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 : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : last (15)

Author Topic

Liquid Metal
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2004.07.26 16:05:00 - [241]
 

Originally by: BIRDofPREY
Originally by: TomB



2. Shock wave damage (kinetic only?) that uses same calculation from the physic engine as when collision impact takes place, only the collision impact uses mass * velocity vs. mass * velocity in the direction that the collision impact takes place. In this case only the direction velocity of the target vs. where the missile explodes would be used.




The word "physics" should never be used in EVE...


why not? thats how the turrets are calculated. Confused

BIRDofPREY
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2004.07.26 17:12:00 - [242]
 

Originally by: Liquid Metal
Originally by: BIRDofPREY
Originally by: TomB



2. Shock wave damage (kinetic only?) that uses same calculation from the physic engine as when collision impact takes place, only the collision impact uses mass * velocity vs. mass * velocity in the direction that the collision impact takes place. In this case only the direction velocity of the target vs. where the missile explodes would be used.




The word "physics" should never be used in EVE...


why not? thats how the turrets are calculated. Confused


Cause the laws of "Physics" are not applied across the board evenly. The EVE universe is out to lunch when it comes to "physics." Why do you think ships have a top speed, yet use 10MN afteburners? Perectly silly when the math is applied...Rolling Eyes

Ronyo Dae'Loki
4S Corporation
Posted - 2004.07.26 17:59:00 - [243]
 

Missiles are fine right now I think...

This idea is WAY too complex. Work on new content, not reworking things that work fine. Please.

BIRDofPREY
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2004.07.27 02:02:00 - [244]
 

Originally by: Ronyo Dae'Loki
Missiles are fine right now I think...

This idea is WAY too complex. Work on new content, not reworking things that work fine. Please.


What He said and moreRazz

Abbadonuk
Caldari
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2004.07.27 17:49:00 - [245]
 

Just want to say, I hate the changes to missiles on the test server.
Setup up a Raven and went to a field to try out torps against rats. Found a spawn of 1 500k and 2 x 100k rats, targetted all 3 and sent a half volley of torps at each of the 100k rats before selecting the 500k rat and streaming torps at him. After a bit of time a tiny bit of red showed on each 100k rat. Hmmm I thought, I selected one of these and streamed torps at it "I had two launchers each of three different torps just for camparison", It took a long time to kill the 100k rats "The BS lasted seconds, the 100k rats minutes", I was getting hits of around 50/55 a hit and by the time I killed them I was actually down to about 50% shield.

So I asked for someone in a frig to meet up with me and I fired torps at it. With it and I stopped dead, my torps hit for around 50 damage. With it moving at sub torp speed, my torps hit for around 50 damage.

If this gets implimented on TQ it will be another nail in the coffin of solo play. If I have to equip small launchers on my Raven then I will not be able to kill BS, if I don't equip small launchers it will take 100 torps to kill a frigate that can boost itself.

Is the idea of the turret, missile and drone changes intended to either shut down small corps/solo players or simply get them to leave Eve and go and play something else?


Kendra Leigh
Posted - 2004.07.27 19:49:00 - [246]
 

Edited by: Kendra Leigh on 27/07/2004 20:06:39
These changes will make me leave, believe it. I WILL NOT PLAY ANOTHER GAME THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE SOLO GAMER. NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER AGAIN. The above poster(s) is(Are) correct, these changes are meant to make solo 0.0 pirte hunting impossible, to appease the gate camping ***s that have bribed ccp.

Eat Stuff And Die

Kendra Leigh
Posted - 2004.07.27 20:16:00 - [247]
 

Edited by: Kendra Leigh on 27/07/2004 20:23:01
Edited by: Kendra Leigh on 27/07/2004 20:21:37
Furthermore, the opportunity for a group a frigates to completely shut down a caldari craft, compared to the blaster ability of some, and the drone ability of other races, is clearly indicated.Instead of 1-2 torpedoes, with a shield boosting frigate it wil take 20 to destroy it, actually more, but anyways. How many drones will it take to destroy that frigate, how many shots from a blaster, and how long, given the now incompetent flight time. THE FLIGHT TIME, was used as the equalization of the HIGHER dmg, versus other weapons and their lower damage, which hit almost INSTANTANEOUSLY. So you must remember, against Frigates, the dmg of 32(lol) is divided by up to flight time. Congratulations, Missiles now do a tithe of the damage per second of any other weapon. Can you buy tracking equipment for missiles? Torpedoes average 4-6k a piece, how much does projectile, hybrid, or laser ammo cost per shot?


