open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked More Missiles!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... : last (15)

Author Topic

Gomatong
Posted - 2004.07.07 15:20:00 - [121]
 

How about using semi-realistic missile physics e.g. A missile is launched initially at fairly slow speed, but high agility, but as would happen in space, the missile continues to accelerate and accelarate. Over long ranges, 50km+ it is doing insane speed but has virtaully no ability to change direction, particularly against low sig radius ships. The longer a misille is in flight the higher its velocity and the lower it agility. If the missile exceeds a certain velocity threshold its damage could be penalized also to compensate for the higher long range DoT against larger targets.

The initial slow launch of missiles gives the agile frigates / cruisers the short opportunity to haul a$$ and get their transversal velocity up and thereby use outmanouvering skills to reduce the chance to take damage.


Imhotep Khem
Minmatar
Doom Guard
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2004.07.07 15:26:00 - [122]
 

Edited by: Imhotep Khem on 07/07/2004 15:36:51
Going to read some more of this thread before i make a final comment. I'm at a loss as to why a battleship should not take out a frigate with "2-3 cruise missiles" or 1-2 torpedoes."


CCP TomB

Posted - 2004.07.07 15:38:00 - [123]
 

If a missile was to drop a more in speed than its target when chasing it and it takes a turn, that same missile would miss a battleship moving sidewards at 100ms at 60km.

Alot of time has been spend in investigating this and the behavior can't be controlled by ships and their state.

The end.

CCP TomB

Posted - 2004.07.07 15:40:00 - [124]
 

Rolling Eyes
Originally by: Imhotep Khem
Edited by: Imhotep Khem on 07/07/2004 15:36:51
Going to read some more of this thread before i make a final comment. I'm at a loss as to why a battleship should not take out a frigate with "2-3 cruise missiles" or 1-2 torpedoes."




Because an explosion of 400m3 shouldn't damage a frigate for 400m3 Rolling Eyes

Hawk Firestorm
Posted - 2004.07.07 15:44:00 - [125]
 

Edited by: Hawk Firestorm on 07/07/2004 16:06:14
Edited by: Hawk Firestorm on 07/07/2004 15:52:08
Again I say why make things more complicated than they have to be?

That is I don't see why there's any need for signature radius to come into play at all other than for targeting.

Design missiles that fit a ships given role in battle, both in range and firepwr.

Don't start to get into a technical orgasm over how a missile gets to it's target, just decide what happens to the dmg it does as and when it gets there, same goes for guns.

As soon as you start putting in more things like transversal velocity etc etc and sig radius then well things start getting way outta hand and out come the slide rules, and for the sake of simple gameplay it's just not required.

If you put in area effect weps you end up with probs with their use in empire etc, along with warp alignment buffeting.

Though bear in mind that just as much as missiles should play a important combat role so should anti-missile systems, providing that they enhance ship roles and give a boost to tactical combat and the gameplay.

As far as Dmg goes I would go down the route that as far as missiles go etc, and guns too if you take the example of a BS v Frigate etc is that they are hitting a good ammount of the time, just that they aren't doing massive ammounts of dmg, negated by several vehicals open to you either with resistances (careful not to allow players to negate your balance), or via a dmg reduction bonus, that is I may hit with a crus missile that normally does 300 dmg but instead it does 20-30, just if ya like for the sake of ease saying it didn't connect but caused 'splash' dmg.

This avoids the problems with guns/missiles not being able to hit fast moving targets and avoid the daft situation where you get one class being too pwrful v another.

Far as missile types I think they should stay pretty much as is really.

Torps=Anti Capital
Crus=Anti Capital/Anti escort
Mirvs=Multi targeting
Hvy's Anti crus
Lights Anti Fast movers(frigates)
Rockets Fast close range attack role (frigates only, in the same way I think blasters shouldn't be a option for BS's).

Also clean up missile behaviour, some ships capable of fitting multple fast firing defender bays, where each bay doesn't all go after the same missile using a shoot list.

FOF's that re-target nearest hostile if in flight if current target is destroyed.

Standards Self destruct if target is destroyed in flight.

