These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Introducing Archers to Arrows with 24 Kiloton Warheads

Author
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#1 - 2012-05-24 22:48:21 UTC
I like this advertisement. It is beautifully crafted and amazing.

Except.

Missiles are one of the most underpowered weapons in the game. This wasn't always true. In the good ole days I remember missiles being able to actually compete with guns for combat that didn't involve either being in a blob or flying a 100mn tengu.

The problem with missiles is the damage calculation system. Let me explain here.

I am in the downtown of a major city, and Russia goes off the handle and nukes the world. In the real world, I'm dead. In EVE, something magical happens.

In EVE, the nuclear explosion would be SO BIG compared to LITTLE ME that I would only get a mild burn at ground zero. If I was walking briskly, I would probably only have a slight scratch. However, the gigantic skyscrapers around me would be completely vaporized because they are SO BIG compared to the explosion.

Conversely, if a firecracker were sitting in the palm of my hand in the real world I would get a nasty burn, but in EVE I would probably lose an entire arm because I was so big compared to the explosion.

This means that the firecracker, if EVE was real, would do more damage to my body than being at ground zero of a nuclear detonation.

It makes no sense CCP. It is counter intuitive and has no basis in reality at all. I know WHY missiles were nerfed, because of nano. But the fact you can get a ship going 10km/s has nothing to do with missiles. You shouldn't have nerfed missiles, you made them quite crappy.

But hey, please do advertise how awesome missiles are. The new players will figure all this out for themselves.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Llewelyn
Doomheim
#2 - 2012-05-24 22:53:11 UTC
Missiles do make no sense in EVE. If they made sense, a cruise missile hitting a frigate would instantly destroy the frigate.

Of course, that would be really overpowered, but would make sense.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#3 - 2012-05-24 22:58:38 UTC
Llewelyn wrote:
Missiles do make no sense in EVE. If they made sense, a cruise missile hitting a frigate would instantly destroy the frigate.

Of course, that would be really overpowered, but would make sense.


I must be getting old because I used to pvp when missiles were "overpowered".

Sure, you had the occasional torp raven that was doing 4800 damage a volley (back in the day ravens were actually competitive with things like the megathron, not true anymore), but you could outrun the missile if you were in something small and fast.

Missiles were the innocent bystander who got arrested by the cops because he was standing too close to the nanoships when they were overpowered. Nanoships were getting 5, 15, 25km/s depending on the hull, and missiles were popular there because they didn't care about range or tracking so much.

Missiles never needed a nerf, only nano did.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

stoicfaux
#4 - 2012-05-24 22:59:11 UTC
You're on the wrong web site. Try this one: http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/

You probably want to start here http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacegunconvent.php#id--Nukes_In_Space and http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacegunconvent.php#id--Missiles.


Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

masternerdguy
Doomheim
#5 - 2012-05-24 23:01:54 UTC


Sure, nukes aren't the weapon of choice in space. But in EVE we have a much wider variety of missiles than nukes. Besides, my example was earthbound, where nukes are quite effective.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Pisov viet
Perkone
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-05-24 23:08:30 UTC
Quote:


In EVE, the nuclear explosion would be SO BIG compared to LITTLE ME that I would only get a mild burn at ground zero. If I was walking briskly, I would probably only have a slight scratch. However, the gigantic skyscrapers around me would be completely vaporized because they are SO BIG compared to the explosion.

Really? I always pictured the explosion radius as "missile will explode when within xxx of the targeted point", meaning that targets smaller than xxx would not get hit by the full explosions, but instead just by a part of it. Which sort of make sense. Not like it matters anyway.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#7 - 2012-05-24 23:11:36 UTC  |  Edited by: masternerdguy
Pisov viet wrote:
Quote:


In EVE, the nuclear explosion would be SO BIG compared to LITTLE ME that I would only get a mild burn at ground zero. If I was walking briskly, I would probably only have a slight scratch. However, the gigantic skyscrapers around me would be completely vaporized because they are SO BIG compared to the explosion.

Really? I always pictured the explosion radius as "missile will explode when within xxx of the targeted point", meaning that targets smaller than xxx would not get hit by the full explosions, but instead just by a part of it. Which sort of make sense. Not like it matters anyway.


I don't know what CCP claims they do, I am explaining what they actually do.

In EVE, missiles have an explosion radius. If this radius is smaller than the target's sig radius, it does less than max damage. If it is equal or larger, it does full damage. Speed is also factored in. The end result is missiles that can only apply full dps to large, stationary, targets.

That is why your full rack of heavy missiles can only do 16 damage to that merlin orbiting you at 1000m/s.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Kiteo Hatto
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2012-05-24 23:52:27 UTC
It kinda makes sense....

Think in terms of dodgeball
Person A is a big mean muscle dude throwing big sand filled(heavy) balls
Person B is a skinny guy who throws normal sized balls

Its much easier for person B to dodge person A because the ball is heavier(travels slower) even though its bigger(damage)

On the other hand.
Person B can easily hit Person A because the ball is lighter(faster) but smaller(less damage)

Person A would take full damage from being hit with the light ball.
Person B would just get hit by the sand that flies off from the missed impact.

