Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
MadMuppet
Kerguelen Station
362
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 15:02:00 -
[31] - Quote
The up side of missiles is that:
They do not take in to account the actions of the launching ship when calculating damage effects. Unlike a projectile ship which has to counter its own movement when firing, a missile is self-guiding. A very fast missile boat doesn't lose damage when firing from 1000m/s+ which is why the 100mn Tengu is popular.
They do not have an optimal or falloff stat that matters when calculating damage effects. So long as the weapon is in range it will do the same damage if the target is at max range or point blank.
They have ammo types that allow them to work even when completely jammed (FOF).
They do not require cap (only a half argument since projectiles don't either).
The Unified Inventory system for Inferno, which I would recommend everybody tryon SiSi, is going to be the next 'Door' for CCP. What it adds is worthless when we lose so much functionality.-á |
Super Chair
Project Cerberus Caldari State Capturing
255
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 15:08:00 -
[32] - Quote
cBOLTSON wrote:Karl Hobb wrote:Can anyone give a quick run-down on why missiles are so bad in the game? Is it simply time-to-target? Briefly - Yes. At long ranges missile flight time is an issue. Also the speed and sig radius of a target greatly affects how much damage you can do. (Or if your missile will do anything substantial at all) This is true for turrets also, however as range increases with turret based weapons it gets easier and easier to track a target. For instance medium arty on a hurricane can still instapop small stuff or at least cause mass damage if the target is not point blank. Missile however will continue to do very little damage regardless of the range. Battleship class missiles (Also citadel missiles) are even worse when it comes to this. Turrets have midslot tracking computers , as well as lowslot tracking enhancers to boost range and tracking. Missiles however only have rigs to boost thier percieved 'tracking ability'. (Explosion radius and velocity) However only half of the missiles can use half of these rigs. (Dumb fired torps and hams for example) Overall this leaves missiles somewhat lacking for pvp. Im sure there is someone who can explain this even better than I.
It's pretty much this in a nutshell. Battleship sized missiles were pretty awful, in addition to the hulls that use them generally can't fit them/are also awful. I wouldn't mind this change so much if torps and cruise missiles got looked at in addition to adding some modules to the game to buff explosion velocity/reduce explosion radius. Also, due to the fitting issues on hulls that use missiles, generally its very difficult to rig them. On the subject of heavy missiles, it was possible for AB cruisers such as the SFI/Cynabal to speed tank cruiser sized missiles and now its just going to be ridiculous. |
Zyress
The Fabulous Thunderbirds
79
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 15:22:00 -
[33] - Quote
MadMuppet wrote:The up side of missiles is that:
They do not take in to account the actions of the launching ship when calculating damage effects. Unlike a projectile ship which has to counter its own movement when firing, a missile is self-guiding. A very fast missile boat doesn't lose damage when firing from 1000m/s+ which is why the 100mn Tengu is popular.
On the otherhand a turret ship can travel in a straight line at or away from their target and fix their tracking issue, speed and sig radius will effect the missile no matter how you fly.
They do not have an optimal or falloff stat that matters when calculating damage effects. So long as the weapon is in range it will do the same damage if the target is at max range or point blank.
No missile I've ever fired could hit anything moving at all at its max range or even well inside its max range if they are moving rapidly, it cost flight time to do course corrections unlike turrets which can hit at their max range because apparently bullets have no flight time and their tracking actually gets better at longer ranges.
They have ammo types that allow them to work even when completely jammed (FOF).
This is true, though I've never seen anyone use them and they are totally undirected hitting whatever they happen to see first.
They do not require cap (only a half argument since projectiles don't either).
This is true
|
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
244
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 15:54:00 -
[34] - Quote
Super Chair wrote:On the subject of heavy missiles, it was possible for AB cruisers such as the SFI/Cynabal to speed tank cruiser sized missiles and now its just going to be ridiculous. Could said SFI/Cynabal also speed tank cruiser-sized guns?
I guess my counterpoint to the tracking disruptor is that there is no way to alter the sig radius of my ship. In fact, I can only worsen it, and my opponent has a module that can do the same. I've seen it posted in a feedback thread that even two well-bonused TDs can't reduce missile damage to 0, whereas it is entirely possible for a single unbonused TD to completely negate turret damage with a decent orbit to help.