Ithildin
Gallente
The Corporation
Cruel Intentions
Posted - 2004.07.27 22:53:00 - [248]
 

1. It takes forever to destroy a frigate with blaster cannons - you don't hit. Period.
2. Drones are doing much less damage on frigates. Much less.
3. I believe missile flight speed is going to be increased? A lot?

Morlocke
Posted - 2004.07.28 14:23:00 - [249]
 

Okay, First reaction: if I smack a frigate in the head with a cruise missile, I half-expect that frigate's head to explode. If I cram one up his butt, I don't expect his legs to continue to work. When I think of a frigate approaching a battleship, I think of the scene in "Empire Strikes Back" where you're watching one of the big four-legged walkers turning its head and without even breaking a sweat fires two small guns that down a speeder.

If I see a frigate approaching me, and I'm flying a missile-armed battleship, he better have defenders loaded - because I'm going to splash him with two torps or cruise missiles. My expectation is that those will either (a) keep him busy dodging for a minute or so, of (b) simply ship-kill him or harm him severely.

I fail to see the logic in making frigates so super-survivable against battleships. At this point, it'd make more sense to me to simply sell off my battleships, not bother buying the print I was going to, and just having a drink while I wait for you CCP guys to figure out exactly what you want this game to look like. It really frustrates me that you don't have a coherent idea of how ships and weapons should interact. This does not smell like planning, it smells like someone vomited on the floor and you're trying to figure out what it looks like.

Second reaction: in space, shockwaves really have nowhere near the power they do in atmosphere. Might want to come up with another word for it, invent some science-fictiony sounding effect.

If you're going to make missiles function effectively like turrets in damage done and hit efficiency, better re-visit the cost of munitions.

There's no way I'm flying a ship whose ammo costs 1,000 ISK a shot when I can get the same efficiency out of rounds that cost me only 20. Guess I'll just go get a maller and stick to the agent missions.

What's with this wave of homogenization, anyhow?

M

BIRDofPREY
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2004.07.28 15:16:00 - [250]
 

Edited by: BIRDofPREY on 28/07/2004 15:23:53
Originally by: Morlocke


If I see a frigate approaching me, and I'm flying a missile-armed battleship, he better have defenders loaded - because I'm going to splash him with two torps or cruise missiles. My expectation is that those will either (a) keep him busy dodging for a minute or so, of (b) simply ship-kill him or harm him severely.

M


In 1987, Libya and the United States Navy got into a scrap, over Libya's insistance on a 200 nautical mile exclusion zone, called "the line of death." The Reagan Administration was absolutely please with the idea as it gave them a chance to bytch slap Momar for one last time before the elections.

The US Navy crossed into the exclusion zone durning morning hours and Libya responded with 3 lite fast OSA II fast attack boats, armed with SS-N-2C Styx missiles. These ship are capable of speeds upwards of 40knots +.

The US Navy engaged with Air launched Harpoon Cruise Missiles. These are intended to engage Destroyer Escort class or higher size targets, relying on midcourse correction and terminal homing radar for target acquisition.

The first Harpoon hit the first of three OSA II's and it ceased to exist. It is not known if the Harpoon's warhead did the work or secondary explosions cause the catastrophic destruction.

The second was a wee bit luckier. The warhead detonated eary and tore the front end off the OSA II. It is assumed that a Precursor wave caused overpressure than excessively stressed the structure of the OSA II. Those in the aft section of the OSA are assumed to have survived.

The third returned to port without damage.

Now these missile were fired within optimal engagement envelopes and by highly trained personel.

Missile Kill frigates...Twisted Evil



Khruger
Caldari
Caldari Armaments Corporation
Posted - 2004.07.28 20:51:00 - [251]
 

Edited by: Khruger on 28/07/2004 20:57:25
Edited by: Khruger on 28/07/2004 20:56:44
Edited by: Khruger on 28/07/2004 20:53:06
On the blast/shockwave concept for missiles;

Realistically, the shockwave effect is a product of massive air displacement caused my large volumes of air being displaced by the force of the explosion. The shockwave proceeding the blast front is byproduct of atmospheric compressibility. Since there is no atmosphere in deep space, there is no blast front driven shockwave.

Area effect blasts are also pretty ineffective against hardened targets (like combat ships) unless the blasts are extremely large and/or produce secondary effects like the oxygen deprivation produced by fuel air explosives or thermal/emp/radiation effects from nukes.

A modern air to air missiles produce kills via fragmentation, with blast (concussive) damage only being a secondary effect.

