I guess I just disagree. I think missiles are just fine...particularly in PvE. Ok in PvP too - especially the smaller stuff (rockets and lights).

You never miss. You always apply full damage (target sig issues aside). You can always select damage type. The list goes on.

Missiles are fine.

you do NOT always apply full damage with missiles.

Fair enough. I misspoke. Full damage, minus defensive bonuses (speed/transversal being one of them).

Really, I mean there's no such thing as "glancing blows" with missiles. That's all.

I think 4 damage out of a possible 100 would be glancing.

But it's not the same kind of mechanic.

As the title suggests, have you got around to looking at the issues with Missiles in time for Inferno?

If the target moves, you may never reach your target at all as well as if you do, it'll be for 10 damage

Are you stuck in 2007 by any chance?

But it's not the same kind of mechanic.

Let me help you make your point if I may.

Missiles always do SOME damage at least where as turrets can miss completely.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone in this thread just attempting to help this guy out :P

What issues?

If they're gonna make TDs work against missiles they need to fix torps (add range, improve explosion velocty), and to some extent HAMs. Oh and remove these penalties from javelin ammo.

They couldn't make TDs work on missiles. They don't have a tracking modifier.

why IS that by the way?

Are you saying explosion velocity has since been rendered irrelevant?

Ive wondered this myself seems if they worked it so missiles COULD miss its settle a lotta qq


and why do Torps have that HUGE explosion effect when theyre not AOE? that explosion certainly looks AOE lol

The ability to switch targets in mid flight by highlighting a different targeted ship would help long range missiles (especially) become much more effective in PVP.

It is a bit obnoxious. If it has that big of an effect, why doesn't the blast wave cause damage?


It has a lol factor though, like doing plex's and my Tengu gets hit with a torp - for 5 damage

Devs have responded that missiles will be brought in line with other weapon systems, meaning that missile range and damage will be nerfed across the board.

They simply do too much damage with unnatural accuracy at too long ranges, so this nerf is balanced.

HAMs don't have enough DPS to justify the short range compared to HMLs
Torpedoes need a boost, they should be able to hit web'd non-AB'ing battleships for near full damage, but they don't
6th launcher for the cerb/sac?
Remove defender missiles + skill, reimburse the sp

The ability to switch targets in mid flight by highlighting a different targeted ship would help long range missiles (especially) become much more effective in PVP.

Hmm or at least let them choose their own targets if their original target is taken out, kind of like real-world antiship missiles and especially torpedoes, whereas if the torp loses its target it has its own onboard scanner and looks for a target in range as it continues on its original trajectory. If it finds a target in its own scanner range it attempts to acquire and go after that target, and if it does not find a target it self-destructs at maximum range.

so if the primary target is destroyed, then all of his nearby buddies could now be in danger.

dunna if that can be done, tho.

What issues?

Once the TD effect is applied to missiles they will be in essence what they were made after the nano nerf that changed missiles. Any old timer knows that missiles before that were viewed as OP and Torp Raven fleets were the flavor of the day...

Cruise missiles are particularly sucky, for one thing.

How did you manage to arrive at this 'nerf missiles' conclusion? Missiles are most definitely not overpowered.

He perhaps thinks that Tengu PvE is all that matters because it's all he's seen. But more likely trolling.

Yes Roime, please provide a link to this quote from CCP.

Also add to the list, T2 precision ammo. Worked fine when first introduced but got whined about by nano pilots and subsequently got over-nerfed to the point where normal Faction ammo is more effective in any situation where you would need precision ammo.

To be honest, the only missiles that DON'T suck are Heavies and HAMs.

Lights work fine, but the fitting requirements are really high.

One area where missiles really suffer is that there are no weapon tiers. For turret ships it's really handy to be able to downgrade From Neutron Blasters to Ions, or from Megapulse to Dual Heavy Pulse. Missile ships get no such option, and not only are there no lower tiers, but Caldari ships in particular tend to be gimped in their fitting capabilities; a Raven with 6x Seige Launcher II has 476 CPU and 1950 grid left for the rest of the fit. A Megathron with 7 Neutron Blaster Cannon II has 383 CPU and 6278 grid left. A Tempest with 6 800mm AC II has 503 CPU and 7495 grid left... Once you subtract the fitting requirement of the Mandatory Warp Drive (75 CPU, 1250 grid), then there's very little left for luxuries like cap injectors, tank and heavy utility modules on a Raven, and the same goes for most other Caldari missile boats. If your MegaPulse Geddon or 425mm Rail Domi won't quite fit, then you can easily drop to DHPs or 350mm rails and be able to fit that heavy cap injector or heavy neut.

