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 : ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 : last (15)

Author Topic

Grim Vandal
Burn Proof
Posted - 2004.08.21 10:17:00 - [391]
 

lol you talk bull**** ...

e.g. cruise missile

main warhead eg. dmg 300 thermal
PLUS a maximum of 200 kinetic dmg!!!


you got it now???



there is only ONE problem .... cruise missile will get too powerful vs other Battleships

and that is the one and only thing why we havnt seen the missile changes yet!!!!!

btw a torps impact dmg is way less since it has way less agility and way less speed ...

ugh

Aequitas Veritas
NibbleTek
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2004.08.21 10:43:00 - [392]
 

Edited by: Aequitas Veritas on 21/08/2004 10:45:49
Grim, i think TomB somewhere inside this thread posted that the total damage done by the missiles wont be bigger than the maximum damage they do today. But I did not understand how then it would give an increased damage against a mwd approaching blasterthron as it allready would do max damage to it just from the 400 sig radius. But at least that is what he posted.

So the damage done by missiles would be composed of two types, one part kinetic and one part area of effect, where the two will vary depending on the targets speed etc, but where the total damage should not be bigger than it is today. If not it would be pretty horrible for any mwding battleships to be hit by CM's due to the 2000 sig radius

But if I'm wrong then youll have to have me excused. But no need to tell me I'm talking bull****e though, particuarly since I think you are wrong. Dont have time to look up the post though cus I'm trying to study some :)

Mencar
Posted - 2004.08.21 11:49:00 - [393]
 

On the note of countermesures vs Turrets:
countering turrets takes up med slots, countering missiles doesn't. So in fact, it might be even worse trying to counter turrets.
Countering missiles leaves the main armaments alone. 6 Heavy weapons is quite normal, whitout making big adjustments to your grid, (except for a Caldari vessel, but hey, thats called balance), and doens't touch yer med slots.

Originally by: Ithildin


P.S. Missile rocking need be addressed. An often over-looked "feature" that knocks a ship when a missile or rocket hits it, causing the ship to loose speed and to turn the wrong way. This is the job for med slot modules, not for weapons.
Looks nice, sure, but is bad for the game.


LOL

Perhaps you would also like a 10% tracking bonus on yer megathron (instead of the VERY meager 5%, you know, thats just SOOO imbalanced), insta wrecking hits for megathron, speed bonus for megathron, perhaps more dronespace, so it can at least keep up with his little brother, the Domininx. You can clearly see the imbalances, that are downright offensive.
C'mon Devs, show us what you've got.

Just admit it: Missile Rocking is bad for YOU, not the game.
This aplies for all yer posts in this forum I've read so far.
You don't care about 'the game' at all, you just care about yourself.

Grim Vandal
Burn Proof
Posted - 2004.08.21 15:46:00 - [394]
 

area of effect dmg: eg. 300 thermal dmg wont exceed 300dmg if the signature radius is bigger than 400m

but the signature radius is not applied in the impact dmg afaik, so in this case if a mega approaches a raven the area of effect dmg: eg. will stay 300 thermal dmg but the impact dmg will be applied as well so we have more than 300dmg which is a problem ...

in this case the megathron would be hit with 300thermal dmg and e.g. 200 kinetic dmg if the mega gets hit head on ... (it doesnt even need to be a mwding)

... but on the other hand exactly this would be nice to have vs smaller targets cuz exactly the impact dmg will determine how hard you hit the small targets with your cruise missiles ...

eg. about 30 thermal dmg plus a maximum of 200 kinetic dmg vs a frig if you hit it head on ...

... so I belive that the devs face exactly this problem and try now to balance the area of effect dmg with the impact dmg ... since the area of effect dmg will prolly have be lowered ...

from TomB:

Shock Wave Damage

Shock waves occur before an explosion when a bomb explodes (see movie: Chain Reaction for good example), the state of the target, velocity wise, in the physic engine is taken into a calculation that then applies kinetic damage on the target.

If the target flies heads on at maximum speed towards the missile deployer and the missile explodes on the nose of the target, then it gets maximum shock wave damage. Like when two cars drive at each other and both passangers fly through the front windows and into each others cars (This scenario is not the same as would occur, simply stating how the car crash impact would be similar to when you fly vs. the shock wave).

If the target is flying away from the missile deployer or orbits him at close range, the missile is in chase mode and hits it in the rear where the ship gets only a portion of the shock wave damage. Like when a car bumps another in the rear and you only get pushed forward a little, only making it feel enjoyable (This scenario is not the same as would occur, simply stating how the car crash impact would be similar to when you fly away from the shock wave).

The damage would be limited to maximum damage vs. maximum velocity of target when they hit head on. And minimum damage vs. maximum velocity of target into oposite direction.