But remember a missile is just a gun with a different graphic, with some additional flight logic. (there's a very important hint in that. Razz )

At some point in the future it perhaps would be nice to see some form of subsystem targeting for a fast closin attack role, but I don't think ya ready for that yet. :)

Admiral Seafort
DarkStar 1
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2004.07.07 17:32:00 - [126]
 

I just wonder why the mere fact that the Raven is a missileboat and formerly the undisputed PvP king should somehow limit CCP's ability to tweak missiles in general without harsh criticism. Just because the Raven can use them (and use them well) doesn't mean it's the only thing that missiles were designed for.

Yes, battleships serve as flagships for certain classes of weapons, but there are other sizes of ships using smaller versions of the same weapons. The proposed missile change ideas are for all missiles, not just cruise. Also, they apply for all ships, not just the Raven. The Tempest can take advantage too, although, admittedly, each ship carries with it its own quirks in terms of combat and fitting strategy.

Imhotep Khem
Minmatar
Doom Guard
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2004.07.07 17:51:00 - [127]
 

Originally by: TomB
Rolling Eyes
Originally by: Imhotep Khem
Edited by: Imhotep Khem on 07/07/2004 15:36:51
Going to read some more of this thread before i make a final comment. I'm at a loss as to why a battleship should not take out a frigate with "2-3 cruise missiles" or 1-2 torpedoes."




Because an explosion of 400m3 shouldn't damage a frigate for 400m3 Rolling Eyes


True except for torpedoes that penetrate prior to explosion. Anyway, i was not being smart but could not find what problem we were trying to fix here, i thought maybe it would be listed in the thread somewhere..

Seems like now we have two issues tough.
1. missiles flying fast enough to be effective at long range.
2. Missiles not being excessivly effective vs frigates.
3. Giving a plausable explanation for the new model.

Is this a correct evaluation of the issues?

If so here is a couple whacky ideas.

a. speed up all missiles to make then effective at range.
b. either make them reduce to current speeds as they approach the target, or tie damage to base sig radius, ignoring sig penalty due to MWD.


Also I have to ask, what is the problem with agility? Is my Evasive manuvering skill currently useless? (it seemed to work) What about the dual inertial stabilizers I am wearing hoping to get to warp faster?

Thanks

Gan Howorth
Caldari
Enigma Inc.
Posted - 2004.07.08 00:20:00 - [128]
 

TomB,
Damage based on angle at which the missile strikes in relation to the direction of ship travel is an excellent idea, giving a more strategic element to movement during fights.

If the agility engine is used to tune missiles (inertia based isn't it?) it doesn't work because at high speeds the missiles simply miss, is this correct?

Can you not cap the speed the 3d engine uses to calculate the inertia of direction when turning. i.e So a given missile will gain inertia (effectively vel*mass) up to a certain speed but not beyond it. Smaller missiles would stop gaining inertia at slower speeds. Surely this could be tuned?

Tying sig radius to damage radius is a great idea. You are capping missiles to max damage after all. Keep the sig radius nerf to prevent MWD becoming an automatic module for frigs. Allow them to turn whilst using them and to turn them off at any point in the cycle.

ArchAngle
Caldari
WalMart Inc.
Posted - 2004.07.08 07:55:00 - [129]
 

let me ask you this lets say a jet movign at 1000 mph is going foward and a steel boling ball moving strait towards it and hits it in the nose what will happen to the jet. This is kinda complex but it stats what will happen in a this exaample and also what will happen to a missle when hitting a object.

PART ONE
One of the common arguments given for kinetic energy being ½mv² is that it shows a net increase when energy is added to a system, while mv does not. The model for this point is an explosion blasting two objects in opposite directions. The question is whether there is a net increase in momentum.

The quantity mv increases by the same amount in two opposite directions, because for every force there must be an equal and opposite force. The increase in one direction is given a minus sign; and when added to the mv in the other direction, the total is zero.

The quantity ½mv², however, shows a net increase. Its velocity is squared, which converts any negative quantity to a positive quantity; and adding two positives always shows a net increase.

That argument is a fallacy. It is not valid to put a minus sign by momentum when quantitating energy addition, because there is no such thing as a negative quantity of momentum. (In determining velocities, the negative sign has a different purpose.) An increase of momentum in two opposite directions is an increase in momentum. Therefore, momentum should be quantitated in absolute values when relating to energy.

