed to keep your target tackled. Post-QR: torps need a painter and a web to deal full damage to all tier 1-2 non-Caldari BS, and a web is needed to keep your target tackled. So, no actual change in torps there. The relative boost to torps comes from the greater difficulty experienced by the AC- and blaster-boats in getting to, and staying at, optimal range, making the range advantage of torps more meaningful.
GateScout	Posted - 2008.11.20 20:09:00 - [46] For those that miss the subtleties of the formula, the highlighted portions are rather important: Originally by: Marine HK4861 Damage = Base_Damage * *MIN(MIN(sig/Er,1) , (Ev/Er *sig/vel)^(0.586 log(drf)) ) Where sig = ship's signature vel = ship's velocity Er = Explosion Radius of missile Ev = Explosion Velocity of missile drf = Damage Reduction Factor of missile To get the second term lower than the first is trivial. Train up those target painters....
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Home 0f Bored Occultists	Posted - 2008.11.21 06:36:00 - [47] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 21/11/2008 06:39:01 Originally by: The Vixen If you want to play by yourself go play Neverwinter Nights, Oblivion or Freelancer. I never have understood why people would bother playing solo on an MMO... unless they just needed subconscious validation that other people are as reclusive as them... but then again, that would be false validation, because most of those players are playing with each other, thus making it a little social. Hu h?? Because people like playing against other humans and not the static pc AI? It's like saying "I don't get why people play quake ffa, why would you not just play against the pc locally?" Alot of people are online playing because they want to play AGAINST others. Alot of games DO cater this. It is still social even if your human interactions are all enemies instead of friends. It's not like people don't socialize across enemy lines in games. The whole "It's an MMO = group play" argument is retrded.
Karl Proseck	Posted - 2008.11.21 11:10:00 - [48] Originally by: Gypsio III Originally by: KhaniKirai Originally by: Gypsio III Originally by: Ni'Kuth Torps were a great deal better than blasters and ACs prepatch, with the only thing holding them back was the need for TPs, as well as nanos (although Nanos outransversed large turrets, so it was somewhat the same). "Were"? Torps are even more powerful than ACs and blasters now. Could you motivate that with some facts? Easily. It's fairly obvious, though. Pre-QR: torps needed a painter to deal full damage to all tier 1-2 non-Caldari BS, and a web was needed to keep your target tackled. Post-QR: torps need a painter and a web to deal full damage to all tier 1-2 non-Caldari BS, and a web is needed to keep your target tackled. So, no actual change in torps there. The relative boost to torps comes from the greater difficulty experienced by the AC- and blaster-boats in getting to, and staying at, optimal range, making the range advantage of torps more meaningful. show me a blaster or ac of bs size that has a 10k range w/o lots of skills, no going beyond 10k, no dmg reduction for for passing 10k just 100% miss, take that factor out of missiles and torps and ill agree the nerf was good, until then it was an overdone nerf to satisfy people that didnt want to adapt just cry on the forums so they would not have to think if you really think missiles are that wicked, find me a similar weapon system of the same size that just ceases to funtion when your max range is reached, and in addition to that show me a missile that can get perfect shots and such in for a damage boost
Clansworth Burning Sky Labs Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2008.11.21 11:25:00 - [49] I actually like the fact that MWD's were partially removed from the speed tank formula. I always thought they should operate more like burst modules, get you in range so you can wreak havoc, but shouldn't be full-time alway's on modules. POS Personal Storage
Gartel Reiman Civis Romanus Sum TRUST Coalition	Posted - 2008.11.21 12:37:00 - [50] Originally by: Karl Proseck show me a blaster or ac of bs size that has a 10k range w/o lots of skills, no going beyond 10k, no dmg reduction for for passing 10k just 100% miss OK - all large blasters and turrets have an optimal below 10km without skills. (Blasters also have optimal + falloffs of 8, 10.5 and 13km (for Electron, Ion, Neutron) and the large ACs are all around 18km optimal + falloff). Going beyond 10km with the blasters, you're looking at quite substantial damage reductions, and the ACs, while they lose damage slower, don't have stellar output to begin with. Besides, it's not appropriate to compare anything without skills. Did you know that without skills, a Falcon has the same range and effectiveness on its ECM as a Bantam? Skills, and ship bonuses, are what make weapons systems and loadouts what they are. You're overlooking the fact (deliberately or otherwise) that missiles get two skills that both add 10%/level to their range; compared to turrets, which get a 5%/level skill for optimal and a 5%/level skill for falloff. The fact remains that with just skills alone, you can get torpedoes to a 30km range on a Raven, such that you can hit anything within warp disruptor range. If you feel you need more than that, then you can push that much further with rigs... Quote: if you really think missiles are that wicked, find me a similar weapon system of the same size that just ceases to funtion when your max range is reached This is how missiles work, they're a different system to guns. You can say that guns cease to function when "max range" (about optimal + 2 8 falloff) is reached too. The difference is that guns generally have higher "maximum" ranges, but most of this is falloff, where they do reduced damage. For example, compare the Raven's torpedoes vs. a Mega's Neutron blasters. If the Mega's using Antimatter, then its max range is 30km anyway, except it starts to miss beyond 4.5km whereas the Raven hits solidly right up to 30km. So let's try Null ammo in the Mega for range. Now with a 11km optimal and 16km falloff it can just about reach up to 43km. However, the Raven outdamages it from the get-go now (even in optimal) as the Mega's had to drop to less damaging ammo, and beyond 11km things get even worse for the Mega as it starts to miss due to being in falloff. At 27km the Mega's hitting 50% of the time but the Raven is still going strong with maximum damage. It's only at 30km+ where the Mega suddenly gets the damage advantage (as the Raven's DPS drops to zero), and it's missing over 50% of its shots for a DPS of something like 400 maximum. (And if that's going to be your niche, you'd be better off with real long-range weapons on the Mega). It's different, but you can't really complain that range on Torps is a problem...
Katy Karkinoff Minmatar Psycho Chicks	Posted - 2008.11.21 14:00:00 - [51] Originally by: Lauri Andromedae Originally by: Merin Ryskin Why? Because CCP hates solo PvP. It was not fair that missiles could do effective damage without bringing a blob of painter/web ships to support them, so now they suffer damage reduction against everything but an AFK capital ship. This is MMORPG. Solo PvP is stupid idea anyway. If you wanna play alone do missions alone. It's great for the game that solowtfpwngankmobiles gets nerfed. More gangs, less solo bull**. Don't give me that **. You know it's bs. Solo pvp is vastly more enjoyable than gang pvp because you can atleast gauge what impact you have on a fight. Fighting in gangs you see very little of your impact on the field. (except if you're a lone falcon so you can see the target jam cycle go up... and god isn't that fun) Solo/duo is fun. Once you start seeing gang sizes get up (10+) you become a mindless tool of an FC and it becomes disinteresting.
Mara Starr	Posted - 2008.11.21 14:05:00 - [52] To Vixen I'm not talking about playing alone, I could do diablo or something silly like that. What I meant by alone is I can play in a gang with a bunch of friends or a corp for pvp or I can actually see if I have the stones to take people on 1 v 1 without any help. Especially since not everyone I play with is always on or on at the same time.
Meeogi Amarr Lone Star Privateers	Posted - 2008.11.22 12:28:00 - [53] I hope CCP gets off their rear and fixes rockets. The difference is huge...Mind you I am talking about "rockets". As of now I can't see any area of pvp where they would ever be preferred. Wax on Wax off

Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.