But the following calculation seems to be wrong:

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

Shock Wave State: 500 / 1500 = 0.33
Shock Wave Damage: 33
Total Damage: 32 + 33 = 65


What I dont get is why the frig gets only 33 kinetic dmg out of 100 kinetic dmg since it GETS HIT HEAD ON and should get the full 100 kinetic dmg!!!!!!!!1

AGAIN FROM TOMB: If the target flies heads on at maximum speed towards the missile deployer and the missile explodes on the nose of the target, then it gets maximum shock wave damage.

... but according to the above calculation it doesnt.


PS: Sorry Aequitas Veritas but this is a game a we need some balance, your ideas are nice but they have nothing to do in a game called eve-online Razz
You could make your own game where missiles own everything and everybody would fly a "NEVAR" with missiles only.

ugh

Mon Palae
The Bastards
The Bastards.
Posted - 2004.08.21 16:24:00 - [395]
 

Originally by: Grim Vandal
Just to give you an idea: fit your raven with 5 nosferatus 3 siege launchers, shield tank it and you will even have a room for one hardener and a warp scrambler ... this way you can run your xl shield booster forever ... with 5 nosferatus you suck the energy of up to 2 to 3 frigs at the same time (21km range) and your cruise missiles will do the rest:

This setup kills anything: frigs, cruiser and even a BS's!!! (you simply suck up his energy that way he cant use his weapons or use his defence) Now dont tell me that setup isnt overpowerd ... (btw no stasis, and you couldnt do that with large turrets could you?)

ugh


By this and other comments you have made I can only assume you have had your ass handed to you by a Raven and somehow believe they are some uber ship.

Once again I assure from experience they most definitely are not. PvPers with a modicum of experience know how to approach a Raven and minimize its effectiveness. Certainly if a Raven full-on gets to hammering you with torps it is going ot hurt badly but then if you got in that position you kinda deserve it.

Your example above is laughably easy for a minor frig fleet to defeat. In my battle with those frigs the first time I hit them with a Nos. Second battle they came back with dampers. I never once got to use my Nos since even if they were close enough to lock my lock time was over 200 seconds. I tossed FoF missiles out the door and got the Rax that came in close and stopped with the aid of a mate but that was it.

As for your setup defeating anything but frigs (as in cruisers or battleships) not very likely. No one is going to sit around while 5 Nos drain them not to mention you have to get the Raven to 21km in the first place. Even using 5 Nos a ship can still warp out...it only needs the tiniest squirt of juice to warp out which it will get between Nos hits.

I have a corpmate who is a very good Apoc pilot and he assures me 1v1 a Raven today cannot kill him but he most definitely can kill it and knowing him I trust his word on this implicitly (this assumes an all out damage fest of who can pummel who into submission the fastest).

Bottom line if you are really making frigs pretty damn deadly towards battleships but especially the Raven. I have agreed in the past that frigs needed a leg up in the scheme of things to have a role in combat. I think they have gotten that and then some. Bottom line is a battleship SHOULD kick the crap out of a frig if it hits it. Like 1-2 hits and gone. A sledgehammer may not be a finesse weapon but if one hits you it is going to hurt a LOT. Frigs costa tiny fraction of a battleship so if it takes 20 frigs to go down to 1 battleship so be it. That is still FAR cheaper than the one battleship. As it is 6 or so frigs can take down a lone battleship today including (especially even) a Raven.

So where is this uber battleship you speak of that kills anything? I'd honestly like to know. I am not saying the Raven is a bad ship today...it is good...but it has its limitations and in the spectrum of battleships today it is by no means the 'best' (that would have to go to the Apoc now). Indeed, among Tier-2 battleships only the Tempest might be considered 'worse' today.

Grim Vandal
Burn Proof
Posted - 2004.08.21 19:48:00 - [396]
 

k AGAIN ...

... these changes will determine how and how fast you can kill a small ship in your Battleship ... and not the other way round ...

your apoc story is nice and I do know that but honestly this missile balance wont change anything there ...

again it is how fast a BS can kill a smaller vessel ...

... and tbh frigs will get quite some lub out of it but so will cruisers (and we definately need that!) ...

Exactly this missile change will have a GREAT impact on how many frigs will use mwd's and even more how many pilots will choose a cruiser without that ****ing 100mn ab and 10mn mwd ...

Note: Oversized AB's and mwd's need to be nerfed with this change (not any other oversized mods tho!)

... have you EVER noticed that a cruiser gets WTFPWND by cruise and torpsQuestion?

anyway I'm also sure that you have noticed that any ship can use dampeners so its really a moot point ... (one single scorp can dampen you so you can never target it, not to mention the bb)

but tell me that you can hit a frig with your 1400mm or 425mm rails or your tachs orbiting you even at NORMAL SPEED!!! BUT your TORP CAN, ever noticed???

So to get it clear: Missiles will be fast enough to hit even mwding frigs and ints! but they would also do the same dmg if or if the frig wont use its mwd...