Large anti-shipping missile produce kills via a shaped charge warhead in most cases, although the secondary blast effects from the larger anti-shipping missiles like the Russian made Kingfisher can be quite significant.

Area effect concussive blast munitions are generally used vs. soft targets (buildings, troop concentrations, soft vehicles) and are most often conventional or “dumb” bombs, or large bombs mated with a seeker package, ie. “smart bombs”.

So how does this translate to EVE?

Your area effect “blast” warheads would affect large areas, but since there is no atmospheric compressibility, the effect is somewhat less than what you get in atmosphere. So they would be good for affecting a large area, but they would not do a huge amount of damage. These kinds of warheads might be good against shields, but not very damaging except against very lightly armored combatants.

Shaped charge warheads, would punch through armor with ease, but since they rely on high temperature gas jets for penetration, they would be less effective against highly agile targets/high velocity targets, since even small changes to the angle of attack on the gas jet can deflect it, causing it to fail to penetrate. Obviously then, these kinds of warheads are best against large slow targets, and poor against small agile ones.

Fragmentation warheads, these are very effective against small highly agile targets that are lightly armored, but poor against heavily armored targets (like BS). Fragmentation warheads work by using an explosive charge to propel high velocity fragments at a target. Fragmentation warheads are less constrained by the missiles velocity, since they are using explosive force to deliver the payload to target. Fragmentation weapons have a higher chance to hit, since they don’t require direct the missile to hit the target directly, but they do less damage, since they use lower mass fragments as the kill device.

Kinetic warheads are basically high to hyper velocity missiles that rely on mass and extremely high speeds to produce kills. It is similar to a fragmentation warhead, since both are kinetic kill devices, just using different methodology to get there. The downside to kinetic kill munitions is velocity vs. turning radius. If the missile has to make a large number of course corrections, its terminal velocity will be lower, which produces less damage. So against big slow targets, they can attain higher terminal velocity, producing more damage. Assuming similar payload weights, kinetic weapons hit with greater force then fragmentation warhead, since they have more mass. The downside is that kinetic warheads require direct contact with the target, making it harder for them to hit highly evasive targets without sacrificing velocity/damage potential.

This is all assuming your talking about conventional warheads. . If you are using nuclear munitions, you have a lot of secondary products, like thermal and emp effects, as well as the potential to use a some different types of warhead effects. Basic nukes are going to product extreme thermal and radiation effects, with emp, while neutron warheads produce less thermal effects, but increases the radiation and emp. You can also use nuclear munitions to power “bomb pumped” single shot beam weapons, which channel the nuclear blast energy into powering laser or particle beam warheads.

So what does all this actually mean?


Khruger
Caldari
Caldari Armaments Corporation
Posted - 2004.07.28 20:57:00 - [252]
 

Edited by: Khruger on 28/07/2004 20:58:06
So what does all this actually mean?

It gives you a couple of different options.

1) You don’t change the missile damage. You modify the chance to hit based off of the targets speed and angle of attack vs. the missiles speed and turn radius. Net result is that if you have a frigate charging you head on and you launch a cruise missile at it, you get one very dead frigate. But if the frigate is maneuvering for all he is worth, then your chances of hitting him with the big slow, hard to turn cruise missile is pretty poor. Big advantage is this option would be much easier to implement. Down side is your going to have to equip multiple types of launchers to engage different targets.

2) Change your warhead/missile types to work against different types of targets. So fragmentation missiles work great against lightly armored frigates, but don’t do much against heavier ships. Upside to this route is that you don’t have to equip multiple launchers. Downside, you do have to carry several different missile types to engage different types of targets. Bigger downside, this would require change current missile types/damages and be more problematic to change.

Aequitas Veritas
NibbleTek
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2004.07.29 08:25:00 - [253]
 

TomB, it would be highly appreciated if you could give us an update on the progression the changes you've made. If you are happy about how it looks on Entropy etc.

Thank you

lordmix
Caldari
GoonWaffe
SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
Posted - 2004.07.29 11:09:00 - [254]
 

well if ccp put this on TQ i will most probly quite the game and take my other accounts off as well and i no lot of ppl which will do the same. ccp stop ****ing the game up

BIRDofPREY
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2004.07.29 14:06:00 - [255]
 

Originally by: lordmix
well if ccp put this on TQ i will most probly quite the game and take my other accounts off as well and i no lot of ppl which will do the same. ccp stop ****ing the game up


Oh Booger...

Does this sort of threat ever really work?