Hello CCP,

UPDATE: I've started making a list of all the issues players are finding with Missiles below and will keep it updated for all.
Current Issues
1. Range of Torpedoes compared to HAMs and Rockets (Torps currently have no more range over HAMs, that is just wrong)
2. Uselessness of Cruise Missiles in PvP (maybe shift damage to more Alpha to compensate?)
3. Fitting Requirements of Light Missile Launchers (too high)
4. DPS of Javelin HAMs (too low)
5. Explosion Velocity of missiles too low in general (too easily speed-tanked)
6. Inflight missile volley damage wasted where target dies before target reached.
7. Tech2 Precision Ammunition. All-round they are just not effective, as they can still be speed-tanked by most ships, and are inferior in most ways to Faction Missiles.
8. Tech2 Missile penalties i.e. Signature radius and Ship Velocity.

Yes Roime, please provide a link to this quote from CCP.

What issues?

4. Jav DPS is okay, but its range isn't. 50% extra isn't enough, it only gives 5 km more on rockets and 10 km more on HAMs and torps, neither is enough to be really useful. Guns get a much greater range increase between high-damage ammo and T2 long-range ammo (which is the comparison used in balancing). Compare Mulitfreq and Scorch: that's a 200% increase! A range increase of 100%, instead of 50%, would be more appropriate.

I think missiles should be made much much faster (and have their flight time reduced to give same distance)....

I think this would also reduce lag a little as they will be in space for less time :)

The reason long-range version of short-range gun ammo (Scorch, etc) has a greater range bonus than long-range version of short-range Launcher ammo (Javelin) is because Gunnery range support skills (Trajectory Analysis, Sharpshooter) give only a 5% bonus to range per level, whereas Missile range support skills (Missile Projection, Missile Bombardment) give 10% bonus to missile range per level.

My opinion is that Javelin Rockets and HAMs range is absolutely fine. Javelin Torps, and Torp range in general is terrible. My point is that Torpedoes are a battleship-class weapon, yet Torpedo range is no better than HAM range, and HAMs are a cruiser-class weapon. The fact that Torpedoes are almost unusable by any Caldari ship other than the Raven hull (which has a missile velocity bonus), kind of points this flaw out.

I remember a Dev posting they got some weird results when they were playing around with missile speed the last time, around the "nano-nerf".

I don't see the link. Why do the skill bonus magnitudes have to do with anything? It sounds like you're balancing weapon systems by comparing patterns of bonus numbers, but that's just... crazy.



What is this nonsense? The Raven hull is the only one that can has bonused torps (yeah yeah Manti). Of course it's the only Caldari ship which uses them effectively!

Why is torp range horrible? Just saying because it's the same as HAMs isn't good enough, that tells us nothing of their value. What is the problem with ~28 km torps on the Raven? This covers normal disruptor range. You seem to be saying that pretty patterns of numbers are required for weapons to be balanced, but not only does that incorrectly assume that 1 km of range is of equal value at any range, but it also suggests that nerfing HAM range to 15 km (giving rockets, HAMs, torps 10, 15, 20 km base ranges) would results in balanced torps, which is absurd.

The additional 5 km range of Jav rockets is not useful in the slightest. Much of this is the speed penalty that prevents Jav rockets from effectively being used by kiters, but even without that, the 10-15 km range is almost impossible to maintain, as it is overheated web/scramble range.

Tracking Disruptors will work on missiles as well? What?

Now that's stupid.

a drake for example just by fitting t2 launchers, without any other module, not even shields, gets a signature of 450m while its normal signature is 285, thats almost twice the original signature, we are talking about a 100% penalty, and with javelins you get your speed cut almost in hallf, which is just dumb. .

Would be cool if they made a t2 variant of each missile type that does AoE damage.

