open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked Formal Petition: Fix Precision Heavy Missiles
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

Author Topic

Drevas
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:06:00 - [61]
 

Very nice post. These missiles definitely need to be looked at.

/Signed

BiggestT
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2008.06.11 02:02:00 - [62]
 

/signed

its bullsh*t when u have to use faction ammo coz precisions are a joke, and furies wont get anything moving slightly fast.
GIVE US BETTER PRECISION!!
also, boost the nighthawk pwgrid, it sux lame-a*s

MalVortex
Applied Agoraphobia
Posted - 2008.06.14 07:06:00 - [63]
 

Edited by: MalVortex on 14/06/2008 07:06:38
*Bump*

Factional Warfare is out, so now theres plenty of time to look at this for the next patch ^_^.

Cpt Constantinus
Corp 54
Posted - 2008.06.14 09:50:00 - [64]
 

I think they should boost the explosion velocity of all missiles by at least 50% because even if you missile manages to hit the target, the low explosion velocity will negate most of the damage.

Albaluna74
Posted - 2008.06.17 12:29:00 - [65]
 

/bump

ArmyOfMe
Hysera.
Posted - 2008.06.17 16:16:00 - [66]
 

best post on the forums in a very very long time.

lets cross our fingers and pray that a dev actually takes his time to look at the op and understand that eve do actually need a weapon against nano ships that work.

thank you op for doing the research and posting this.

Draaken
Caldari
hirr
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.06.17 17:02:00 - [67]
 

Very well-structured, well-written post - and it makes sense on top!

/signed!

Bloodhands
hirr
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.06.18 04:43:00 - [68]
 

Very well thought out post and easy read. This deserves a posting from a dev about feasibility.

/signed

Veldya
Guristari Freedom Fighters
Posted - 2008.06.18 08:18:00 - [69]
 

Missiles need to be overhauled, they are ******ed in the current design where speed is the ultimate factor which determines the damage.

Light missiles should be designed to damage small ships.
Heavy missiles should be designed to damage medium ships.
Cruise missiles should be designed to damage large ships.

I can get a nano battleship that will avoid the vast majority of damage from light missiles, the mechanics are just comedy gold.

Veldya
Guristari Freedom Fighters
Posted - 2008.06.18 09:18:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Veldya on 18/06/2008 09:18:47
Even current anti-missile warheads are designed with proximity fuses where they detonate when they get within a certain range of a target, the concept I believe is to detonate in front of the incoming object forcing it to travel through the blast radius.

Given you can jack up a missile to have a velocity of over 12k m/s there should be mechanisms in place to use fast missiles against fast ships. If a missile is fast enough to catch up to and hit a ship then I fail to understand how a species that has any kind of grip on the word intelligent can make a warhead that has a worse detonation velocity than that of the missile's propellant.

MalVortex
Applied Agoraphobia
Posted - 2008.06.18 09:21:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: Veldya
Edited by: Veldya on 18/06/2008 09:18:47
Even current anti-missile warheads are designed with proximity fuses where they detonate when they get within a certain range of a target, the concept I believe is to detonate in front of the incoming object forcing it to travel through the blast radius.

Given you can jack up a missile to have a velocity of over 12k m/s there should be mechanisms in place to use fast missiles against fast ships. If a missile is fast enough to catch up to and hit a ship then I fail to understand how a species that has any kind of grip on the word intelligent can make a warhead that has a worse detonation velocity than that of the missile's propellant.


If you wanted to get really technical, the explosion of the missile would inherent all the momentum of the missile itself. a 10kms missile would have 10kms + explosion velocity along its heading, and 10kms - explosion velocity 180* to its heading....

Veldya
Guristari Freedom Fighters
Posted - 2008.06.20 10:34:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: MalVortex

If you wanted to get really technical, the explosion of the missile would inherent all the momentum of the missile itself. a 10kms missile would have 10kms + explosion velocity along its heading, and 10kms - explosion velocity 180* to its heading....


If we wanted to get really technical we could rip a lot of holes into the EVE mechanics. However, we are just raising balance mechanics. One races' major weapon of preference should not be totally obsolete against nano ships.

We are not talking about shooting a laser around a corner, we are talking about pretty realistic laws of physics which help to support a change in the mechanics for logical reasons. Having one race's lighter weapons are useless against faster ships and a rival race has exceptionally fast ships then it is an embarrassment to the game designers.