... that way he may chooses that he wont fit a mwd!!!!

This will adress this particular problem: A mwd WILL NOT BE A "NO BRAINER" module anymore do you see that???

TBH I want the mwd nerfed, and through this change we will achieve that Razz ...

... I somehow lub the devs Very Happy

ugh

Jacob Vought
Caldari
Draconic Industries
Posted - 2004.08.22 01:01:00 - [397]
 

As some have said the explosive force of warhead would be felt more by larger ships. I don't disagree with this in terms of reality at all. Now, if this is going to be used and the argument is going to be reality, then all missile warheads should have the same damage comparisons. Say a warhead does X damage to a battleship, 3/4 of X for cruisers, and 1/2 of X for frigates (keep in mind this is hypothetical), then all missiles will have this effect. A light missile will to 1/2 damage to frigates just the same as a heavy or cruise missile. The light missile warhead spends just as much percentage of force on empty space as a larger missile.

Another bit of reality is this: say a Caracal takes a hit in the belly where it has much more surface area exposed to damage. Does that mean it will have more damage upon being hit in that area? Say a Moa takes a hit between the main hull and the odd looking extension on the port side. Does it take a lot more damage because it has a lot of surface area exposed there? While this may seem like minutia, it is reality. Basically if you use reality to argue a game, you gotta throw the whole deal in. Don't stop short, because at that point the reality arguments don't hold water.

If the whole reality argument for this is used, then each ship's surface area must be measured and factored along with hit location relative to that surface area exposed to each blast. The range of the blast to each surface area it expends force should be accounted for. There are other factors, and then there are calculations for shield hits.

Abbadonuk
Caldari
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2004.08.23 08:05:00 - [398]
 

I think the major problem for me is with balance. If Caldari are going to get a damage cap against frigs and cruis on their large weapons, how can it be balanced unless large turrets get such a cap as well? So fair enough, nerf missile damage as much as you like but lets see large turrets restricted to 50 damage against frigs and 100 damage against cruisers.

BTW Grim, have you actually been on the test servers and tried the missile changes?

Baibu
Posted - 2004.08.23 10:35:00 - [399]
 

When is CCP starting to grasp the idea that a frigate (how elite it may be) should never be able to tackle a battleship, unless by vast numbers, VAST not 5 or so. 5 people with machineguns or so do not take out a tank. Finally got that? Frigates shooting missiles that are bigger then their ship is unlogical.
What is next? A stardestroyer frigate. Completely ridiculous and not well thought over. It should be that if i'm in my frigate or elite frigate by myself and encounter a battleship or cruiser, i should run or die. Secondly i understand CCP wants to attract new people but please let the game be a challenge. In my humble opinion (some older players as well) they are given too much too easy.Evil or Very Mad

Baibu
Posted - 2004.08.23 10:59:00 - [400]
 

Originally by: Abbadonuk
So balance will mean:

Caldari BS = Will cost you 100k to kill a 5k rat and you will need cargo expanders to carry all the missiles you will need to kill a 3 frig 2 cruiser spawn.

Amarr BS = Kill frigs with one shot for cost of a little cap usage.

Minmatar BS = Can't hit a frig even if you shove it down the end of your gun barrel. Can't hit a cruiser much better in fact and should stick to shooting stations "as long as their transversal velocity is not out of range for your weapons".

Gallente BS = Not too bad, can hit frigs at range for fairly good damage and not too high ammo costs. Must need nerfing.

Yep this looks balanced to me, well done TomB you have done a great job. Time to sit back and relax a while before you start nerfing T2 weapons.




Right on Evil or Very Mad

Grim Vandal
Burn Proof
Posted - 2004.08.23 15:16:00 - [401]
 

Originally by: Abbadonuk
BTW Grim, have you actually been on the test servers and tried the missile changes?


Yes, I'm more online on the chaos server than TQ. And you do wanna know why, right?

Well TQ is IMBA!!! We need 3 MORE CHANGES

1st: missile
2nd: Oversized AB and MWD nerf
3rd: ECM overhaul

And you will notice that the devs DO KNOW what will happen if they introduce these changes. And I tell you something else...

... they actually made THAT game!!!! ever noticed???

balancing is the key to a good game ....
now figure out why e.g. warcarft 3 has soo many balance changes ...

ugh

Vladimir Illyvich
Posted - 2004.08.24 18:57:00 - [402]
 

Edited by: Vladimir Illyvich on 24/08/2004 18:59:13
Perhaps you could also include transversal velocity AND sig radious into the damage calculations.

This would allow webbers to be beneficial to missile users, just like for turret users.