I don't see the link. Why do the skill bonus magnitudes have to do with anything? It sounds like you're balancing weapon systems by comparing patterns of bonus numbers, but that's just... crazy.



What is this nonsense? The Raven hull is the only one that can has bonused torps (yeah yeah Manti). Of course it's the only Caldari ship which uses them effectively!

Why is torp range horrible? Just saying because it's the same as HAMs isn't good enough, that tells us nothing of their value. What is the problem with ~28 km torps on the Raven? This covers normal disruptor range. You seem to be saying that pretty patterns of numbers are required for weapons to be balanced, but not only does that incorrectly assume that 1 km of range is of equal value at any range, but it also suggests that nerfing HAM range to 15 km (giving rockets, HAMs, torps 10, 15, 20 km base ranges) would results in balanced torps, which is absurd.

The additional 5 km range of Jav rockets is not useful in the slightest. Much of this is the speed penalty that prevents Jav rockets from effectively being used by kiters, but even without that, the 10-15 km range is almost impossible to maintain, as it is overheated web/scramble range.

Thats an example of missile neglect.
It was that way for all T2 ammo. Gleams with Beams used to put an Apoc up there with a Rev in sig rad because as you pointed out, it stacks. The only T2 ammo that didnt have the penalty removed was missile.

Money talks. When I see Arbalest Torp and cruise going for 2 mill like all the other Meta 4 I will know CCP have looked at missiles. Untill then, they are a Caldari liability, just like Drones are a Gallente liability.

To be honest, the only missiles that DON'T suck are Heavies and HAMs.

While we are fixing things that aren't broken can I please get a tummy rub?

Thanks.

I think 4 damage out of a possible 100 would be glancing.

I don't know about you, but most players in this game expect a given battleship-class weapon to have a longer range than its cruiser-class counterpart.

For example, Mega Pulse Laser II has a base optimal range of 24km, Heavy Pulse Laser II has a base optimal range of 12km.

Neutron Blaster Cannon II has a base optimal range of 7.2km, Heavy Neutron Blaster II has a base optimal range of 3.6km.

Notice that the range difference between Battleship-class and Cruiser-class for these 2 comparisons is double, or 100%. Launchers don't have a range as such, so we have to look at the ammo range.

Your basic Tech1 Torpedo has a range of 9km (6seconds x 1500m/s), whereas your Tech1 HAM has exactly the same base range of 9km (4seconds x 2250m/s). It looks pretty clear to me that Torpedoes are severely under-ranged if they don't even have a range advantage over HAMs, especially when you see that Battleship-class turrets have double the optimal range of Cruiser-class turrets, as I have just proven with my 2 Laser and Hybrid examples.

If you can't grasp this, then I shan't bother replying to any of your other comments.

Devs have responded that missiles will be brought in line with other weapon systems, meaning that missile range and damage will be nerfed across the board.

They simply do too much damage with unnatural accuracy at too long ranges, so this nerf is balanced.

Why do missiles have to work the same way as guns?

If you admit they don't have to, then why do you keep talking about how gun ranges increase as the size of the gun increases?

Because the range of Lights, Heavies, and Cruises also doubles as you move up through the ship classes. So there is a good argument to suggest that the same should apply to Torpdoes if it also applies to Long-Range missiles and Turrets. I forgot to mention that bit earlier.

Because the range of Lights, Heavies, and Cruises also doubles as you move up through the ship classes. So there is a good argument to suggest that the same should apply to Torpdoes if it also applies to Long-Range missiles and Turrets. I forgot to mention that bit earlier.

Oh, one more thing about the "pretty patterns of numbers" fallacy. Guided missiles all travel at the same speed, 5625 m/s. However, one of the many reasons why Cruise is useless is because of flight time. So we could make Cruise faster - but this would breaks the pretty pattern of numbers. We could subsequently choose to reproduce a pretty pattern by reducing the speed of LMs, but this is absurd.

Of course, you could argue that missile velocity is not the pattern to look at, it should be flight time, reasoning that Cruise is bad because it has excessive flight time. But again, we already have a pretty pattern in flight time, doubling at each missile size graduation from LMs to Cruise. So now we could argue that it's actually the "wrong" pretty pattern, that Cruise flight time should only be three times that of LMs, not four times - but unless we break the pretty pattern of velocities then it's a straight Cruise nerf!