Abbadonuk
Caldari
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2004.07.29 22:10:00 - [256]
 

Originally by: BIRDofPREY


Oh Booger...

Does this sort of threat ever really work?



Another brilliant, positive and insightful contribution to the debate, you must be really proud of yourself.

Morlocke
Posted - 2004.07.30 04:26:00 - [257]
 

It would seem so, since these juvenile "I quit the game!" tantrums seem quite a bit less popular than they were when EQ first came out.

M

BIRDofPREY
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2004.07.30 04:33:00 - [258]
 

Originally by: Morlocke
It would seem so, since these juvenile "I quit the game!" tantrums seem quite a bit less popular than they were when EQ first came out.

M



I'm more amused by this empty threat when someone chimes in with "Can I have your Stuff?"Very Happy

BIRDofPREY
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2004.07.30 04:35:00 - [259]
 

Originally by: Abbadonuk
Originally by: BIRDofPREY


Oh Booger...

Does this sort of threat ever really work?



Another brilliant, positive and insightful contribution to the debate, you must be really proud of yourself.




Somewhere deep in the Bunker complex of CCP -

"OH S**T! Bob has threatened to quit if we go through with the missile changes! Quick do a roll back on the server and give Bob a battleship and let him play for free!"


Abbadonuk
Caldari
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2004.07.30 08:18:00 - [260]
 

Point being, although he was perhaps expressing himself poorly, he was at least expressing feelings about the topic under discussion in this thread namely missile changes.

Posts that simply have a go at other people "yes like this one" are counter productive trolling, usually but not exclusively" posted by counter productive trolls.

BIRDofPREY
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2004.07.30 20:32:00 - [261]
 

Originally by: Abbadonuk
Point being, although he was perhaps expressing himself poorly, he was at least expressing feelings about the topic under discussion in this thread namely missile changes.

Posts that simply have a go at other people "yes like this one" are counter productive trolling, usually but not exclusively" posted by counter productive trolls.


Nah...

He was just making empty juvenile threats to the effect that, if CCP goes through with the changes, he's going to take his ball and go home. Tad bit of a difference I'm afraid.Rolling Eyes



Abbadonuk
Caldari
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2004.07.31 03:59:00 - [262]
 

Originally by: BIRDofPREY

Nah...

He was just making empty juvenile threats to the effect that, if CCP goes through with the changes, he's going to take his ball and go home. Tad bit of a difference I'm afraid.[:roll:







Actually no there isn't.

Making threats is "expressing yourself", the subject he was making threats about was "missile changes" so unless you speak Troll instead of English my statement was entirely acurate.

Iznogoud
Sincarnate Contracts
Posted - 2004.07.31 07:04:00 - [263]
 

Use the formulas with greater Damage Velocity and we will have something more realistic.

I like this idea, but I sugest in theses formulas the Damage Velocity to be around 7500m/s. That is a comum speed for an explosion.

In physics if this "Damage Velocity" is low we cant call it an explosion.


I dont have a trouble that a cruise missiles or a torpedo can criple a small vessel. That is what they do in real world.

With these values a fast frigate running away will have a reduce damage, and wont be invunerable to missiles.

The effect of having these values too low in game is seriouslly nerf missiles.

Give us specialization.WinkYARRRR!!ughConfusedLaughingCoolShockedTwisted Evil

Quote:
Fake "Area of Effect" Damage

...

Example:

Cruise Missile
Area of Effect Damage: 300
Damage Radius: 400m3
Damage Velocity: 400mps

Target
Signature Radius: 40m3
Velocity: 500mps

Damage Calculation
Sig Radius: 40 / 400 = 0.1
Velocity: 400 / 500 = 0.8
Damage: 400 * 0.1 * 0.8 = 32 total damage

...

Shock Wave Damage

...

Cruise Missile
Area of Effect Damage: 300
Maximum Kinetic Damage: 100
Maximum Impact Velocity: 1500
Damage Radius: 400m3
Damage Velocity: 400mps

Target
Signature Radius: 40m3
Velocity: 500mps
State: Approuching and gets missile in the face

Damage Calculation
Sig Radius: 40 / 400 = 0.1
Velocity: 400 / 500 = 0.8
Area of Effect Damage: 400 * 0.1 * 0.8 = 32
Shock Wave State: 500 / 1500 = 0.33
Shock Wave Damage: 33
Total Damage: 32 + 33 = 65





Detaurus
Posted - 2004.07.31 10:25:00 - [264]
 

Does everyone realize given the above numbers it will take 14 Cruise missiles to kill a Merlin and 13 to Kill a Thorax


Iznogoud
Sincarnate Contracts
Posted - 2004.07.31 11:00:00 - [265]
 

Originally by: Detaurus
Does everyone realize given the above numbers it will take 14 Cruise missiles to kill a Merlin and 13 to Kill a Thorax




YARRRR!! Yes that is the danger of having the Damage Velocity too low.