**edit, looks like you are actually working on that, nevermind.

Kryton
Posted - 2004.08.25 00:42:00 - [403]
 

Edited by: Kryton on 25/08/2004 00:46:37
Just a little suggestion really, put quantitative limits on a missiles ability to be fired at different sizes of ships and base it on the targeted ships current signature radius. For example limit a siege launcher loaded with torpedos to only launch at a target that has battleship sized signature radius. Allow cruise missiles to fire upon cruiser sized signature radius`. And allow heavy/light missiles and rockets to have a go at anyone.

This would allow players in the smaller ships to avoid the really nasty larger missiles (You cant fire an anti ship missile at a jet in real life ) and avoid all this silly and needless ( in my opinion) reworking of the entire missile dynamic. This might also help adress another issue, that of every frig NEEDING a MWD to fight( something ive always had a problem with)

This change might mean a frigate using a mwd setup could increase its sig radius enough to allow a cruise missile or even a torp to be fired at it and would represent the main risk with doing so.

This would give frigate guys an oppertunity to totally defend against a torp or cruise missile slamming into them, a similar thing could be done to the performance of the really heavy turrets like 1400mms 425mm rails and tachyons meaning they simply cant hit under a certain sig radius of target. This might even make the 1mn ab a useful module :)
(Disclaimer: im tired so forgive any terrible use of grammar :(... )

Anjerrai Meloanis
Minmatar
FLA5HY RED
The Defenders of Pen Island
Posted - 2004.08.26 12:10:00 - [404]
 

i like your idea :) implement that!!! i fly intys myself and agree this is the solution :)


Shin Geist
Posted - 2004.08.26 19:45:00 - [405]
 

what a load of ****e tbh YARRRR!! just leave the missles alone...

Kryton
Posted - 2004.08.26 20:31:00 - [406]
 

well others blatently think there needs to be a change. If there is gonna be one, isnt it more intelligent to try and get the best outcome for all involved instead of just posting amazingly non-constructive things like that?

AngelGrinder
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2004.08.27 09:25:00 - [407]
 

Ok, hear me outhere -

People are saying missiles should be more like turrets? I think this is a stupid thing to say, as they are noting like them -

I saw earlier in the post, TomB said that missiles will have a max damage, and cannot go higher than this, so a torp, if its *really* lucky might do 500 damage? Lets see, a BS sized projectile turret, if its *really* lucky does a 1000+ damage shot.

A torp costs 5000 ISk? A projectile shell costs next to nothing.

Another problem, torps go 750ms, you can see the damn things coming at you for ages, and have a chance to do something about it, its really easy for a frig to sit there and warp out as soon as it sees one.
Whereas projectile ammo, when fired, its faster than u can see, the only thing u can do to stop it, is to MWD constantly.

To me, this makes missiles sound obsolete, not balanced, they r slow, expensive, and dont do very good damage.

I liked the post about missiles agility tho, tht would be a much better idea.


Mencar
Posted - 2004.08.27 12:46:00 - [408]
 

Edited by: Mencar on 27/08/2004 12:50:36
Well,

limiting missile types to ship type could be an idea, but then you should be again able to fire smaller missile types from siege/cruise/heavy launchers.

Why?
If you have to fit a heavy missile launcher on a raven, your raven is useless against other BS's.

Its almost is now already, beacause you can armour tank more damage then a Raven with 6 siege/torps can do damage!!!!!
This is counting torpedo skill at level 5 + ballistic controll!!

450 base damage * 1.25 (level 5 torpedo skill) = 562.5
* 1.07 ballistic controll = 601.875
* 6 siege launchers = 3611.25 damage. sounds impressive, no?

NO

A descent armour tank will have armour hardners, making EM damge the most prominent damage dealer to armour. (lol)
3611.25 * 0.4 (- 60%) = 1444.5 damage every launch cycle.
With Arbalest siege, the ballistic controll and Caldari BS lvl 5 you could get this down to about 11.5 seconds (not an accurate calculation, but it should be near).

The 2 named repairers repair 720 each, each cycle (12.5 secs with repair skill lvl 5)

Raven damge: 1444.5 every 11.5 seconds
Repair: 1440 every 12.5 seconds.
Add in the missile recharge time when its empty, and you are on par.
Remember that this is probably almost a 300 mil Raven!!! The named repairers will set you back about 26 mil, the price of 1 arbalest.

This is counting ALL TORPS HIT!!! So if 1 or 2 don't hit, you are wasting money. BIGTIME. You can VERY easely achieve this with some defenders or a SB.
Caldari lvl 5 takes 60 to 80 days (in total, also counting the other skill levels) Skill taining down the drain, completely useless.

Yes missiles are imbalanced!!! They SUCK! Maybe not vs smaller ships, (ATM) but if this is also nerfed, missiles are next to useless.

Just look on the ships trade channel:
Nearly no-one wants ravens or scorps anymore, its all Megathron and Apocalypse, give or take a few Armageddons and Dominixes here and there.