They should just place a hard cap on the amount you can minimise damage via speed stacking for the appropriate weapons types. Ie, small weapons vs small ships should always do a part of their damage.

Ignition SemperFi
No Falcons Allowed
Posted - 2008.06.22 20:39:00 - [73]
 

/signed signed and signed


This! because even with missile rigs its in no comparison to to poly rigs.

And yes the nano***try may complain because now they have to look out for 3 ships instead of just 2(huggin/rapier/bringing back the cerb)

HOw can heavy precision missiles be WORSE than assault precision missiles?

Methem
interimo
Posted - 2008.06.22 21:22:00 - [74]
 

Javelin Rockets and HAMs could use a boost also.

The description says they are suppose to move faster than the t1 version(which they do), but the explosion velocity is terrible.

Base explosion velocity:
t1 Rocket-2000
jav Rocket-500

t1 HAM-750
jav HAM-750

t1 Torp-250
jav Torp-500
(javelin torps are at least better than t1)

FlameGlow
Gypsy Band
Posted - 2008.06.24 11:59:00 - [75]
 

/signed
Cmon, boost missiles, this is long overdue.
Or scrap the dump explosion velocity completely and only use missile velocity to see if missile can catch target and signature radius to see if damage is reduced.
Boost defenders too then, maybe ppl would actually use them, for start they should have good rate of fire independent of launcher used.

Chillshock
Posted - 2008.06.24 13:46:00 - [76]
 

This actually looks less like a needed boost and more like a needed fix.

Come on. This has got to be a mistake.

Also: very good post. Lots of theory-craft but thats whats behind nature, right?

Zarch AlDain
GK inc.
Posted - 2008.06.24 16:59:00 - [77]
 

Excellent post. Well reasoned and explained.

Miyamoto Uroki
Caldari
Sarum Industries
Posted - 2008.06.25 14:45:00 - [78]
 

Totally endorse this product/service.

/signed

Lea Re
Dirty Labs
Infinite Improbability Alliance
Posted - 2008.06.25 21:29:00 - [79]
 

/signed

Albaluna74
Posted - 2008.06.26 10:22:00 - [80]
 

/bump

el caido
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2008.06.26 18:55:00 - [81]
 

Let me say first, that I am no missile enthusiast. Since the great missile nerf years ago, I have always been a proponent of guns. :)

While I strongly agree that Precision Heavies need some love, I am tentative to support any drastic changes to Light or Cruise. And to address the meandering posts of others in this argument: missiles in general do not need a major overhaul. People often overlook the strength in missile versatility and instead only look at raw DPS.

Back on topic: the ever-growing overpowered nanocruiser threat is a problem in itself, which should certainly be addressed by CCP in its own way. That said, the balancing act concerning Precision Heavies is rather difficult because of all the ships that can use them. We must look beyond the Caldari cruisers/BCs and also at the Khanid vessels and numerous other ships which supplement their firepower with a launcher or two in their 'spare highslots'. Going too far with the fix could lead to other issues concerning drones, etc.

This is an excellent argument well-deserving of CCP attention; superb work, MV. :)

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2008.06.26 21:34:00 - [82]
 

Edited by: Gypsio III on 26/06/2008 21:36:57
I think that the basic balancing principle behind Precision Heavies should be this:

1. They should be better than Precision Cruise at damaging nanocruisers
2. They should be better than Precision Lights at damaging nanocruisers
3. They should be ineffective against interceptors

I haven't gone over the numbers properly, but I do have some balance concerns, which could very easily make Precision Heavies underpowered - as they are now - or overpowered, if excessively boosted. I think the fundamental problem is twofold - explosion velocity falloff and MWD sig-radius bloom.

MWD sig radius bloom means that everything fast takes full sig-related damage from missiles. That limits the ease of balancing Precision missiles - the sig radius effect becomes irrelevant, and velocity becomes all-important. It's all rather crude, in comparison to the tracking formula, which has a rather nice balance between turret sig radius, target sig and tracking.

Meanwhile, explosion velocity falloff is 1500 m/s, meaning that a ship travelling more than 3000 m/s faster than a missile's explosion velocity takes virtually no damage. The problem is that this is a rather blunt tool - 3000 m/s is simultaneously not much and a lot in speed terms. It's not that hard, with the multiplicative effects of pimped fits, gang mods, implants etc., to get a ship to move more than a lot faster than its vanilla version, potentially taking you into the immune zone. On the other hand, without those pimpings, 3000 m/s is quite a lot, relative to the range of speeds and missile explosion velocities out there.