Here's another way of stating it. The original question is total quantity of energy. The minus sign changes the question to vectorial quality. After adding, it is then reinterpreted in terms of total quantity. Switching back and forth between total quantity and vectorial quality is not valid.

The assumption that energy must show a directional increase relative to an external reference frame is a fallacy. This point is demonstrated when heating a piece of metal. There is no directional increase in energy.

Energy exists regardless of the direction of movement. Heat demonstrates this point. It is a randomization of motion. And it is called energy. To say that negative momentum cancels positive momentum is the same as saying half of the heat cancels the other half of the heat.

For a correct analysis, energy addition must be evaluated relative to the point where the forces act or the impact point. Momentum increases in both directions relative to the impact point, when energy is added.

In analyzing collisions, there is often no negative velocity, because the center of mass may be moving at a high velocity relative to an external reference frame resulting in both of the equal and opposite momentums having a positive velocity. Regardless of whether there is a negative velocity, no net momentum change occurs relative to an external reference frame, when energy is added, even though the momentums do change relative to the center of mass.

There is a contradiction in saying that the net energy increases, while the net momentum does not. Momentum is the motion of a mass. If the motion of the mass has no net increase, how could there be a net change in the kinetic energy, which is said to be the energy of motion?

As a matter of fact, kinetic energy as ½mv² is not in the motion of the mass, because no mass can move at velocity squared. Its motion is first said to be its velocity (Momentum and velocity are both motion.); and its velocity is not its velocity squared. So ½mv² is an abstraction apart from the motion of the mass. The question is, can energy really be an abstraction, if it is used in discrete quantities as fuel? Fuel is more than an abstraction; so the energy defined by the equation must be more than an abstraction. Momentum is perceivable as mass and velocity; but ½mv² is not.

ArchAngle
Caldari
WalMart Inc.
Posted - 2004.07.08 08:14:00 - [130]
 

*PART TWO*
Simple Collisions.

To demonstrate the principles of collision analysis, a simple type of collision will be analyzed, which is a head-on elastic collision of two masses. The predictability of the collision is dependent upon the fact that the center of mass (CM) maintains the same velocity after the collision as before. Also, the momentum relative to the center of mass stays the same for each mass but reverses directions.


Mass 1 is 8kg moving right at 50m/s. Mass 2 is 4kg moving left at 10m/s. The net momentum is the sum of the two momentums, when the velocity left is given a negative sign.

NM = m1v1 + m2v2 = 8(50) + 4(-10) = 360

The velocity of the center of mass (vCM) equals the total momentum divided by the total mass.

vCM = 360/12 = 30

The initial velocity of each mass relative to CM is its original velocity minus vCM.

m1: 50 - 30 = 20 m2: -10 -30 = -40

Changing the sign produces the same velocity relative to CM after the collision. The velocity is then converted to the original reference frame by adding the velocity of CM.

m1: -20 + 30 = 10 m2: 40 + 30 = 70

A simpler procedure is possible by analyzing the velocities only. The final velocity of each mass will be twice the velocity of CM minus its velocity before the collision.

2vCM - v(before) = v(after)

m1: 2(30) - 50 = 10 m2: 2(30) - (-10) = 70

With these numbers, the mv and ½mv² are calculated.
______________________________________
] m1 ] m2 ] total ]
]___________]___________]_____________]
] mv ]½mv² ] mv ]½mv² ] mv ] ½mv² ]
]___________]___________]_____________]
]400 ]10,000] -40 ] 200 ] 360 ] 10,200] <--before
]-------------------------------------]
]80 ] 400 ] 280 ]9,800] 360 ] 10,200] <--After
---------------------------------------

This example only shows that mv and ½mv² are both conserved during elastic collisions (the total columns). The bigger question is what happens when energy is added to the system.

Adding Energy.