And Tomb is going to give missiles even less damage???
Perhaps al *little* reduction in damage vs smaller ships is in order, but not to much.
Missiles are SLOOOOOOW. You have plenty of time to react. If they hit it should hurt.

VS Battleships, missiles need a damage BOOST IMO.
A dual named large repairer and armour hardened Apoc is invulnerable to a Raven with 6 siege launchers as explained above.

The Raven, 'The powerhouse of the Caldari Navy' just tumbled down the ladder as worst ship in the universe:
Bad for NPC hunting
Bad for mining
And since its easier to weld metal in place all the while damage is incoming, instead of adding energy to an energy field (thats more realistic, according to CCP), it pretty much sucks in PVP as well.


PS:
Once more, I don't fly a Raven, I fly an Apoc. My humble advise to other players is to NOT train missiles and Caldari BS's. If you are into Minmatar ships, you could go for missiles as secundary weapons, since you have bonuses for projectile weapons. But Caldari ship pilots are screwed, since they don't have any other bonuses.

PS II:
Perhaps the Gallente should restart the war against Caldari, now is the time. The Caldari can't deal and cannot take damage as the rules are now (and its only getting worse so it seems) Caldari State will be a province of the federation in no time.

Uchikage
MASS
Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service
Posted - 2004.08.27 12:58:00 - [409]
 

Originally by: TomB
Originally by: F4ze
A Megathron in blastersetup approaching to orbit a Raven would get shredded without a look at the MWD penalty.

500% extra signature radius
traveling anywhere between 500 and 1000 m/s in the direction of the missiles
...

Your only chance would be when the missiles miss you on their first pass, but then you would need alot of speed and a pretty big angular velocity. If not, I would guess the Megathron is toast.


If you can find a solution for that, you have a winner.

Missiles won't be able do do more damage than they are told to do, cruise missiles won't hurt MWDing battleship more if it passes X signature radius. Just as light missiles wouldn't hurt battleships more than maximum damage they would have. This problem would not exist for a MWDing battleship, but could get problematic for MWDing frigates getting hit by cruise missile for example.


But then you remembered you factor ship speed vs explosion speed in the damage calculation. Whether that explosion speed is 400 m/s or 400 km/s it still works the same. The MWD makes you 5 times faster (reducing your damage by a factor of 5) but increases your sig radius x5 (multiplying your damage x5.

So just as turret tracking, the speed is cancelled by the sig radius nerf. I like this.

Calamaster
Viziam
Posted - 2004.08.28 23:57:00 - [410]
 

Edited by: Calamaster on 29/08/2004 11:20:14
Edited by: Calamaster on 29/08/2004 11:16:44
Originally by: Mencar
Edited by: Mencar on 27/08/2004 12:50:36
Well,

limiting missile types to ship type could be an idea, but then you should be again able to fire smaller missile types from siege/cruise/heavy launchers.

Why?
If you have to fit a heavy missile launcher on a raven, your raven is useless against other BS's.

Its almost is now already, beacause you can armour tank more damage then a Raven with 6 siege/torps can do damage!!!!!
This is counting torpedo skill at level 5 + ballistic controll!!

450 base damage * 1.25 (level 5 torpedo skill) = 562.5
* 1.07 ballistic controll = 601.875
* 6 siege launchers = 3611.25 damage. sounds impressive, no?

NO

A descent armour tank will have armour hardners, making EM damge the most prominent damage dealer to armour. (lol)
3611.25 * 0.4 (- 60%) = 1444.5 damage every launch cycle.
With Arbalest siege, the ballistic controll and Caldari BS lvl 5 you could get this down to about 11.5 seconds (not an accurate calculation, but it should be near).

The 2 named repairers repair 720 each, each cycle (12.5 secs with repair skill lvl 5)

Raven damge: 1444.5 every 11.5 seconds
Repair: 1440 every 12.5 seconds.
Add in the missile recharge time when its empty, and you are on par.
Remember that this is probably almost a 300 mil Raven!!! The named repairers will set you back about 26 mil, the price of 1 arbalest.

This is counting ALL TORPS HIT!!! So if 1 or 2 don't hit, you are wasting money. BIGTIME. You can VERY easely achieve this with some defenders or a SB.
Caldari lvl 5 takes 60 to 80 days (in total, also counting the other skill levels) Skill taining down the drain, completely useless.

Yes missiles are imbalanced!!! They SUCK! Maybe not vs smaller ships, (ATM) but if this is also nerfed, missiles are next to useless.

Just look on the ships trade channel:
Nearly no-one wants ravens or scorps anymore, its all Megathron and Apocalypse, give or take a few Armageddons and Dominixes here and there.

And Tomb is going to give missiles even less damage???
Perhaps al *little* reduction in damage vs smaller ships is in order, but not to much.
Missiles are SLOOOOOOW. You have plenty of time to react. If they hit it should hurt.