So while I believe that it's obvious that Precision Heavies need a boost, it's not obvious exactly what that boost should be. Simply fitting them into a nice mathematical pattern would not necessarily make them balanced. Razz

I'd suggest a reworking of the missile damage calculator that, while keeping the emphasis on absolute speed, improved the contribution from sig radius effects. A similar effect might be achievable by some fancy reworking of Precisions' explosion velocity, explosion velocity falloff and explosion radius effects. But someone else can fiddle with that. Razz

Edit - the third balancing tool for missiles is, of course, missile velocity - infinite explosion velocity is irrelevant if you're slower than a sentry drone. This is also rather exposed to the sheer range of speeds in current Eve combat, especially since it is a digitial effect - hit or miss, there's no in-between.

Chomapuraku
Caldari
Carinae's Workshop
Posted - 2008.06.27 19:39:00 - [83]
 

/signed

i trained up t2 lights and hams, and i haven't bothered with heavies because the precisions are completely useless. a ham cerb is a nice mid- and long-range dps powerhouse, while a t2 precision assault cerb is great for cutting frigs to ribbons, but a cerb with heavies? all it can do is 100+ km dps against fully tackled targets (which other ships can do waaay better). make it so precision heavies allow a heavy missile boat to break a speed-tank on the slower, non-specialized nano-boats.

give missile boats a role in pvp by fixing precision heavies!!

Ulstan
Posted - 2008.06.27 21:03:00 - [84]
 

Quote:
1. They should be better than Precision Cruise at damaging nanocruisers
2. They should be better than Precision Lights at damaging nanocruisers
3. They should be ineffective against interceptors


I agree. I think this could be solved by increasing the explosion radius of heavy precision missiles enormously to well above that of the base missile - if it's going to be used for shooting at MWD'ing cruisers, it can have a pretty big radius.

I would think a heavy precision missile that took a 50% radius penalty against MWD'ing cruisers could work out - afterall, there's no reason the radius needs to be small enough to hit a MWD'ing cruiser for full damage, since the damage will be reduced anyway due to the MWD'ing cruisers speed.

L0nz0p
Insurgent New Eden Tribe
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2008.06.27 21:14:00 - [85]
 

/signed

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2008.06.27 21:41:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: Ulstan
Quote:
1. They should be better than Precision Cruise at damaging nanocruisers
2. They should be better than Precision Lights at damaging nanocruisers
3. They should be ineffective against interceptors


I agree. I think this could be solved by increasing the explosion radius of heavy precision missiles enormously to well above that of the base missile - if it's going to be used for shooting at MWD'ing cruisers, it can have a pretty big radius.

I would think a heavy precision missile that took a 50% radius penalty against MWD'ing cruisers could work out - afterall, there's no reason the radius needs to be small enough to hit a MWD'ing cruiser for full damage, since the damage will be reduced anyway due to the MWD'ing cruisers speed.


Excellent idea about the sig radius thingie. I think we can do something similarly imaginative with explosion velocity falloff on Precisions also - maybe reduce the actual explosion velocity, but increase the explosion velocity falloff, such that normal inties (in the case of precision lights) still take a similar amount of damage, but there's no longer such an abrupt cutoff where no damage is caused.

The sig radius of a MWDing inty is about 150 m, with a MWDing cruiser having a sig around 1000 m or so. So, and this is completely off the top of my head and may well be hilariously broken, we could give (all after TNP V and GMP V effects) the new Precision Heavies an explosion radius of around 1500 m (hey look, another use for Target Painters!), and an explosion velocity of, ooh, 2000 m/s, with an explosion velocity falloff of, oohhhh, 3000 m/s or so?

So they'd be useless against inties, even if they could hit them. You'd need painter support to deal full sig-related damage to a nanocruiser, and even then a typical nanocruiser, travelling at 3500 m/s, would take a ~25% damage reduction on explosion velocity. But the immune speed would be increased to 8000 m/s, although very little damage would be taken during the last 2000 m/s of that - and that assumes that the missiles have the speed to hit in the first place.