To demonstrate the addition of energy, the following example will start with the 8kg and 4kg masses combined and moving right at 30m/s; and then an explosion will separate them with a force averaging 1600N (newtons) for 0.1 seconds. First acceleration will be determined as a = F/m; and then velocity will be determined as v = at. (Force left is minus.)

m1: a = -1600/8 = -200 m2: a = 1600/4 = 400

m1: v = -200(0.1) = -20 m2: v = 400(0.1) = 40

These velocities are relative to CM; so they must be added to vCM to get velocities relative to an external reference frame.

m1: -20 + 30 = 10 m2: 40 + 30 = 70

So the result is this:


The resulting levels of mv and ½mv² are:


______________________________________
] m1 ] m2 ] total ]
]___________]___________]_____________]
] mv ]½mv² ] mv ]½mv² ] mv ] ½mv² ]
]___________]___________]_____________]
]240 ] 3,600] 120 ]1,800] 360 ] 5,400 ] <--before
]-------------------------------------]
]80 ] 400 ] 280 ]9,800] 360 ] 10,200] <--After
---------------------------------------




The table shows that relative to an external reference frame the energy added by the explosion increased the amount of ½mv² but not the mv. (360mv before and after). The usual assumption is that this demonstrates that adding energy to a system does not change momentum. However, relative to the impact point, the momentum went from 0 to 160 in each direction.

The Corrected Concept.

So the question is, must enegy be able to change relative to an external reference frame; or is it something that only changes relative to impact points? Forces can only exist relative to impact points—not relative to an external reference frame, which is relative and infinitely variable. So the correct definition of kinetic energy should be the change in momentum relative to impact points or the points where the forces act.*

The collision analysis is not a major proof in itself; but the perspective on collisions Would be improved with the correct definition of energy. The same is true of most points being made here. The mathematical proof is in applying rockets to the falling object issue, which is shown in the rocket section.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Notice in the rocket section that the analysis of power by erroneous concepts is made relative to the point where the forces act by using the separation velocity of the exhaust as the reference. This strange twist allows the rocket equations to be balanced with the erroneous definitions. It also contradicts the premise that energy addition must occur relative to an external reference frame by the erroneous concepts.



ArchAngle
Caldari
WalMart Inc.
Posted - 2004.07.08 08:19:00 - [131]
 

Edited by: ArchAngle on 08/07/2004 08:27:34
Edited by: ArchAngle on 08/07/2004 08:22:51
Edited by: ArchAngle on 08/07/2004 08:20:09
pLEASE NOTE THAT THE TABLES DID NOT COME OUT CORECTLY SO IF YOU WISH TO USE THEN THERE IS 2 COLUMS PER VALUE FROM LEFT TO RIGHT AND 4 ROES

iF ANY ONE WILL HOST A COPY OF A HTML DOC ILL UP LOAD THE WHOLE THING INCLUDIGN THE TABLE

DeerHunter GE
Amarr
Doomheim
Posted - 2004.07.08 08:19:00 - [132]
 

What about physical damage (missile fragments).
I think in real world most of the anti air missiles are working this way, bigger ones also have the area of blast effect.
Anyway, Anti Ship Heavy Missiles (Harpoon) still have an Warhead which is ramming into the ships body, trying to penetrate the Armor if there any, then exploding. There could be also serveral types of penetrations and missile type.....for heavy armored targets and for those who have an weaker hull.
In General i think the type of damage isn't mentioned too bad in the game but can be more detailed.

This way, Ligt missiles (those fragmental i mean) are doing much less damage to an heavy armored ship as mentioned in their description. Because little fragments aren't penetrating heavy armor like big armor piercing warheads.

On the other hand these heavy armor piercing warheads won't do much damage to small frigs because they would have to hit the target very precisely unless the payload i changed to an big explosive warhead.

The sheme mentioned here has to be worked out much more in detail....but its worth to be considered.....i think :)

Exousia
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2004.07.08 08:32:00 - [133]
 

Edited by: Exousia on 08/07/2004 08:42:56
DeerHunter GE: I was thinking pretty much the same as you, I just want to ask, (to what you just posted) what if the heavier missiles mentioned hit the smaller ship head on? cause maximum damage?

ArchAngel: Shocked Razz

ArchAngle
Caldari
WalMart Inc.
Posted - 2004.07.08 09:00:00 - [134]
 

Edited by: ArchAngle on 08/07/2004 09:03:01
Yes it would multipuly the damage 2x2=4 not 2x2=1 to put it simply Let me ask you this if you are driving a 2 tone truck and hit a GEO metro head on at 100mph and the other car is going at 100mph right at you what happens . the car is totald and you are probaly scaterd over 100 yards. not you hit the other car and it does less damage because you hit it head on. Laughing

ArchAngle
Caldari
WalMart Inc.
Posted - 2004.07.08 09:08:00 - [135]
 

Edited by: ArchAngle on 08/07/2004 09:10:21
Originally by: TomB
Rolling Eyes
Originally by: Imhotep Khem
Edited by: Imhotep Khem on 07/07/2004 15:36:51
Going to read some more of this thread before i make a final comment. I'm at a loss as to why a battleship should not take out a frigate with "2-3 cruise missiles" or 1-2 torpedoes."




