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 : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : last (15)

Author Topic

Exousia
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2004.07.12 10:38:00 - [181]
 

Edited by: Exousia on 12/07/2004 10:42:20
I agree with you Andrew Redburn

Although I never thought about it before I read your post, It is also true what you say about EM damage/shockwaves and explosive weapons.

Na'Axin
Naxbar
Posted - 2004.07.12 11:15:00 - [182]
 

Quote:
Posted - 2004.07.09 23:25:00 - Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets get Serious here. Who CARES if it has a Dammage radius of 10,000,000m3??? What do u think is happening AT THE MIDDLE OF THE EXPLOSION???????? U wanna talk splash dammage, then nerf the Torp for that.

Look lets get an extreem example and a tiny example.

U drop a Nuke. The POI (point of impact), well lets face it, its GONE. Dammage decreases the farther u get from the POI. BUT THE POI IS GONE! Immagin that

Now for the tiny example.

U take a small firecraker place it under a ..... lets just say a large bug. Set it off and the bug is gone. Place another fire*****er and put the same kinda bug 2 inches away and lite it. HEY!!! WHAT DO U KNOW! The little bugger Survived!!!! (abet with a powerfull headach no doubt)

So lets forget about velocities, blast radius (unless u want to talk about splash dammage within that radius), and all that other sillieness. When u get down to it the missle/torp/rocket is still HITTING the target!!!

And please, don't respond to this pointing out that it comes within [blank] m3 of the target before exploding. B/c if it did not have a POI then roughly anywhere from 5%-50% of the dammage would never reach the target in the first place, hense u could never theoretically GET the max dammage when using a radial dammage diagram.


bravo, don't really know why it took people 9 pages to bring that up in the first place.

Just wondering, are the prices on missiles going to drop even more after this nerf? since I sure as **** ain't going to pay what they cost now if they only hit for 10% of damage on average

and another point, could frigates and cruisers be made so that they are only useful against there own class? I mean that IS what you are doing to the BS's right? why shouldn't the other classes have that nerf?

btw TomB I read somewhere CCP was planning on nerving EVE veterans compared to new players.... Is this what they are currently trying to do? (I think it's working btw)

Spec 593357629
Exiled.
The Kadeshi
Posted - 2004.07.12 11:15:00 - [183]
 

more improvements to missles would be nice make light missles more agile and faster but make them not too fast so that a frig with mwd could avoid some dmg from light missles make rockets even faster but have a shorter range more of a blaster type weapon and make defender missles hit missles wnywhere within a certain range so mi=ssle boats could defend other ships from incoming fire

Aequitas Veritas
NibbleTek
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2004.07.12 11:33:00 - [184]
 

Edited by: Aequitas Veritas on 12/07/2004 11:42:56
On secound thouhgs I agree with Andrew Redburn as well. Having 8 launcher slots on the Raven isnt worse than letting any other BS fit 8 bs weapons if they sacrifice defence, so why not the Raven? Think of all the RCUs it would take to fit 8 sieges and therefore compromising defence, and think of the CPU issue that would cause cause as well! (hint hint: Apoc, Mega and Tempest can fit 8 BS weapons now, 6 or 7 guns + 2 sieges, apoc can do it and run 2 large armor reps 24/7 as well) Particulary if defender missiles are going to be as strong as they are today it doesnt look that bad. It would only be fair that a Raven could launch them as well. You really have to try it out on TQ and see how efficient they are atm. Let the Raven fit 8 launchers would help balance the Raven's cost in NPC hunting as well.

Regarding the damage, I absolutely think Andrew is correct. Maybe you should just double the production cost of Battleships in the game instead :/ Allthough I see the potentional problem where the richest corps get a lot more power than the smaller. Or you could make insurance of Battleships quite some more, while keeping the frigates and cruisers at the level where they are now. Then newcomers get the protection they need untill they know how the insurance concept works. Just a different approach to the "upkeep" idea for using BS.

Damage from missiles can't from a realistic point of view be reduced in the way you suggest TomB. On the other hand, this is a game and balance is more important, but pleast let 100% of the damage be of the correct type: ie Paradise CM = 100% EM, not 50% EM and 50% Kinetic.

And TomB, could you please respond to the Shield Extender vs Armor Reinforcer thread? or give us a note here? Would be greatly appreciated! Keep up the good work!
Link to the thread: http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=93277

Mongo Peck
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2004.07.12 13:01:00 - [185]
 

/me shakes his head at TOMB and shouts smackhead ...


Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
Posted - 2004.07.12 19:56:00 - [186]
 

Edited by: Maya Rkell on 12/07/2004 19:57:13
Originally by: Andrew Redburn
This is only true for explosion dmg type.
A EM will have the same effect if your ship is inside the shockwave, no matter if the wave is bigger than your ship or exactly the size of your ship, same goes for thermal damage. Also kinetic damage type missles hit you in a small ship exactly for the same damage as in a big ship. This means bigger missles => bigger damage. The only way to prevent this is not getting hit.



EM will diffuse.
Heat is subject to inverse-square.
Kinetic missiles can easily be thought of as throwing a buncdle of pentrators at the target - some will miss a smaller one.

Wilk Arten
Posted - 2004.07.12 20:37:00 - [187]
 

Well, realistically speaking, a missile really only does shockwave damage. What you have is an expanding sphere of whatever (em, kinetic, thermal) energy. Expanding and hitting everything until it dissipates to 0 damage (no air resistance to stop in in space).
So, depending of the fraction of the surface of the shockwave sphere that intercepts the target, it will do a fraction of damage (50% being max possible to do by proximity).

So, we calculate what angle of the sphere does our intrepid target cover.
(We will use half the angle, since it makes calculations easier in the next step).

ATan = inverse Tan

angle = ATan ( target radius/target distance )

Now based on this we can calculate the surface area of the part of the sphere caught by it.

Area(caught target) = 2 * PI * ( R - cos(angle) * target distance) * target distance

Area(sphere) = 4 * PI * target distance^2.

So the percantage of the damage is Area(caught target) / Area(sphere). Which will reduce to ( 1 - cos( angle)) / 2.

So the damage becomes:

damage = max damage * ( 1 - sin( angle )) / 2

Of course, a 100m proximity explsoion for a 25m sensor radius frigate means 1.5% of max damage, which explains why they invented directional warheads...

It's an approximation Smile, it assumes the shockwave is perfectly spherical (it should be in space), but it should work.

If you have direct impact, then the shockwave originates inside the ship, so it catches all of it damage.

Re: approaching/moving away from the shockwave should really only impact kinetic damage (no pun intended).

Programming your fuses (impact or proximity) should be fun. Very Happy

T'el'Alana Luathin
Posted - 2004.07.12 21:19:00 - [188]
 

Tomb, I don't envy you.. Taking the old module and trying to think of a better way to make the missiles.. bah.. tough job man!

A few things to keep in mind.

1) game balance.. it's what counts. The rest is just flavor. If you really wanted more realism, you'd for instance not use just a simple 0-100% hit chance based on range and tracking of turrets.

you want a world with turrets, missiles and drones as offensive capabilities.. And you want one option indigenous to a one race, but all races can use 'em.

How the damage gets calculated doesn't really matter in the end. Missiles are supposed to be the bigger, slower, more reliable way to deal damage, especially against slow targets. You want the flexibility of turrets in missiles? More than one damage type in a single missile? X types of missile Vs frigs, X types Vs cruisers and X Vs bships?

I say don't take it too far..

The current system is ok, a bit simplistic, but only needs a few tweaks. Having 2 types of damage per missile (explained with the flavor of one is the shock, and the other is the impact) is fine. Tweaking so that you shoot the missiles in a volley but reload times are far longer is fine. As long as the damage output/ammo room/rof/dependability is balanced vs turrets and drones, then it's fine.

T.

Batholith
Posted - 2004.07.12 22:17:00 - [189]
 

Edited by: Batholith on 12/07/2004 23:17:30
TomB Posted - 03/07/2004 18:18:00 - Quote
Quote:
1. I'm not a missile or explosion expert, any feedback that will be posted with more knowledge than I have is most welcome.


I normally stay out of these types of forms and enjoy the game for what it has to offer. But after the last great nurf its real hard not to.

THIS IS A BAD IDEA, JUST LIKE THE PROJECTILES / HYBRIDS NURF.

If you are trying to make a frigate stand toe to toe with a battleship you've done a great job.

If you are trying to nurf the carebears so they will become fodder for the pirates again great job.

If you are typing to make missiles behave like to do in real life? You fall short of the mark; time to take a physics course. But since we don’t have time for you get your Masters degree here are a few basics.

When an object hits another object all of the force is given up at the point of impact. If one object has more energy then the other then that object wins and continues to travel but at a much-reduced rate of speed.