The devil is naturally in the detail, but I think the principle is rather more sophisticated and flexible than the current crude and unforgiving mechanics.

Heh, an interesting tactic for the nanopilot would be, upon seeing some new Precision Heavies coming his way, to just turn off MWD and let inertia carry him away. With an explosion radius of 1500 m, they won't do much to a HAC of sig radius 150 m or so, witout the MWD bloom effect. But then he's more vulnerable to tackle and normal missiles... an interesting tactical choice, maybe?

And wow... this would make even the Nighthawk's Precision bonus useful! Shocked

James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.06.27 22:25:00 - [87]
 

I had this sort of notion that the AOEfalloff attribute should be something other than the flat 1.5km/sec that it is now.

And something more like the same as the base explosion velocity. Of course, increasing base explosion velocity at the same time, (in some cases) such that the net result is about the same.

I mean, the difference between cruise (500m/sec) and torps (250m/sec) is really negligable - one hits up to 3500m/sec, and the other hits up to 3250.


MalVortex
Applied Agoraphobia
Posted - 2008.06.27 23:26:00 - [88]
 

The entire missile damage formula needs to be scrapped and rewritten (yet again). Throwing out speed or signature radius and just going with "worst case" is dumb, and leads to all or nothing situations. At least the signature explosion of MWDing ships gives turrets enhanced tracking - leaving it up to pilot skill to maintain the transversal. There is nothing close to that in missiles. Worse, missiles would gain no benifit from that signature bloom except in massive overgunning - torps versus double webbed MWDing cruisers, for example. Heavies versus your standard cruiser won't see any appreciable damage loss from signature radius reductions.


AOE falloff is more complicated than being made out as. Take a look at ElectroFreaks missile damage formula - its not a strict "1500m/s faster = no damage". 1500m/s faster than your explosion velocity will equate to 36.78% or so damage transfered. AoE Falloff is a dumb stat though.


Finally, the numbers I proposed for Precision Heavies woudn't kill interceptors, save possibly 4.5kms or slower Taranis. Those are run over and killed by every other HAC though, so thats just leveling the playing field. No Precision heavy missile ship could tackle something moving that fast anyways, so they get driven off.


As to other ships:
Primary Heavy Missile Ships:
Caracal Line
Drake
Nighthawk
Sacrilege

Any ship without a missile velocity bonus will completley cap out w/ precision missiles going at 5625m/s. This removes the entire 10% damage departed bracket, as the missiles will no longer hit. The Sacrilege, along with all missile supported Cruisers/HACs, cannot use precision heavy missiles while nanoed. Remember, they still carry a -5% velocity penalty per tube. Keeping their speed up (the primary roll these hybrid missile users aim for) would be far more difficult when loading precision heavies. This makes them easier to tackle and be killed - a fair trade off for their increased offensive firepower versus other fast nanocruisers.

The Caracal line simply can't be nanoed in the way other NanoHacs can, and precision heavies would undo the work of any serious pimpage. The lighter, 3 rigged Navy Caracal also carries another tube for more speed reduction.

The Drake and Nighthawk are impossible to nano. The Drake is slow and vulnerable to gangs, but is also the only BC that can be easily permatackled by pretty much anything. The Nighthawk has serious fitting issues and dubious ship bonuses (5% explosion radius lawls), giving it *some* roll in a gang would be nice (besides a very slightly better Drake at 20x the cost). No Field CS can be permatackled by a 4kms NanoHac - why are we making excuses for the Nighthawk? Why are these excuses the same for every similar missile using Caldari Ship?


Thanks for the continued support to this issue.

Bomale
Posted - 2008.06.28 01:31:00 - [89]
 

Allo Malvortex...

When I look to specifications of :

Scourge Heavy Missile ( 37,5 km ) / Terror Assault Missile ( 9,0 km )
Scourge Fury Heavy Missile ( 18,0 km ) / Terror Rage Assault Missile ( 7,5 km )
Scourge Precision Heavy Missile ( 17,0 km ) / Terror Javelin Assault Missile ( 36,7 km )

ASSAULT Javelin increase is range from 9,0km to 36,7km,
HEAVY Pecision decrease range from 37,5km to 17,0km !!!

Really with you about Heavy Missile.

Cha Jeng
SOSUS Corporation
Posted - 2008.06.28 02:08:00 - [90]
 

/signed

fix them please they dont' stack up in the least


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only