I am talking about overall range of Torpedoes, I do not subscribe in any way to the 'pretty patterns of numbers fallacy' that you talk about. There is plenty of room for flexibility in how Torpedoes' range is increased be in Velocity, Flight time or both.

Why do you think that torpedo range needs to be increased? What problem are you trying to solve? Why do you think that stealth bombers need boosting?

The problem is their usability in just about any scenario.

Torpedoes are currently very ineffective in both PvE and PvP. The only ship that can use Torpedoes effectively in PvE is the Golem. And there is a thread somewhere which argues that the Golem is currently the worst of the Marauders because of the problems with Torpedoes.

It's pretty obvious that the range of Torpedoes needs a boost.

The problem is their usability in just about any scenario.

Torpedoes are currently very ineffective in both PvE and PvP. The only ship that can use Torpedoes effectively in PvE is the Golem. And there is a thread somewhere which argues that the Golem is currently the worst of the Marauders because of the problems with Torpedoes.

It's pretty obvious that the range of Torpedoes needs a boost.

An Amarr battleship can use Mega Pulse Lasers in many more PvE and PvP scenarios than a Torpedo boat can be. The same goes for an Autocannon Minmatar battleship and a Blaster Gallente battleship. The Tempest, Apocalypse and Megathron are all much more effective ships in PvP than a Torp Raven are. So many people know this.

No, it isn't obvious why torpedo range needs a boost at all. Why range? Why not explosion radius, raw damage or alterations to the torpedo launch platform?

And what about stealth bombers? Why do they need more range?

Explosion Radius also needs to be looked at, as does Explosion Velocity. I would say that raw damage is good enough already

As for the 'do stealth bombers need more range' question you ask, do you see Battleship-sized Turrets getting an Optimal Range AND a Falloff bonus? No. The very fact that Slealth Bombers do have a Velocity and a Flight Time bonus kind of implies that Torpedoes are under-ranged. I say increase Torpedo range by 50%, and scrap the Flight Time bonus that Stealth Bombers currently get.

Finally we're getting somewhere. However..

Invoking BS turrets as justification is not useful, as missiles are not turrets, and bombers aren't BS, they're used in different fashions and environments. This is just more pretty patterns, just more copypasta of stats from unrelated ships

What problem are you trying to solve? By giving the Raven more torp range, do you want it to be used in a kiting role more? Do you tend to fly nano-Ravens much? I think they're rare, the preferred Raven style is massive damage application to tackled targets, I think you'd be better off focusing on the Raven's good points than trying to make it better at something that it's really bad at. More range would also help with Scorch-style damage projection, but current torp range and damage already compares favourably with blasters, while 50% extra range hardly helps the Typhoon at all and still doesn't allow the Raven to compete with Scorch.

So I'm having difficulty in understanding what you're trying to achieve by giving torps more range in a PVP context. I would advise you to focus on what the Raven is good at - close-up damage application, just like the Megathron - and improve it there, in terms of its ease of damage application or its survivability at those close ranges.

For damage application, torps currently have an explosion radius of 450 m. T1 BS sigs below 450 m, requiring a painter, Crash or other sig effect, are:

Domi 420
Megathron 400
Apoc 400
Geddon 370
Tempest 340 m
Typhoon 320

The other six BS have sigs over 450 m. There's a very reasonable argument to help out the Raven in its primary anti-BS role by cutting explosion radius to 400 m. Have to keep an eye on bombers though, fiddling with their explosion velocity bonus may be appropriate. Alternatively, fiddling with the Raven itself will help its survivability. Adding more PG/CPU will help it fit torps and MWD; moving a lowslot to medslot in addition will beef it up a bit.

Hmm most everyone uses tracking comps or enhancers with turret boats...It's a given that you fit them. But people dont seem to do this as much with missiles boats. (TP) why not? That or add rigs that aid in explosion...rather they seem to add ROF more or dont add any.

So are missiles all that ****** up or just that we dont have as many mods to enhance them or even add the mods we do have?