Because an explosion of 400m3 shouldn't damage a frigate for 400m3 Rolling Eyes

UM how is this true large the explosive payload of a missle wider area of effect kinda like 10 pounds of C4 will make a bigger boom than 1 ounce of C4 its all abpought the payload of the missle and how close the target is to the blast. bigger missle= bigger boom = more damage simple as that and if the frig is any were neer the blast it should take maxum damage not less because it s a small ship actualy it should take more damage because its a more fragile ship and has less armor to protect it

Serpentes
Posted - 2004.07.08 10:04:00 - [136]
 

Originally by: TomB
Rolling Eyes
Originally by: Imhotep Khem
Edited by: Imhotep Khem on 07/07/2004 15:36:51
Going to read some more of this thread before i make a final comment. I'm at a loss as to why a battleship should not take out a frigate with "2-3 cruise missiles" or 1-2 torpedoes."




Because an explosion of 400m3 shouldn't damage a frigate for 400m3 Rolling Eyes


Okay, lets assume we have a 400m3 explosion, boom, it explodes, 400m3, now if we have that explosion next to a house, or car, you think its gonna explode for 400m3? if theres something in the way, it gets hurt...

Frigates should just be like flies, you swat them, they pop.. fine, why should you make frigates invicible towards BS? whats the point in a battleship if you have to fit small weapons to kill frigs? theres something wrong with that for sure! its not like frigs werent nearly invicible as is, fit an mwd, you can keep that running forever and be at 3km/s, I say keep BS vs Frigate missiles as is, or at least let us fit any missile UP TO what it currently can, so add rockets to standard and assault, add rockets and light to heavys, add rockets, light and heavys to cruise and sieges... then I'd agree with cruise missiles doing 32 damage, if you have to sacrifice 10 seconds to load a light/heavy/whatever missile, to then do 150 (?) damage vs the frig... but having to mount assault or heavy or whatever launchers on a battleship so you can kill frigs... hell thats wrong!

oh, but you should make MWD signature thing turn out more missile damage than without MWD, so if a frig with an mwd comes around you still blast it to shreds (or well, at least more than 10% damage, 50? something like that).. that is IF your missiles hit :)

but please, dont change mwds to somehting like cap boosters... not much I hate more than the rather useless cap boosters: takes a truckload of cash to produce the charges, and they are as heavy as... you dont wanna know :)

Greetings

CCP TomB

Posted - 2004.07.08 10:55:00 - [137]
 

To me: if 100% of the exploison hits the target it should get MAXIMUM damage, but if the item is tiny it shouldn't, wether the item dies or not is up to the hitpoints of the item. Compare the damage % that a battleship and a frigate get from a missile hit if you don't think a frigate is (would be) more fragile to a missile blow.

But what ever the real fact about an explosion is; cruise missiles and torpedos are missiles designed for big targets.


We can't make them so slow that frigates can easily out-manuever them (this would have been the dream) because missiles are also long range and needing up to a minute for missiles to cross long distances makes them simply useless in most cases in long range scenarios.

And no, the missile physics can't be tuned or altered in any way to get this effect.


EVE > Real Life

ArchAngle
Caldari
WalMart Inc.
Posted - 2004.07.08 11:39:00 - [138]
 

one quick question will there be a minum damage and a max damage so you still hit every time or is it a shoot all day long never hit crap nerf

ArchAngle
Caldari
WalMart Inc.
Posted - 2004.07.08 11:42:00 - [139]
 

also its sooo anoying to cary 20 differnt amo types ina ship you ever try to change your load out based on ship type in a rapid senero or do it for several hours hunting rats its not fun maby make a multi purpous launcher again but make it with seige launcher requirments and base the fire time off the amo used

Imhotep Khem
Minmatar
Doom Guard
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2004.07.08 11:54:00 - [140]
 

That is why it appears the two speed solution is the simplest and cleanest.