Arrow If we have a reasonable value (real life vaules) will be not in it will be that severe.

Grut
The Protei
Posted - 2004.07.31 13:35:00 - [266]
 

Originally by: BIRDofPREY
Edited by: BIRDofPREY on 28/07/2004 15:23:53
Originally by: Morlocke


If I see a frigate approaching me, and I'm flying a missile-armed battleship, he better have defenders loaded - because I'm going to splash him with two torps or cruise missiles. My expectation is that those will either (a) keep him busy dodging for a minute or so, of (b) simply ship-kill him or harm him severely.

M


In 1987, Libya and the United States Navy got into a scrap, over Libya's insistance on a 200 nautical mile exclusion zone, called "the line of death." The Reagan Administration was absolutely please with the idea as it gave them a chance to bytch slap Momar for one last time before the elections.

The US Navy crossed into the exclusion zone durning morning hours and Libya responded with 3 lite fast OSA II fast attack boats, armed with SS-N-2C Styx missiles. These ship are capable of speeds upwards of 40knots +.

The US Navy engaged with Air launched Harpoon Cruise Missiles. These are intended to engage Destroyer Escort class or higher size targets, relying on midcourse correction and terminal homing radar for target acquisition.

The first Harpoon hit the first of three OSA II's and it ceased to exist. It is not known if the Harpoon's warhead did the work or secondary explosions cause the catastrophic destruction.

The second was a wee bit luckier. The warhead detonated eary and tore the front end off the OSA II. It is assumed that a Precursor wave caused overpressure than excessively stressed the structure of the OSA II. Those in the aft section of the OSA are assumed to have survived.

The third returned to port without damage.

Now these missile were fired within optimal engagement envelopes and by highly trained personel.

Missile Kill frigates...Twisted Evil





Yes irl missiles kill frigs, but equally those frigates carry SSMs that will severly damage/sink anything upto a battleship in a hit or 2 so does this mean ill be able to load

IRL quotes are pretty pointless its about game balance pure and simple.

I've attacked ravens in a frig, guess what missiles are usless every frig pilot with a clue goes faster then 2kms and is untouchable, under the new system missiles will hit all frigs thats hardly a nerf. 300dmg a salvo from a raven is going to stop most frig groups from attacking solo. 2-3 ravens will gank frigs/inties as fast as they can lock them. Its hardly a nerf Rolling Eyes

BIRDofPREY
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2004.07.31 19:58:00 - [267]
 

Originally by: Grut
Originally by: BIRDofPREY
Edited by: BIRDofPREY on 28/07/2004 15:23:53
Originally by: Morlocke


If I see a frigate approaching me, and I'm flying a missile-armed battleship, he better have defenders loaded - because I'm going to splash him with two torps or cruise missiles. My expectation is that those will either (a) keep him busy dodging for a minute or so, of (b) simply ship-kill him or harm him severely.

M


In 1987, Libya and the United States Navy got into a scrap, over Libya's insistance on a 200 nautical mile exclusion zone, called "the line of death." The Reagan Administration was absolutely please with the idea as it gave them a chance to bytch slap Momar for one last time before the elections.

The US Navy crossed into the exclusion zone durning morning hours and Libya responded with 3 lite fast OSA II fast attack boats, armed with SS-N-2C Styx missiles. These ship are capable of speeds upwards of 40knots +.

The US Navy engaged with Air launched Harpoon Cruise Missiles. These are intended to engage Destroyer Escort class or higher size targets, relying on midcourse correction and terminal homing radar for target acquisition.

The first Harpoon hit the first of three OSA II's and it ceased to exist. It is not known if the Harpoon's warhead did the work or secondary explosions cause the catastrophic destruction.

The second was a wee bit luckier. The warhead detonated eary and tore the front end off the OSA II. It is assumed that a Precursor wave caused overpressure than excessively stressed the structure of the OSA II. Those in the aft section of the OSA are assumed to have survived.

The third returned to port without damage.

Now these missile were fired within optimal engagement envelopes and by highly trained personel.