The only way for Person A to hit Person B is if the skinny guy gets glued to the floor and cant move(web+painter).
Veronica Kerrigan
Surgically Constructed L Feminist
#9 - 2012-05-24 23:54:00 UTC
Except we're in space. We get hit by a percentage of the energy, and the rest is radiated into the void, whereas in atmo, the explosion compresses the air and blasts everything equally. So a cruise missile is blowing up, but hey, cruise missiles aren't very accurate, so it blows up some distance away, and it only hits you on one part of the damage sphere. Not gonna do a whole lot of damage. If you were in a battleship instead of a frigate though, your ship is large enough that it would take more of the brunt of the explosion, and therefore more damage. Explosion speed is self explanatory, though if it were up to the OCD in me, if you were going a certain amount faster than the explosion radius, say 5 times as fast, you shouldn't get hit at all.
Krystal Flores
Deliverance.
Arrival.
#10 - 2012-05-25 05:49:47 UTC
Came expecting to be entertained, was not disappointed.

masternerdguy wrote:
I like this advertisement. It is beautifully crafted and amazing.

In EVE, the nuclear explosion would be SO BIG compared to LITTLE ME that I would only get a mild burn at ground zero. If I was walking briskly, I would probably only have a slight scratch.

Instead of teaching us to hide under tables in school, they should of just told us this. It would do the same amount of good at ground zero in practice anyways. Smile

(I know that it could also stop you from going blind and injured if you were far away but that's not the point.)

From a game standpoint: if it were like real life, missiles would be really broken. (same with lasers)
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#11 - 2012-05-25 05:54:43 UTC
OK so let's have tracking disruptors work vs missiles, and tracking enhancers and computers work for them.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#12 - 2012-05-25 06:06:13 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:

That is why your full rack of heavy missiles can only do 16 damage to that merlin orbiting you at 1000m/s.


That's 16 more than any other weapon with 110km range does in the same situation.

.

John Caligan
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#13 - 2012-05-25 18:28:09 UTC
I believe there is a skill that increases enemy sig radius for missiles or somethin like that. I saw it in the market window and I was thinking "Hey, maybe I should buy that!". Although, missiles seem to be a bit more powerful now, although I should still be able to annihalate an NPC Cruiser with a full volley of T1 Heavies from my Drake.
TheBreadMuncher
Protus Correction Facility Inc.
#14 - 2012-05-25 18:34:46 UTC
What's this? A GOOD MNG thread? My word.

"We will create the introduction thread if that is requested by the community. Also, we will have an ISD Seminar about the CCL team in the coming weeks in which you can ask your questions about the CCL team and provide some constructive feedback to us." - Countless pages of locked threads and numerous permabanned accounts later, change is coming.

sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2012-05-25 18:43:51 UTC  |  Edited by: sabre906
Llewelyn wrote:
Missiles do make no sense in EVE. If they made sense, a cruise missile hitting a frigate would instantly destroy the frigate.

Of course, that would be really overpowered, but would make sense.


Large guns hitting a frigate would also instantly destroy the frigate. Of course, this is not overpowered, this makes sense.Big smile

Roime wrote:
masternerdguy wrote:

That is why your full rack of heavy missiles can only do 16 damage to that merlin orbiting you at 1000m/s.


That's 16 more than any other weapon with 110km range does in the same situation.



No, it's less, since the target would be in the next system by the time it hits.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2012-05-25 18:51:37 UTC
while I can see where the OP is going, let me tell you 2 stories about missiles. first is how they made frigates obsolete:

I remember taking a torp salvo from a typhoon back in those days, when it had 4 launcher slots.


FYI, my jaguar instapopped due to the power of 4 inferno (thermal) torps.


no joke.



the second story is cavalry (dual mwd) ravens. unrelated to the story above, but made **** funny because you could wtfpwn any ship with thoseLol

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right

masternerdguy
Doomheim
#17 - 2012-05-25 20:46:50 UTC
John Caligan wrote:
I believe there is a skill that increases enemy sig radius for missiles or somethin like that. I saw it in the market window and I was thinking "Hey, maybe I should buy that!". Although, missiles seem to be a bit more powerful now, although I should still be able to annihalate an NPC Cruiser with a full volley of T1 Heavies from my Drake.


Except that only helps with the "guided" (whatever that actually means in EVE missiles). This means that it doesn't improve rockets, HAMs, or torps.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Pok Nibin
Doomheim
#18 - 2012-05-25 20:48:03 UTC
When I'm in the mood for the vacuous or irrelevant, I always click on your posts.

The right to free speech doesn't automatically carry with it the right to be taken seriously.

LittleTerror
Stygian Systems
#19 - 2012-05-25 21:08:37 UTC
Llewelyn wrote:
Missiles do make no sense in EVE. If they made sense, a cruise missile hitting a frigate would instantly destroy the frigate.

Of course, that would be really overpowered, but would make sense.


yup, sadly that is what got them nerfed in the first place and so CCP made up some troll physics about how objects travelling faster than the explosion would take less damage despite coming from a missile that happens to be at equal speed of its target in the vacuum of space..
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#20 - 2012-05-25 21:12:47 UTC
you'll hate the fact that you have a better chance of surviving a nuke while directly under the air-blast than someone 1/4 mile away

there's a plethora of odd stories out of Japan reflecting this
12Next page