VS Battleships, missiles need a damage BOOST IMO.
A dual named large repairer and armour hardened Apoc is invulnerable to a Raven with 6 siege launchers as explained above.

The Raven, 'The powerhouse of the Caldari Navy' just tumbled down the ladder as worst ship in the universe:
Bad for NPC hunting
Bad for mining
And since its easier to weld metal in place all the while damage is incoming, instead of adding energy to an energy field (thats more realistic, according to CCP), it pretty much sucks in PVP as well.


PS:
Once more, I don't fly a Raven, I fly an Apoc. My humble advise to other players is to NOT train missiles and Caldari BS's. If you are into Minmatar ships, you could go for missiles as secundary weapons, since you have bonuses for projectile weapons. But Caldari ship pilots are screwed, since they don't have any other bonuses.

PS II:
Perhaps the Gallente should restart the war against Caldari, now is the time. The Caldari can't deal and cannot take damage as the rules are now (and its only getting worse so it seems) Caldari State will be a province of the federation in no time.


Spot on!

So after the balance

Apoc
1. Best miner in game
2. Best fighting ship in game
3. Best NPC hunting ship
4. Free ammo
5. Best armour tank in game

Raven.
1. Worst miner
2. Worst fighting ship
3. Worst NPC hunter
4. Missiles cost a fortune
5. 2nd rate tank

So this is what you call balance!

The Raven and its missiles were nearly just fine before all the nerfing (Shield tank could do with some love). It should be the best combat ship in game. It's a specialist ship that needs specialist skills to fly. Otherwise whats the point of the Raven.

And yes I do own and fly both the Raven and Apoc.

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2004.08.29 13:10:00 - [411]
 

Originally by: Calamaster

Spot on!

So after the balance

Apoc
1. Best miner in game
2. Best fighting ship in game
3. Best NPC hunting ship
4. Free ammo
5. Best armour tank in game

Raven.
1. Worst miner
2. Worst fighting ship
3. Worst NPC hunter
4. Missiles cost a fortune
5. 2nd rate tank



Apoc:
1/The Dominix can do just as much mining with drones
2/That is very subjective, and you'll need to prove your argument.
3/yes, but some might say an Arma is better.
4/You just spend around 20+ millions in cristals in the beggining, so I'm not sure the free ammo argument is really valid.
5/Yes, Amarr ships are known to be the best tanks.

Raven:
1/Worst miners, but masters of EW warfare.
2/If they're the worst fighting ships, then explain to me, please, why most pirates I find use a Scorp or a Raven.
3/Ravens can choose the damage type they wish to deal, and can tank well with a decent setup. How are they the worst NPC hunters? If it's because of the missile cost, read 4/
4/That's going to get fixed with the future changes
5/Now I'm growing rather tired of hearing this argument time and again, however much you debunk it.

Shield tanking is easier to fit on a ship than armor tanking
Armor tanking is more cap efficient because armor tanks need cap for their weapons

Calamaster
Viziam
Posted - 2004.08.29 14:44:00 - [412]
 

Edited by: Calamaster on 29/08/2004 14:47:32
Originally by: Shadowsword
Originally by: Calamaster

Spot on!

So after the balance

Apoc
1. Best miner in game
2. Best fighting ship in game
3. Best NPC hunting ship
4. Free ammo
5. Best armour tank in game

Raven.
1. Worst miner
2. Worst fighting ship
3. Worst NPC hunter
4. Missiles cost a fortune
5. 2nd rate tank



Apoc:
1/The Dominix can do just as much mining with drones
2/That is very subjective, and you'll need to prove your argument.
3/yes, but some might say an Arma is better.
4/You just spend around 20+ millions in cristals in the beggining, so I'm not sure the free ammo argument is really valid.
5/Yes, Amarr ships are known to be the best tanks.

Raven:
1/Worst miners, but masters of EW warfare.
2/If they're the worst fighting ships, then explain to me, please, why most pirates I find use a Scorp or a Raven.
3/Ravens can choose the damage type they wish to deal, and can tank well with a decent setup. How are they the worst NPC hunters? If it's because of the missile cost, read 4/
4/That's going to get fixed with the future changes
5/Now I'm growing rather tired of hearing this argument time and again, however much you debunk it.

Shield tanking is easier to fit on a ship than armor tanking
Armor tanking is more cap efficient because armor tanks need cap for their weapons


Apoc:
1/The Dominix can do just as much mining with drones.
Only at the expense of defence. Try mining in lo sec space with one. Plus if the domi is so good at mining why is it all the best miners have an Apoc?

2/That is very subjective, and you'll need to prove your argument.
What are all the PvP in now, Apocs. If missiles have varible damage like turrets and you have a defence it sorta makes the Raven useless at PvP.

3/yes, but some might say an Arma is better. Some might but most people know better.