When something explodes the closer you are to the explosion the more of the energy from the blast you will receive. The smaller you are the less likely you are to absorb this energy.

SIZE DOES MATTER, ENERGY DOES MATTER Exclamation But not the way you would like it to be. If a missile does a certain amount of damage to a battleship, then a frigate would suffer the same amount of damage. However if the blast cripples a battleship the frigate would be space dust.

If a blast is detonated in space with nothing around it the blast pattern would be in an omni pattern and the energy would be equal in all direction. But in missiles this is not the case. They have what is called a shaped charge where all of the explosive energy is transferred to the point of impact and in to an object. Again the smaller you are the less likelihood you can absorb this energy and more likelihood you would be floating home in a pod.

The same physics is true here on earth. Don't believe it look at all the little frigates on the bottom of the ocean.

And oh by the way a frigate is not suppose to stand up to a battleship that’s the point of having themExclamation

Just my 2 cents worth. Sry for the rant.

tigress
Gallente
Genco
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2004.07.13 09:17:00 - [190]
 

Maybe a bit off topic, but a overlooked "feature" for balance of missiles would be reload cost CAP. Shooting costing no cap is all fine and dandy, but making missiles cost enourmous amount of money seems bad as the only balancing factor, make the launcers eat CAP when reloading, and depending on missile type loaded (and maybe amount of missiles based on size).

Otherwise the idea sounds good, I think you mean that the missile attribute "damage" is just a pointer of what the total "damage sphere" contains, and depending on size the ships get x% of that damage based on how much area inside it they occupy?

Sounds good, even from a megathron pilots perspective, as long as the added sig radius i get from mwding either gives me the MAX damage, or gives me only shield damage on my surplus (the sig radius increase of the mwd), as from a roleplay perspective the ship aint getting bigger? only the magnetic field? thus it should hurt me EM or whatever and not kinetic - but ONLY for the surplus mwd sig radius, the rest of my ship SIZE will get the normal damage of the missile.

Nafri
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2004.07.13 14:59:00 - [191]
 

Originally by: tigress
Maybe a bit off topic, but a overlooked "feature" for balance of missiles would be reload cost CAP. Shooting costing no cap is all fine and dandy, but making missiles cost enourmous amount of money seems bad as the only balancing factor, make the launcers eat CAP when reloading, and depending on missile type loaded (and maybe amount of missiles based on size).

Otherwise the idea sounds good, I think you mean that the missile attribute "damage" is just a pointer of what the total "damage sphere" contains, and depending on size the ships get x% of that damage based on how much area inside it they occupy?

Sounds good, even from a megathron pilots perspective, as long as the added sig radius i get from mwding either gives me the MAX damage, or gives me only shield damage on my surplus (the sig radius increase of the mwd), as from a roleplay perspective the ship aint getting bigger? only the magnetic field? thus it should hurt me EM or whatever and not kinetic - but ONLY for the surplus mwd sig radius, the rest of my ship SIZE will get the normal damage of the missile.



this change will hurt missle users enough, caldari have a crappy cap recharge and cant afford to use cap for their waepons

tigress
Gallente
Genco
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2004.07.13 15:44:00 - [192]
 

Ofc it will hurt, but i meant as another thing to take into balancing.. not only the speed/damage/cost, id like to see all reloads take cap accually. Just missiled a bit more. Makes you have to take tactical decisions..

Hawk Firestorm
Posted - 2004.07.13 19:09:00 - [193]
 

Alot have expressed concerns about if this happens then the game will be nerf'd cos we can't hit x y & z.

But actually that's not the case.

One of the main reasons I sugest that TomB relooked at how he went about coding weapons was becasue of this.

Because he was trying to make complex rules and calculations of how a weapon was fired and hit it's target it is creating the problems we all see in game, it's very hard to balance as well as making operation much harder for the user in gameplay.

By dealing with dmg at the destination (your target), the inverse is true, it allows TomB, to put in simple methods of controling dmg, the most important being that so there's no ship class that's immune to another, but equally so that frigates etc aren't overpwr'd by BS's.




Wraeththu
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2004.07.13 23:18:00 - [194]
 

Edited by: Wraeththu on 13/07/2004 23:21:21
That was a long thread to catch up on.

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.


Repeating trend, this captured the essence the best, for what I felt like replying too.