UPDATE: I've started making a list of all the issues players are finding with Missiles below and will keep it updated for all.
Current Issues
1. Range of Torpedoes compared to HAMs and Rockets (Torps currently have no more range over HAMs, that is just wrong)
2. Uselessness of Cruise Missiles in PvP (maybe shift damage to more Alpha to compensate?)
3. Fitting Requirements of Light Missile Launchers (too high)
4. DPS of Javelin HAMs (too low)
5. Explosion Velocity of missiles too low in general (too easily speed-tanked)
6. Inflight missile volley damage wasted where target dies before target reached.
7. Tech2 Precision Ammunition. All-round they are just not effective, as they can still be speed-tanked by most ships, and are inferior in most ways to Faction Missiles.
8. Tech2 Missile penalties i.e. Signature radius and Ship Velocity.
9. Only 1 missile-specific module, Ballstic Control System, which is a damage mod. There are no missile equivalents of Tracking Computers or Tracking Enhancers. Webbers and Target Painters aid both Turrets and Launchers.

^
Right but seeing as there are comps, enhancers, and damage/rof mods. Which can be fit in lows, and meds AND they impact Optimal, falloff, tracking speed, rof, and damage... Why dont missiles have similar mods for lows, and meds as well that help certain missile factors? There are TP's, but those aren't missile only mods like the rest.

^
Right but seeing as there are comps, enhancers, and damage/rof mods. Which can be fit in lows, and meds AND they impact Optimal, falloff, tracking speed, rof, and damage... Why dont missiles have similar mods for lows, and meds as well that help certain missile factors? There are TP's, but those aren't missile only mods like the rest.

Let me help you make your point if I may.

Missiles always do SOME damage at least where as turrets can miss completely.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone in this thread just attempting to help this guy out :P

If they're gonna make TDs work against missiles they need to fix torps (add range, improve explosion velocty), and to some extent HAMs. Oh and remove these penalties from javelin ammo.

We knew missiles were obselete when they put hybrid on the Naga. I came in 2011. I don't even have the Missile category on my skill sheet. I can use a Drake and do, to salvage.

I'm sorry, where was it mentioned tracking disruptors are going to work against missiles??I missed that.

The problem with threads like this is that they get polluted by idiot carebears.

The real problem with Threads like this, is that people like You try and hijack them and/or Troll them with comments like that.

Can we keep to the discussion please.

....
So no it's not guns have mods why not missiles. It's why should missiles not have mods when we have them for every system offensive or defensive...prop, ECM, drones (getting new ones for drones btw), mining... (Fucks sake look how many are for armor!)

So aside from the "You'll make them OP" argument... (Which can be used for any argument...) Why do missiles not have mods other than ROF?

Games which do not benefit wiser players and a basically just games of chance are essentially dumbed down. Eve pvp will become like bingo or even more like rock paper scissors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VcnkUaUCPA&t=36m39s&hd=1

You have to know that turrets are 100% better than missiles because turrets do instant damage, missiles have to travel to target first.
So by "nerfing" them with tracking disruptor will make them worst in game weapon.

Actually I'll just plainly disagree. Variety is a good thing because it causes tactics to change. Sound wave in a interview at fanfest states "If we add something to the game and everyone complains because now they have to change fits or tactics then I think we've done a good thing."

Without variety there is no guessing it's just all cookie cutter, and game play stagnates. (Everyone is going to use the same thing) Options are always a good thing.

Giving missile mods will not change missile boats into some amorphous blop in which they're all the same, just like turret mods don't to turret ships.

I'm not seeing as you say a "surprise my drake is HAM fit!" v. standard HML is going to take away surprise because well it would add more by the shear factor that there are now more options to be had.




Once again this doesn't make sense or you're not backing up your argument very well that more mods == dumber game play. Also combat in eve is already a dice roll with player actions helping to narrow negative dice rolls (missing glancing shots, but given the random component in the formula someone with perfect skills in a scenario can still have a poor shot due to this.)

Actually I wasn't referring to you, while you've made some silly mistakes in your posts you've actually been trying to construct rational arguments, although obviously this hasn't been very successful when it's come to torp range.

I'm referring to the fools who whinge about wanting a Cruise Naga (which would have been hilariously bad), people criticising painters because they're not missile-exclusive and people saying that missiles are bad then immediately stating that they have no SP in missiles.