4/You just spend around 20+ millions in cristals in the beggining, so I'm not sure the free ammo argument is really valid.
Yes it is. 20 Mill in Crystals, you were ripped of m8. ( tip: You don't need to buy all the crystals )

5/Yes, Amarr ships are known to be the best tanks.
We agree !

Raven:
1/Worst miners, but masters of EW warfare.
You dont use EW on a Raven. FYI its the Scorp thats the king of EW. I'm talking about the Raven here.

2/If they're the worst fighting ships, then explain to me, please, why most pirates I find use a Scorp or a Raven.
Past history. Once the nerf is fully in place they won't be using a Raven.

3/Ravens can choose the damage type they wish to deal, and can tank well with a decent setup. How are they the worst NPC hunters? If it's because of the missile cost, read 4/
See 2

4/That's going to get fixed with the future changes.
Good!

5/Now I'm growing rather tired of hearing this argument time and again, however much you debunk it. Try using and training for a Raven. You too would be peeved by the TomB Nerf bat.


Shield tanking is easier to fit on a ship than armor tanking
I dont have any problem on my Apoc.

[b]Armor tanking is more cap efficient because armor tanks need cap for their weapons
Getting bored now


Grim Vandal
Burn Proof
Posted - 2004.08.29 17:57:00 - [413]
 

first of all tech 2 balistic controls arent in yet ...

second: The missile get tuned down vs smaller targets so your dmg output wont change vs other BS targets except to those who have a samller sig radius than 400m like the typhoon, tempest and the armageddon. (while I find it actually good that the typhoon and tempest gets slightly less dmg from large missiles, I really do think that the armageddon would be way tooooo overpowerd since its already an ubber leeet ship nowadays)

the missile changes are good as long as we can still get kinda "wrecking missile hits" vs smaller targets especially. This will hopefully be achieved through the IMPACT dmg which should do the MAIN DMG from large missiles to small targets.

So eg. a cruise missile with 300 thermal dmg and a maximum of 200 kinetic dmg should do the following:

If it hits a frig head on (directly in the face) it will get the full impact dmg = 200 kinetic dmg PLUS the scaled down "area" dmg of about 30 thermal dmg

BUT

if the frig gets chased from the cruise missile the impact dmg will get scaled down while the "area" of effect dmg will stay the same!

Problem with the above scenario is that in this case a cruise missile would be able to do more dmg to a BS than its duing nowadays like if a Apoc gets hit head on it will get 200 kinetic dmg and 300 thermal dmg and even if the missile chases the apoc (if that would ever happen) it would still do more dmg compared to now since the "area" of effect dmg will stay the same according to the signature radius.

Now I actually do think that the devs exactly face this particular problem.

On top of that what about a wrecking hit for a missile??? Same like for turrets 1%. Should do double "area" of effect dmg. YARRRR!!


AngelGrinder
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2004.08.31 11:24:00 - [414]
 

This idea, could be good, but the way its sounding, makes it sound like missiles will be totally useless, a way to combat this, is to let oher launchers fire different missiles i.e-

Rocket - rockets only
Standard and assault - Standard and rockets
Heavy Launcher - Heavy missiles, standard and rockets.
Cruise Launcher - Cruise, heavy, light, and rockets.
Seige - All missile types.

But to balance this out, If your firinglight missiles fro ma seige launcher, they will have an insane RoF.

It should be balanced still so out and out firepower on another BS, is slightly less each level you go down. So a torp does say 1000 dmg per minute, cruise does 900, heavy does 800, lights do 700, etc.

This will make the option of using different missiles to combat different enemies, that way, you can only nlame stupidity for not having light missiles etc in you raven cargo hold.

This was written quickly, but i think the basic idea comes through?

Grim Vandal
Burn Proof
Posted - 2004.08.31 14:37:00 - [415]
 

Originally by: AngelGrinder
This idea, could be good, but the way its sounding, makes it sound like missiles will be totally useless, a way to combat this, is to let oher launchers fire different missiles i.e-

Rocket - rockets only
Standard and assault - Standard and rockets
Heavy Launcher - Heavy missiles, standard and rockets.
Cruise Launcher - Cruise, heavy, light, and rockets.
Seige - All missile types.

But to balance this out, If your firinglight missiles fro ma seige launcher, they will have an insane RoF.

It should be balanced still so out and out firepower on another BS, is slightly less each level you go down. So a torp does say 1000 dmg per minute, cruise does 900, heavy does 800, lights do 700, etc.

This will make the option of using different missiles to combat different enemies, that way, you can only nlame stupidity for not having light missiles etc in you raven cargo hold.

This was written quickly, but i think the basic idea comes through?


sorry mate but that wont happen! nuff said (several reasons which I really dont bother telling you, read up the whole thread!)