The only time I've used missiles in PvP was being violenced by a Rifter while ratting in a Drake. TBH I was kind of amazed that I did enough damage to drive him off because he settled into a comfortable orbit that would have ****** with any medium turret ship.
I'm not experienced enough with missiles to offer anything else than this to the argument but IMO the TD changes aren't game breaking. I'm not saying missiles don't need a buff, but TDs seem underused to begin with. +1 in local |
Skydell
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
273
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 16:07:00 -
[35] - Quote
evereplicant wrote:CCP have now nailed the final coffin in missiles... All those nice missile graphic updates you did? waste of time seeing no one will use missiles anymore
You should look at the new Missile graphics.
Compare a launcher to one on a modern naval vessel or plane. Then compare it to modern ground based launchers. They all look alot like ground based missile launchers. From the ground silo to the box launchers on the backs of trucks. It's almost like they were meant for planetary use or something.
In ground based warfare, you need a remote unit to paint a target in order for a cruise missile to hit but electronics equipment can scramble the guidance system, sending it off course or disrupt it you might say. Granted if you really think about it we have a cube battlefield of 250km. Not very big really looking at the supposed distances our ships travel in seconds.
|
George Whitebread
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 16:26:00 -
[36] - Quote
I haven't bothered to read any of the posts in this thread, but I assume I would win it if I participated. "I say what I like, and I like what I bloody well say" - George Whitebread |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1907
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 17:06:00 -
[37] - Quote
On a slightly related note, I wish that CCP would quit screwing around and make missiles (especially Cruise and Torps) the ultimate alpha weapons of EVE.
Very slow rate of fire, absolutely hideous levels of damage if you stick around (voluntarily or not) long enough for them to hit you.
If you think about it, and take a look at the graphics for the damage effects between guns and missiles as well, it would be completely logical... not to mention encourage their use. When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Ager Agemo
Radiant Technologies The House Of Cards.
72
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 17:53:00 -
[38] - Quote
is true missiles almost always do damage... however it so happens sometimes they do Such low damage, the passive recharge from the shields of an armor tanked destroyer is enough to stop them. which is the same as they totally missing, the problem is... this happens with basically all the missiles against afterburning targets. |
Easthir Ravin
Easy Co. Fatal Ascension
14
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 18:45:00 -
[39] - Quote
Greetings
Correct me if I am wrong, but a tracking disruptor hinders the ability of a ships turret to turn fast enough to hit its target? If this is so then how could this affect missiles that do not rely on a turrets ability to spin in order to hit the intended target. If this is true then this nerf makes no sense.
Please don't nerf my drake even more CCP
vr East IN THE IMORTAL WORDS OF SOCRATES: -á" I drank WHAT?!" |
Ager Agemo
Radiant Technologies The House Of Cards.
72
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:42:00 -
[40] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Super Chair wrote:On the subject of heavy missiles, it was possible for AB cruisers such as the SFI/Cynabal to speed tank cruiser sized missiles and now its just going to be ridiculous. Could said SFI/Cynabal also speed tank cruiser-sized guns? I guess my counterpoint to the tracking disruptor is that there is no way to alter the sig radius of my ship. In fact, I can only worsen it, and my opponent has a module that can do the same. I've seen it posted in a feedback thread that even two well-bonused TDs can't reduce missile damage to 0, whereas it is entirely possible for a single unbonused TD to completely negate turret damage with a decent orbit to help. The only time I've used missiles in PvP was being violenced by a Rifter while ratting in a Drake. TBH I was kind of amazed that I did enough damage to drive him off because he settled into a comfortable orbit that would have ****** with any medium turret ship. I'm not experienced enough with missiles to offer anything else than this to the argument but IMO the TD changes aren't game breaking. I'm not saying missiles don't need a buff, but TDs seem underused to begin with.
my halo set begs to differ with you. |
|
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
248
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:50:00 -
[41] - Quote
Ager Agemo wrote:my halo set begs to differ with you. Ah, I see. I'm not exactly space-rich so I didn't think to look at implants. +1 in local |
Ager Agemo
Radiant Technologies The House Of Cards.