I know I've read the trend on the "fleet engagements" vs "solitary super soldier/ship" camps for a while. The game is moving a bit more towards the 'fleet' camp now, which is a boon for me (since that's why I started playing this game), so I'm sure my opinon clouds my judgement some.

Point of my statement is this, isn't that the point of the cruiser? A self-contained entity that's able to operate on its own, but can get overshadowed by a larger, more specialized fleet? Battlecruisers with the emphasis on the higher end?

Maybe all these changes work to finally boost the red-headed ship?

Back on topic,

I like how sig radius is now being taken into account (except possibly with the MWD bonus), but it's still a fixed amount of damage that's invalidated by a myriad of systems. As I see it, if someone came to me and said "I have two propulsion modules for you. One uses higher CPU, lower power, and zero cap, and gave you a 250% speed boost. The other uses lower CPU, higher power, some cap, and gave you a random 1-500% speed boost" I'd have to go with the one I could rely on.

The speed has to go up to make it fair. I remeber when I first started playing (and subseqently had my friends play and made the same remark) who noticed that missile damage was "feeble" when the ship was typed with an appropriate missile size (light-frig, heavy-cruiser, etc). I used cruises in my frigs because, that's what felt like a missile to me. It was expensive, but I know when I launched it, if it hit, something was going to get messed up.

(I'm getting to my point) Why don't you use the ship's sig radius in computation as to how 'accurate' the missile's targeting comp is able determine when it should blow up. Add in randomness as to exactly where in that blast the ship actually was (if at all), and reduce damage based on distance from the epicenter. In addition, increase maximum missile damage, both in relation to the fact that it not only needs to do comperable damage to the turrets, but also needs to do additional damage to make up for the penalty for Anti-Missile capacity? At least then, we'd be starting to play on the same field. Otherwise it's going to be a constant balancing act between equal damage, and random damage, with the random Anti-M capacities being leveraged as the reasoning for consistently better performance.


Edit: You'd have to add criticals (wrecks) into the equation too)

ArchAngle
Caldari
WalMart Inc.
Posted - 2004.07.14 05:20:00 - [195]
 

Originally by: Aequitas Veritas
Originally by: ArchAngle
Also a simple soultion for the raven is to remove the gun points from the raven and add 2 more launcher slots


Woudl probably make it too strong dont you think? :) at least if it can fit 8 siege launchers


Well my thought is leave the power grid and cpu thesame forcing you to use standard or hevy launchers

Sinist
Gallente
Extremists
Posted - 2004.07.14 06:06:00 - [196]
 

I liked missiles the way they were when they used agility and flight speed and flight time. Getting rid of the torpedo splash damage was supposed to make missiles ok. What was wrong in that you decided to change them? I have no beef with making like cruise launchers and the ship balance in using them. But what was wrong with the old plain missile system? The one where you had thermal missiles, em missiles, kinetic missiles. What happened to agility? What happened to flight speed?

Seems like your doing a whole lot of work then just the agility system. Did the agility system not work? Why would you go for something more complicated then? I dont get it...

Bring back the missiles I knew and loved. There was nothing wrong with them except the fact they knock you in complete circles or out of warp etc. Fix that and the system was fine. Basically the old original missile system was just like a turret type of its own anyways.

You speak of this balance of making big missiles not being able to hit small ships. Then program the missiles to whoops accidently miss ships moving at a velocity of blah blah times a transverse of blah blah or whatever it takes. The agility system was fine for everything else though you just need to add the feature of doing the missile calculations so you get your balance in cruise missile not being able to hit frigates etc. So its like if ((ship == frigateclass) & speed => 200 ) missile != hit. or if( missile == cruise & ship == frigate) hit == noway . I AM A WANNABEE PROGRAMMER DO NOT MAKE FUN. All this aside the agility system worked and was cool. Just add the assurances into the old system that frigates arent owned by heavy missiles while moving etc. Good luck

Virgil Samms
Posted - 2004.07.14 07:09:00 - [197]
 

Okay so lets see where we are.

You wanted to make it more realistic in that a frigate couldn't take out a battleship by itself so you nerf the frigate so that it can no longer carry cruises. Then you say that it is unrealistic for large battleship turrets to be able to hit fast moving frigates so you nerf the turrets. Now you say that large missiles and cruises shouldn't be able to track in on frigates so you are going to nerf them as well.