Closing speed is large, but once in range returns to normal tracking speed. No fancy equations or physics needed.



explosives dont deliver damage, they deliver force. The damage is related to the force of the explosion vs the force absorption / repelling technique of the target.

As an example look at the auto industry. They changed their cars from being stiff and sturdy, to being wimpy and foldable. Because that absorbs the force in a fashion that saves lives, but not cars. In this case more damage is done to one system to avert damage to another(you).


I believe, the techniques used to allow a small ship to deal with small missile attacks, will make it incredibly suseptible to destruction by large missiles if one ever catches it, not the opposite. They are counting on not being cought.

The weird thing is that a frigate goes anywhere near a BS Shocked And as such perhaps the RL related arguments I should just drop...

MrMorph
Amarr
Nova-Tek
Elitist Cowards
Posted - 2004.07.08 12:03:00 - [141]
 

After reading up and down on dev's ideas and others ideas i've come to conclude that
if all these changes were in effect, you'd have to do npc combats as following:

use your BS to take out the 400k commander rat, then dock, get your cruisers and take out the baron or whatever it might be. Then dock again, get yr frig and gank the last few rats.

Bountys would have to be 1 mill on a frig rat for me to even bother.....


This game is nerfed enough as is, i cant hit a ****ing frig closer than 30km from my BS, so my missiles is the only thing i have for frig defence. if ya nerf them so that i will have to fire 10-15 torps on a frig, NPC hunting is useless. Might aswell start to **** ppl over for randsome....


ArchAngle
Caldari
WalMart Inc.
Posted - 2004.07.08 12:10:00 - [142]
 

Edited by: ArchAngle on 08/07/2004 12:13:09
One of my primary concern is the way the game is being balanced its almost like there is no reward for palying long term its like everthing is being geared at noobs all experanced players are being penilised fro playing long time im proud of my skill gap i worked hard and invested many months in train my skills up higher. with all the changes its gettign harder and harder to be independant unless you want to be a carebear and hang in empire all day and mine. First it was guns now missles shure we get more powergride for guns but why do i even ned more power i got to use frig guns and launchers ona bs it wouldnt be so bad if there was a large launcher or gun thats built for anti frig. but as time goes on this is my perdiction of the future. im gona use a mega for my exaple a mega fitted with 4 425' 2 light nutrons one 150mm s rail and 1 cruse / seige launcher im not gona go in to the details of the mids and lows as they are not revelent here. now in your cargo hold you will have 250 rounds of antimater S for close range frig 200 rounds of iridum S for medum range frig duties 500 rounds of large antimater for closre range bs 300 rounds of iridum or uranium for mid range and 100-200 light em missles 100-200 thermal light missles or what ever type is aproit then on to large missles get my drift next thing you know you will have 500-600m3 of amo in your hold just to kill rats and have to switch all the types of amo on the fly every time you start a new spawn and evey time they change range and even if you by the grace of god get the rats killed where is the loot gona go as you have no room because of the amo get my drift and even if you only change amo when absulty nessary you will still have to change every gun 3-4 times a fight jut to hit desent damage even if you even hit.90% of you amo gets blown in to space.lets see here in a hour you kill 3-4 spawns of varign types you spend 15 min per spawn so that means you have reloaded your guns 12 times at least x7 guns thast abought 2 minuts from jut changing amo types not to mention reloadign your guns and launchers i think if made my point its great that your giving ships a purpous but making us haul around a lot of differnt types of amo and missles and fit a bunch of differnt guns is crazy why not just lock the gun type to the ship and make new wepons for each task or adapt the low end guns for anti frig and cruser so we can cary one sise of amo anf a multi purpious launcher would be nice depending on ship class its just my thoughts cause it funny to be fitted for anti frig kill the frigs and get ****d by the bs's or kill the bs's and get ****d by frigs. do fig

Perry
Amarr
The X-Trading Company
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2004.07.08 12:19:00 - [143]
 