Missile Kill frigates...Twisted Evil





Yes irl missiles kill frigs, but equally those frigates carry SSMs that will severly damage/sink anything upto a battleship in a hit or 2 so does this mean ill be able to load

IRL quotes are pretty pointless its about game balance pure and simple.

I've attacked ravens in a frig, guess what missiles are usless every frig pilot with a clue goes faster then 2kms and is untouchable, under the new system missiles will hit all frigs thats hardly a nerf. 300dmg a salvo from a raven is going to stop most frig groups from attacking solo. 2-3 ravens will gank frigs/inties as fast as they can lock them. Its hardly a nerf Rolling Eyes


The OSA II is designed around the SS-N-2C missile system, same as the F-14 Tomcat was build with the AIM-54 missile in mind.

On the OSA II there is four Hanger for these mosterous missiles that have upwards of a ton of high explosive in each. Becasuse of their size, the OSA II can not reload at sea. And the SS-N-2c is a pretty obsolete missile and easily jammable. These were the first use of ASCM in naval history when the Egyptians attacked the Isreali ship Elat from while still sitting in Port Said. The Elat took 4 hits and sank within minutes.


The harpoon missile is used on Pegasas fast attack boats, and carry upwards of 8 missile each. These have a rather small warhead and to take down a ship say the size of a Cruiser, would take at a minimum of 4 with all tubes empty to hit. That is to say, fire 8 and hope that 4 get though. Though in practice, multi ship attacks would be necesary to get though modern anti-ship missile defence systems.

If you need a comparison, the USS Stark was hit by 2 Exocet missiles, similar to the Harpoon. it managed to say afloat afterwards, and was returned to service a year later. The USS Stark was a Perry Class Frigate, about 2/3's the size of a cruiser.

It was estimated that the USS New Jersey could withstand 11 Tomahawk strikes and still be combat effective, having upwards of 4 feet of armor in the lower superstructure, and a torpedo belt 6 feet thick.





BIRDofPREY
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2004.07.31 20:02:00 - [268]
 

Originally by: Iznogoud
Originally by: Detaurus
Does everyone realize given the above numbers it will take 14 Cruise missiles to kill a Merlin and 13 to Kill a Thorax




YARRRR!! Yes that is the danger of having the Damage Velocity too low.

Arrow If we have a reasonable value (real life vaules) will be not in it will be that severe.


I think CCP is trying to come up with a damage model without the benifit of understand Kinematics and physics. ugh

Roderic Excelion
Posted - 2004.08.01 11:56:00 - [269]
 

Edited by: Roderic Excelion on 01/08/2004 12:23:22
Edited by: Roderic Excelion on 01/08/2004 12:06:46
Edited by: Roderic Excelion on 01/08/2004 12:06:09
Originally by: Menath Zaro
you mentioned increased missile speed. are you going to up them towards what we saw on chaos a while back, so raven pilots actually can use their long range again? could you just give little hint?



What do you mean 'so Raven pilots actually can use their long range again'? You have an effective range of 55km if theyre flying towards you at standard speeds, your weapons currently autohit too unless they have defender missiles. Are you refering to people warpig away before the missiles hit? Isn't this a valid tactic? Conversely the same tactic works for you. you can arrive, launch an alphastrike and then warp to safety, and when the torps hit, they die, never being able to hit you. Ballistic weapons have staggering damage potentials compared to turreted weapons, their downside is and should remain that they take a while to arrive at the target and can be outrun.

As to the use of MWDs to outrun them, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't having a micro-contained warpdrive active on your ship equate to a form of warping away as described above, merely allowing you to stick near to your target and keep shooting? Oh, and Ravens have turret slots. just fit a few neutron blasers, or whatever is deigned to hit frigates/cruisers, just in case. No ship is designed to be awesome vs. all size classes. Either pick a size class or be a genralist and not good vs. everything. PS. doesn't a Raven have 8 mids? 2 multispec ECMs on a frigate tends to remove the threat, you know. Unless the new size restricted launchers means you fear those FoF lights from that oh so scary frigate and it is a threat to your, what, 4000 shields is it?

Please discuss...

Ithildin
Gallente
The Corporation
Cruel Intentions
Posted - 2004.08.01 21:17:00 - [270]
 

Ravens have 6 mid slots, Scorpions have 8.

So, on the other end of the discussion:
What is being done about MWDing missile boats 100% accuracy as opposed to MWDing turret boats near 0% accuracy? Optimizing turret accuracy that an orbit velocity doesn't require turrets to turn all that much, or somehow make missiles... erm... something?
Needs addressing as much as ships escaping missiles with MWDs.


Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : 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