I'm looking forward to the day we have teddy bears in the ammo section on the market because it seems to me that will be the only thing left to throw at each otherWink

Sinist
Gallente
Extremists
Posted - 2004.07.14 07:22:00 - [198]
 

Edited by: Sinist on 18/07/2004 11:45:41

Dufas
Amarr
freelancers inc
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2004.07.14 08:06:00 - [199]
 

so lets say i shoot a midget with a gun then shoot a regular size person with the same gun...will the damage to the midget be smaller then for the regular sized person...hell no...why make frigates so damn hard to kill..they r cheap, small easy to produce and outfit and quick to train for...they SHOULD NOT be such a pain in the arse for a BS to handle. Instead of nerfing what is already working how about turning your focus to shiva which is already months behind the planned release date.


Aequitas Veritas
NibbleTek
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2004.07.14 08:07:00 - [200]
 

Originally by: Sinist
Nothing wrong with the changes. Its not carebearish. It just balance and fun for all. It doesnt ruin PvP. I am as anti carebear as you will find also.


Changes seems to be very good if you ask me. It does bring more diversity and tactics into PvP. But this game is so much more than PvP though. It is also a game for solo players who shouldnt die to a couple of frigs, not to mention one Taranis.

Even for PvP player they probably spend most of their time hunting NPC's or mininig to fun their ships and equippment. NPC hunting needs to be balanced for Missile users as well. They allready pay tons for their missiles, and with changes to cruise missiles so they do lower damage to frigs and cruisers, depending on how little of course, is in a way eliminating the income part for a missile boat. Noone can say a Raven or Scorp is a efficient miner.

One solution might be as proposed here to give the Raven one or two additional launcher slots so it can fit standard or rocket launchers for frig defence like most other battleships can. Fitting 2 extra sieges could maybe be done, but not without fitting extra cpu and rcu's in your low slots, which would strip the Raven for defence. Mind the Apoc can run 8 BS weapons and yield a 24/7 defence at the same time, so it doesnt seem out of line. Mega can fit 7 425's with ease, even on my noobish alt character if i put on a CPU in the low slot. This can fully be avoided by unsing say Carbides (dont tell me thats expensive, cus a Raven would need the same to fit 7 or 8 sieges). Remeber Raven's defence comes from Cap and cap comes from PDU in the low slot, take them out, you take away the defence.

Another solution could be to let the CM's continue to do a lot of damage against frigs. 2 cycles of missiles = dead frig. If its lowered more than that. Id rather go for the extra launcher slots on the Raven.

I PvP quite a lot, but most of my time i spend hunting npcs and not other players. This really needs to be equally profitable for a Raven pilot as compared to other battleships (Disregard lasers).

Sphalerite
Applied Eugenics
Posted - 2004.07.14 11:17:00 - [201]
 

This is a bit different than the other agility solutions I've seen. It doesn't require any complex math or anything. I came up with it after reading that MWDs might be for straight line flight only. Why not just strap one of those new MWDs on an old, slow missile?

Give a cruise missile 2 flight modes. Once launched, it aligns itself on the target then goes into a dumb straight line burn till it's 10k away from its target. Once the missiles gets that close, it drops down to 1k or so and has its normal agility. Once the missile comes out of its burn it only gets enough fuel to go 20k.

Under this system, a stationary battleship 75k away from you will only take 16 seconds to hit without any skills, solving most of the problems with missiles takeing forever. A frigate will be able to easily escape from this though, and a Cruiser will be able to escape from them if it is fast enough and going the right direction. Values are made up and would need lots of tweaking, but I think this could work.

starmist
Amarr
Posted - 2004.07.14 11:36:00 - [202]
 

from Tomb
Quote:
On what I'm trying to achieve: make smaller vessels as survivable against bigger missiles just as they are with turrets + make more fun game play for missiles.



Tomb, stick with your original conception for the game which is to allow a place for all ships in a fleet battle by making the smaller ships more nimble so as to avoid the heavy stuff. In this I support KamiCrazy.

As in real air to air combat the point is to break the missile's sensor lock. Each missile sensor looks forward to form a cone of detection. Get outside of this cone and the sensor lock is broken (missile blows up). So don't just rely on missile turn radius but instead adjust the sensor cone to achieve the effects you want. Mix this in with proper ship speed differentials, acceleration differentials, turn radius differentials, and the proper balance will be achieved.

A game solution built around player skills is always preferable to a game solution built around game mechanics. A cruiser may even have to reverse direction at the right time in order to avoid a salvo of missiles.