72
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 21:37:00 -
[42] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Ager Agemo wrote:my halo set begs to differ with you. Ah, I see. I'm not exactly space-rich so I didn't think to look at implants.
i m not rich, but a halo set nowadays is relatively common, specially for flying T3 ships and tech 2 cruisers. i might be wrong but i believe they are used also in carriers. plus we have the low level grade halo implants. which are pretty cheap. |
Niko Takahashi
United Starbase Systems
52
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 05:22:00 -
[43] - Quote
So CCP we are getting a 15 % sig reduction 30 % flight speed low slot module and midslot mod with explosion velocity and flight time script ? |
Landrae
Push Industries Push Interstellar Network
320
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 08:26:00 -
[44] - Quote
Missiles are like trying to hit a bullet with a smaller bullet whilst wearing a blindfold, riding a horse. Welcome to Eve Online |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
437
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 10:43:00 -
[45] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:On a slightly related note, I wish that CCP would quit screwing around and make missiles (especially Cruise and Torps) the ultimate alpha weapons of EVE.
Very slow rate of fire, absolutely hideous levels of damage if you stick around (voluntarily or not) long enough for them to hit you.
If you think about it, and take a look at the graphics for the damage effects between guns and missiles as well, it would be completely logical... not to mention encourage their use.
It would also make them actually a viable choice for long range combat. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
MortisLegati
Caldari War Materiel
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 13:07:00 -
[46] - Quote
The most probable explanation to making tracking weapon disruption affect missile ships would be to make those EWAR modules nerf the explosion radius on guided and the explosion velocity on unguided missiles, perhaps pen them into more gun-like categories to some extent. (I don't entirely understand exactly how I come to this, I just know that I do and that it makes sense in some subconscious manner.)
Basically, I think they'd nerf one particular to-hit(to-damage) property of the missile for each missile type. |
Rajan Marelona
Hedion University Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 13:13:00 -
[47] - Quote
Maybe they also buff base missile damage to compensate :) |
Ituhata Saken
Crimson Cross Destroyers
35
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 13:18:00 -
[48] - Quote
You can nerf them all you want to, when the new graphics come out I will be flying the biggest baddest missile boat with max slots, and even the mid and low slots will have launchers in them. And no, I will not group them and yes, I am going to cause your client to crash, that is the true power of missile spam. |
Cloned S0ul
Blood Fanatics
43
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 13:52:00 -
[49] - Quote
Markus Reese wrote:I hear they are going to also take capacitor to fire :p
If true, time to change projectile to |
TR4D3R4LT
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
35
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 16:10:00 -
[50] - Quote
TheButcherPete wrote:awww, you're just upset that your missiles were e-war proof, because a. Smartbombs were rarely timed good enough to kill one, and b. defenders are useless.
Then you complain when CCP brings your weapon to scale with all other weapons, thus leveling the playing field.
HTFU, hardly anyone fits tracking disrupts anyway
Actually, I kinda have problem with that. You see, instead CCP making smartbombs and defenders to work against missiles, where latter is MEANT TO WORK as direct counter, they go and slap additional role to another e-war system. But investing on TQ hardware to make missile fights viable where both missiles and defenders are calced might have been too big investment. Instead slap much more server friendly way to handle it so we dont need to spend time and effort upgrading them.
Fair is fair, now is good time to ask insta hit missiles because CCP clearly is in favor of that, after all turret like calcs are much less tiring for server. |
|
TheButcherPete
Specter Syndicate CORE Alliance
170
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 16:20:00 -
[51] - Quote
TR4D3R4LT wrote:TheButcherPete wrote:awww, you're just upset that your missiles were e-war proof, because a. Smartbombs were rarely timed good enough to kill one, and b. defenders are useless.
Then you complain when CCP brings your weapon to scale with all other weapons, thus leveling the playing field.
HTFU, hardly anyone fits tracking disrupts anyway Actually, I kinda have problem with that. You see, instead CCP making smartbombs and defenders to work against missiles, where latter is MEANT TO WORK as direct counter, they go and slap additional role to another e-war system. But investing on TQ hardware to make missile fights viable where both missiles and defenders are calced might have been too big investment. Instead slap much more server friendly way to handle it so we dont need to spend time and effort upgrading them. Fair is fair, now is good time to ask insta hit missiles because CCP clearly is in favor of that, after all turret like calcs are much less tiring for server.