Originally by: ArchAngle
Edited by: ArchAngle on 08/07/2004 12:13:09
One of my primary concern is the way the game is being balanced its almost like there is no reward for palying long term its like everthing is being geared at noobs all experanced players are being penilised fro playing long time im proud of my skill gap i worked hard and invested many months in train my skills up higher. with all the changes its gettign harder and harder to be independant unless you want to be a carebear and hang in empire all day and mine. First it was guns now missles shure we get more powergride for guns but why do i even ned more power i got to use frig guns and launchers ona bs it wouldnt be so bad if there was a large launcher or gun thats built for anti frig. but as time goes on this is my perdiction of the future. im gona use a mega for my exaple a mega fitted with 4 425' 2 light nutrons one 150mm s rail and 1 cruse / seige launcher im not gona go in to the details of the mids and lows as they are not revelent here. now in your cargo hold you will have 250 rounds of antimater S for close range frig 200 rounds of iridum S for medum range frig duties 500 rounds of large antimater for closre range bs 300 rounds of iridum or uranium for mid range and 100-200 light em missles 100-200 thermal light missles or what ever type is aproit then on to large missles get my drift next thing you know you will have 500-600m3 of amo in your hold just to kill rats and have to switch all the types of amo on the fly every time you start a new spawn and evey time they change range and even if you by the grace of god get the rats killed where is the loot gona go as you have no room because of the amo get my drift and even if you only change amo when absulty nessary you will still have to change every gun 3-4 times a fight jut to hit desent damage even if you even hit.90% of you amo gets blown in to space.lets see here in a hour you kill 3-4 spawns of varign types you spend 15 min per spawn so that means you have reloaded your guns 12 times at least x7 guns thast abought 2 minuts from jut changing amo types not to mention reloadign your guns and launchers i think if made my point its great that your giving ships a purpous but making us haul around a lot of differnt types of amo and missles and fit a bunch of differnt guns is crazy why not just lock the gun type to the ship and make new wepons for each task or adapt the low end guns for anti frig and cruser so we can cary one sise of amo anf a multi purpious launcher would be nice depending on ship class its just my thoughts cause it funny to be fitted for anti frig kill the frigs and get ****d by the bs's or kill the bs's and get ****d by frigs. do fig


Okay the first one who finds a dot (".") in this post gets a price. Wink But the presented scenario is realistic if you want to engage high end spawns in a lonely battleship.

It all depents on how much the Drones will be nerfed.

Christopher Scott
Blue Republic
Posted - 2004.07.08 12:22:00 - [144]
 

*gives TomB a hug*

We still wub joo TomB.



btw, I think the point is that EVE is in a position where BS > all. If your BS can take out anythign else, then why fly anything else?

It's a fact, most fleet battles are counted by battleships. The strength of a force is counted by it's battleships, the losses that an alliance loses is counted by battleships. While cruisers and frigates can be helpful in a fleet battle, there is no major benefeit of having cruisers and frigates in a mixed fleet insetad of more battleships, _aside_ from the limited roles of using blackbirds as cheap scorpion substitutes and minmitar frigates to warp scramble.

I believe the goal is to make battleships only effective against one other class of ship at a time. If you load your battleship with heavy weapons, then you will only be most effective against other battleships.

This would mean a battleship needs "support" against other classes of ships it's not prepared for, thus encouraging other people to fly cruisers and frigates to protect their battleships.

This also means that eliminating an enemy's frigate/cruiser fleet would make their battleships more vunerable to those types of ships, and thus it could be useful to equip 1-2 battleships in a fleet to be anti-frigate/cruiser.

TomB's idea still needs some work, but I believe that in the 'bigger picture' this could be a step in the right driection for EVE.

Zaldiri
Caldari
Automated Industries
Posted - 2004.07.08 12:23:00 - [145]
 

I like TomB's idea just make it that the shockwaves are not only kinetic but are the same as the missles damage type

Christian Xavier
Caldari
The Fraternal Association of Killer Squibs
Posted - 2004.07.08 13:02:00 - [146]
 

Some ideas after reading.

I like the MIRV idea. What about a large missile that drops a couple FOF light missiles for anti Frig.

One shot torp launchers for a frig. No or very slow reload. Also it's crazy but a "kamikaze destruct" where you can fly close to a ship, eject, and make the mother of all smart bombs go off (max capacitor relates to damage maybe).

Missiles in general being faster is needed, but I love the acceleration based on mass idea.