1. Torps don't need more range. If they need anything, then cutting explosion radius down to 400-425 m would be it. But I think the real problem isn't with torps, it's with the Raven - it needs a bit more fittings and a lowslot moved to a medslot, it doesn't really have the tank it needs to survive as a close-range anti-BS/BC gank platform.

2. Cruise has no role. It will still have no role even with more alpha. There are no targets worth shooting with Cruise (over another weapon system) and there is no effective Cruise platform. F*** knows how you solve all this.

And many of us know that Light Missile launchers need to have their fitting requirements looked at.

2. Perhaps making cruise missiles the masters of long range alpha? Sure the mael-pilots will **** and moan, but they woudl still have great alpha, but combined with instant damage.

Actually I wasn't referring to you, while you've made some silly mistakes in your posts you've actually been trying to construct rational arguments, although obviously this hasn't been very successful when it's come to torp range.

I'm referring to the fools who whinge about wanting a Cruise Naga (which would have been hilariously bad), people criticising painters because they're not missile-exclusive and people saying that missiles are bad then immediately stating that they have no SP in missiles.

We don't know that for sure. The frigates are going to be rebalanced and they may get more power grid and CPU. They do need looked at if the frigates aren't getting a PG/CPU buff though.

Truth.

Not quite. Remember the naga originally had both torp and rail bonus on the sisi. They took it off because myself and others were able to severely overpower torp nagas by missile stacking. Fitted for flight time rigs and rate of fire, we could stack the torps pretty easily, We would burn in fast volley of torps, a second volley of torps almost right on top of the first, and then they all hit. Essentially 4 ships hitting like 8. orbit to finish off, but would get double the initial alpha of any of the other ones, and of course once in, the missile time no longer matters. They were overpowered, and on top of that the torp naga could run battleship afterburner, auto repeat off, was turn and burn since you didn't care about tracking

Dam, reading most of this is depressing.

I wonder howerver, if the new missile features are just all cosmetics....
I mean technically we have launchers now that track targets (save BS and above launchers, they look like silos)
So I wonder if its an missile overhaul in game mechanics as well as cosmetics...

changes to put that in a single release - not only ships need be looked into, but some modules / weapon systems need rebalancing as well (ex: active versus passive tanking, missiles...)

Hope that helps

I suppose I would just like a consistent answer from a Dev on this subject as soon as possible. Are they going to be looked at or not? Hybrids got looked at, Projectiles got looked at.

Battleship-class Missiles need a serious look at, as has been stated on many threads now, as evidenced by the pitifully low value in the market of Meta 4 'Arbalest' Cruise and Torpedo Launchers. Virtually nobody uses them for PvP, because they are terrible for PvP.

UPDATE: Had a quick chat with CCP Guard on Friday night at the London Meet in Loose Cannon.

He said he wasn't aware of any Missile Balancing on the horizon.

He said he had heard that some people at CCP wanted to look at it, but that he wasn;t aware of anything going on...

Can we have some clarification please? This kind of goes against what was hinted at in my link above.

I really don't think that Ytterbium's idea of missile tweaks will be even remotely the same as your desired changes. Particularly the part where you want the explosion velocity of HMs to be increased.

I'd say that general consensus is that rockets are basically fine too now.

Cruise is hopeless, no argument here at all. But fixing it will not be easy, there are fundamental game mechanics standing in the way.

Torps are also complicated, being very much tied up with the Raven. I still don't see how your idea of more range particularly helps a torp Raven. You could do something interesting with HBT rigs to create a med-range torp Raven, but what's the point? Fix the torp Raven by making it better at what it's used for - damage application at close ranges to BS and BCs. Raven fitting/survivability and torp explosion radius are the subjects here.

I suppose I would just like a consistent answer from a Dev on this subject as soon as possible. Are they going to be looked at or not? Hybrids got looked at, Projectiles got looked at.

Battleship-class Missiles need a serious look at, as has been stated on many threads now, as evidenced by the pitifully low value in the market of Meta 4 'Arbalest' Cruise and Torpedo Launchers. Virtually nobody uses them for PvP, because they are terrible for PvP.