CCP TomB

Posted - 2004.08.31 17:40:00 - [416]
 

Will be delayed until post-shiva if it will happen at all, you will see another post if this project starts again, apprieciate all the replies.

Calamaster
Viziam
Posted - 2004.08.31 17:51:00 - [417]
 

Originally by: TomB
Will be delayed until post-shiva if it will happen at all, you will see another post if this project starts again, apprieciate all the replies.


Perhaps we can make a difference.

Thanks for listening Smile

GardenerOfEden
Deep Space Fishing
Posted - 2004.09.01 04:00:00 - [418]
 

Originally by: TomB
Will be delayed until post-shiva if it will happen at all, you will see another post if this project starts again, apprieciate all the replies.
Interesting ... While the prospect of missile reforms hanging over our heads is unfortunate the reality is that ship balance / optimisation in general is already subject to such uncertainty given the intention to revamp EW so it is not a show stopper.

You do, however, have a number of loose ends to tie off:

1. "Standard Missiles" used to be a skill applying to all targeted / non-FoF missiles but now it only applies to light missiles. In keeping with the existing missile skill naming convention it should accordingly be renamed "Light Missiles" just as Electronics Upgrades was recently renamed to be better reflect the effect of the skill;

2. Advanced / Specialist missile skills need to be introduced as do named, and tech 2, Ballistic Control Systems & launchers - given that the equivalent are available / in the R&D agent queue for turrets and there being no reason to discriminate against missiles / missile ships given this acceptance that they can continue to operate as is.


j0sephine
Caldari
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2004.11.30 00:49:00 - [419]
 

Edited by: j0sephine on 30/11/2004 00:52:53

Thought due to the recent changes in missiles and increased whining about how uber they're now, this thread could use a friendly bump. -.^

If possible, i'd like to suggest a simplified version of the original idea... that's to keep the outcome server-friendly, and so the overall concept is easier to grasp for everyone who will have to use the missiles and/or find themselves on the receiving end of them.

In a nutshell: damage from missile gets scaled by ratio of the ship's size to the size of fake "area explosion".

reasoning behind it: the full damage from missile is distributed evenly within a sphere of certain radius. Because area of explosion for large missile is way bigger than that of small missile, the bigger the missile, the less damage per cubic metre of such 'area of effect' This means a small ship caught in explosion of large missile will 'absorb' less damage overall than the same ship caught in explosion of small missile... because explosion from the large missile is less 'dense' (that came out complicated, i know o.O;;

numbers:

average radius* of the ships currently in game:

battleship: 450m**
battlecruiser: 293m
cruiser: 157m
destroyer: 159m
frigate: 38m

*) this is ship physical radius, not signature radius... two different parameters)
**) current size of battleships is actually ~250m... the 450m is suggested size for them to be used instead.

suggested size of fake "area of effect" for missiles:

torpedo: 800m
cruise: 400m
heavy: 150m
light: 50m
rocket: 25m

damage equation:

damage = min( 1, ship_size/missile_area_size ) * base missile damage

resulting damage per ship class:

battleship

torpedo: 253 hp
cruise: 300 hp
heavy: 150 hp
light: 75 hp

battlecruiser

torpedo: 165 hp
cruise: 220 hp
heavy: 150 hp
light: 75 hp

cruiser

torpedo: 89 hp
cruise: 118 hp
heavy: 150 hp
light: 75 hp

destroyer

torpedo: 89 hp
cruise: 119 hp
heavy: 150 hp
light: 75 hp

frigate

torpedo: 21 hp
cruise: 28 hp
heavy: 38 hp
light: 57 hp

advantages:

* missile speeds can be increased without the usual fear of large missiles wtfpwning everything like it is today

* no penalty from mwd use -- the signature radius isn't a factor in equation

* 'natural' selection of most efficient missile for all types of targets: frigates are hit heaviest by small missiles, destroyers/cruisers suffer most from heavy missile hits, battlecruisers and battleships are hit the hardest by cruise missiles. Torpedoes are imo intended as weapons for stationary targets due to speed and whatnot hence reduced impact on ships

* more variety: the calculations are done for average ship sizes, but the sizes in game actually vary. This means some ships will take less damage from the missiles than others, perhaps giving them advantage that'd make people consider using these ships in certain situations.

well, that's all i can think of for the moment. ^^;;;

Bazman
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2004.11.30 06:02:00 - [420]
 

I haven't read the entire topic (Will do when back from work, really interested in whats happening to missles, being Caldari and all) so forgive me if this has already been suggested, but what about massively reducing missle agility? I've noticed how frigates can outrun heavy missles for a while by outmanuevering it with tight orbits (but ultimately is hit if it slows down) Why not reduce missle agility the larger a missle is, light missle retain their current stats, heavy missles agility reduced by some amount so that it can't turn anywhere near as quick as a frigate, but is still able to hit cruisers and so on etc


Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 : 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