Point defense launcher. Autofires "defender" missiles. VERY small capacity (due to extra electronics needed).

I finished my MWD skill about an hour ago, and I still haven't equipped one, but to my understanding warp jammers don't affect mwd's. How about we change that? say each -1 jamming = -25% speed. Give afterburners a bit more purpose. Allows BS with a couple scramblers to greatly reduce a frig's speed at close range, but still allows frigs to close in. Also 10MN on a frig is NOT easy. No need to make it harder.

I think frigs should be able to hurt BS's with hit and run tactics, but BS's should use drones, special weapons, nos's to hurt frigs. Torping or using giant guns to kill a moving frig is a silly idea. If you do make smaller ships take less damage, it should do so on maneuverability. Frigs should need strength in numbers to hurt BS's. I also think a BS should have to use some special equipment to effectively fight frigs though. I don't take a howitzer for rabbit hunting... often...

The final thing is, if you're in a BS, and you want to kill some frigs, get a couple of newer players who can't afford to destroy their 1st cruiser, to escort you in their frigs. I would love so see someone in their 800 bazillion isk BS ask me for some support in 0.0. "Hey, help keep the flies off of me."

ArchAngle
Caldari
WalMart Inc.
Posted - 2004.07.08 13:19:00 - [147]
 

i dont so much mine the changes but the fact that you have to caryt 10 differnt kinds of amo around to kill soem npc is crazy im looking at it in a hunting perpective i dont mine it for anti frig or somthign in pvp but hunting npc its just anoying and hunting in a cruser is imposable solo all i ask for is large guns for antii frig and proper guns for the ship class so i dont need small or medum guns on y bs i save them for my cruer and frigs

Hawk Firestorm
Posted - 2004.07.08 15:27:00 - [148]
 

Edited by: Hawk Firestorm on 08/07/2004 15:32:49
Originally by: TomB
To me: if 100% of the exploison hits the target it should get MAXIMUM damage, but if the item is tiny it shouldn't, wether the item dies or not is up to the hitpoints of the item. Compare the damage % that a battleship and a frigate get from a missile hit if you don't think a frigate is (would be) more fragile to a missile blow.

But what ever the real fact about an explosion is; cruise missiles and torpedos are missiles designed for big targets.


We can't make them so slow that frigates can easily out-manuever them (this would have been the dream) because missiles are also long range and needing up to a minute for missiles to cross long distances makes them simply useless in most cases in long range scenarios.

And no, the missile physics can't be tuned or altered in any way to get this effect.


EVE > Real Life


Indeed, though like I say don't worry bout how ya send it cos it doesn't matter if it goes by FedX or UPS. ;)

Only real thing that's needed is range and speed of missile types, as far as delivery.

Grut
The Protei
Posted - 2004.07.08 15:46:00 - [149]
 

I dont like the idea of frigs & cruisers taking dmg from missiles at high speed, large guns give a miss so why shouldnt missiles?

Maybe some kind of trigger time would work, based on signal radius and combined with what you said about explosion radius earlier would work.

Something like;

torp trigger time 10000ms
torp explosion radius 400
frig signal radius 100

trigger time 10000/100 = 1 second, the frig has 1 second to move 400m to avoid being hit, if not it takes a fraction of the blast as previously described.

Light missiles would have alot smaller trigger time.

If your using signal radius for the above you could knock it out of later calcs, of course this would mean stationary frigs get hit by the full whack of dmg Twisted Evil but imo thats a nice counter to missiles not being able to hit frigs at range like guns.





SaH TohRI
Minmatar
Dark Horizon inc.
Posted - 2004.07.08 16:43:00 - [150]
 

May be I'm OT but, unless changing the damage calculation of missiles, an interesting and different way to approach this problem could be to put in the game some sort of countermeasures designed to spoof missiles. The main concept could be implementing deployables objects like "chaffs" used in modern A\A combat to spoof radar guided missiles or "sonic buoys" designed to spoof torpedos in submarine warfare. In eve the player can deploy these kind of coutermesaures using missiles launchers or dedicated launchers. There will be different types of them with different effectiveness.
Combined with some kind of ship defensive manouvering, example: flying fast and perpendicular in relation to the incoming missile\s trajectory, the player could be able to maximize the spoofing effect.
Just a thought


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... : last (15)

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