Phenom
Gallente
Intergalactic Serenity
Ev0ke
Posted - 2004.07.14 15:42:00 - [203]
 

I like TomB“s idea very much.. ;)

but at one point i have to say some words :)
the calculations looks good but plz use the real size of the ship instead the sig radius.

So the changes wouldn“t touch the MWD theme (turrets use the sig radius 4 there targeting computer and missiles only use the heat of the engines or something else).

that means a frig would be hit harder by a light missile because the area of effect is smaller like the area of effect from a bigger missile.

frig size = 40.. light missile area of affect = 40 --> dmg = 100%

frig size = 40.. torp area of effect = 4000 --> dmg = 1%

these r only examples (its TomB“s job to put it in the right form/math :) )

it would be also nice if the shockwave thingy gets his way into the game, i realy like this tactical thinking of approching the target in the right way to avoid hvy hits ^^

Tommynator
Caldari
Posted - 2004.07.14 18:07:00 - [204]
 

Edited by: Tommynator on 14/07/2004 18:14:44
Edited by: Tommynator on 14/07/2004 18:11:04
I also think just to greatly reduce the agility for cruise/torps so they just dont turn around and go after frigs, is the best and only realistic suggestion here. The damage proportion stuff is totally unrealistic.

IF a cruise missile hits a frig, it should rip damage, but if the frig manages to out-maneuver the missile, which (think of the X-Wing from Star Wars) it honestly should be able to with enough agility, speed and the right evasive maneuvers, it should not damage it as much.

However, if you're using shockwaves, as long as the frig is within the shockwave, it should be heavily damaged no matter where it is, but a little less (not 90% less!) damaged if at the border of the wave.

What I'm saying here is basically:

THE BIGGER THE MISSILE, THE BIGGER THE TURNING ANGLE!

(make an evasive maneuvring button for frigs!)

Exousia
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2004.07.14 18:25:00 - [205]
 

Edited by: Exousia on 14/07/2004 18:29:04
Signature radius would'nt have squat to say as to how much damage a ship would take if hit by a missile!

The velocity however, would have something to say.
If a fast ship, such as a frigate or interceptor is orbiting a larger ship, such as a battleship, at.. lets say 5km.
And the battleship fires a cruise missile at the frig, the cruise missile wouldnt have much chance of actualy hitting the frigate, so it would detonate some distance from its target, and thus causing less damage.
But if a frigate (or any ship for that matter) is at long range, the cruise missile would not have much trouble hitting the target head on, and should then cause maximum damage regardless of what its target is.

And shockwaves would mostly be thermal damage, or EM damage.

(sorry about typos, if any) Razz

Tsual
Minmatar
Posted - 2004.07.14 18:27:00 - [206]
 

Originally by: TomB

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


First what does this 400m³ mean?

Second is that physical correct...

Third would it help when missiles woudl be turned into a second strike system: fast speed, high damage, yet a palyer can only fire them after having maintained a lock on the target ship for 1 minuteQuestion
(Making turrets first/intial strike weapons - although that is not realistic it might help to balance the system.)

Fourth I predict the trigger happy QUAKErs and UTers are going to leave eve first or were it the hack'n'slay roleplayers? Maybe I should studie more of Nostradamus scripturs.Wink

Tsual
Minmatar
Posted - 2004.07.14 18:38:00 - [207]
 

Originally by: Perry
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


Ok where can I fetch it? Wink

Na'Axin
Naxbar
Posted - 2004.07.14 20:12:00 - [208]
 

question @ TomB:

Does it really matter what we post here? since I'm getting the feeling this is an idea that's being coded as we speak.

I dunno, I'm getting the idea CCP reads these threads AFTER it's being implemented.

JoCool
Caldari
Posted - 2004.07.15 00:06:00 - [209]
 

I do think he reads all this and gathers feedback, that's his job.

TomB must be one of the biggest trollz in history.

Rattman
Posted - 2004.07.15 02:54:00 - [210]
 

Quote:
How ever I'm looking into changing MWDing at a later time by taking away the sig radius boost and do something else with them later, two ideas come in mind for that:

1. No turn angle while MWDing, can only fly into direction while module is active, making them good for approuching or fleeing but not much else.


Wouldn't it be better to make mwds have a cool down time equal to (or double) the activation tiem in which they cant be activated.

Allowing the frigate to close on the ship at high speed for short bursts




Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : 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