Well, honestly, if defenders killed multiple missiles instead of just one, you wouldn't need a full rack of Rapid Lights to counter another full rack of Heavy.
But, if CCP made defenders do slight AOE damage against missiles, that would be a major nerf to highsec Tengu gropers. NPC's would be knocking half of their dps down instead of one missile.
Also o.O most launchers fire more than one missile now (but only consume one unit of ammo somehow) I wonder how the new Defenders will be able to even graphically represent anything. My moncole doubles as a cigarette lighter, a flashlight, a laser and x-ray goggles. If you haven't noticed yet, I'm in love with Punkturis. -á-á-á
|
TR4D3R4LT
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
35
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 17:02:00 -
[52] - Quote
TheButcherPete wrote: Well, honestly, if defenders killed multiple missiles instead of just one, you wouldn't need a full rack of Rapid Lights to counter another full rack of Heavy.
But, if CCP made defenders do slight AOE damage against missiles, that would be a major nerf to highsec Tengu gropers. NPC's would be knocking half of their dps down instead of one missile.
Also o.O most launchers fire more than one missile now (but only consume one unit of ammo somehow) I wonder how the new Defenders will be able to even graphically represent anything.
Dont bring NPC rat related issues here, the npc's still use old, as in 2005 old e-war mechanics. Their various e-wars are % based and so are their defenders, they dont have defender modules and missiles like pilots have. Same for repair etc changes. If you change medium armor repper to rep +5000% hp per cycle, it doesnt mean all cruiser and bc cruiser rats have tank out of wazoo. Their tank stays the same, due to nature they're coded.
So yeah, Tengu gropers would be unaffected unless they shot at players fitting defenders. |
Renn Aldard
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 17:30:00 -
[53] - Quote
Soo... Should I NOT be training for a Raven? |
Ager Agemo
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
75
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 17:47:00 -
[54] - Quote
Renn Aldard wrote:Soo... Should I NOT be training for a Raven? no u should not, it will be a waste of sp |
terrly bronks
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 17:56:00 -
[55] - Quote
St Mio wrote:Karl Hobb wrote:masternerdguy wrote:Everyone should be in close range blasterboats doing bare knuckle combat at 500m! I see no problems with honorable mustachioed combat. I do say, this is a most splendid suggestion!
as long as I get my 15 mill sp in missiles refunded I have no problem :) my cald pilots have all resorted to mining because missles are so bad lol
I vote just make everything the same make us all look the same all ships the same all planets the same all stations the same just think no lagg becauseevery thing is the ssame lol
oops back to wow now till end of month :)
|
terrly bronks
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 18:13:00 -
[56] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Can anyone give a quick run-down on why missiles are so bad in the game? Is it simply time-to-target?
they say it is that missles don't hit there target the explode before impact henc just pushing the traget away rather than do any real damage
a frig orbits at 500 ms at 10K away a raven with max torp skills can shoot at that frig all day and his shield regen will tank it
a rail boat will all most do the same exepet i diff if they do a Crit hit the frig will insta pop lol missles will never do that they way they are and now they are even doing to be less of threat to even bigger targets.
|
Markus Reese
Incertae Sedis Cascade Imminent
188
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 18:35:00 -
[57] - Quote
Here is the real interesting question, so many people complaining about the added ewar, but how many of you fit tracking disruptors to your pvp boats? |
TR4D3R4LT
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
35
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 18:50:00 -
[58] - Quote
Markus Reese wrote:Here is the real interesting question, so many people complaining about the added ewar, but how many of you fit tracking disruptors to your pvp boats?
Here's even more interesting question, how many people fit covop bridges to their ships. Just because the answer is "few" doesnt mean covop bridges should be changed to suddenly allow bridging different ship types without proper weighting of the good and bad sides it will cause to gameplay.
Same is here, sure, very few fit tracking disrupts atm, those who do mainly fit it for 1vs1 "honor" pvp. However, after the change said honor pvp fits with dual prop will be even more powerful against missile boats, their only true counter thus far. |
Shepard Book
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
63
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 19:01:00 -
[59] - Quote
A counter for something that auto hits a target is not out of line IMO. I hope they fix defender missiles next. |
JitaPriceChecker2
State War Academy Caldari State
151
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 19:39:00 -
[60] - Quote
So instead of fixing defenders CCP is doing what exactly ????? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |