These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Missile Rebalancing in Inferno?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sunviking
Doomheim
#81 - 2012-04-18 15:53:10 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Oh, one more thing about the "pretty patterns of numbers" fallacy. Guided missiles all travel at the same speed, 5625 m/s. However, one of the many reasons why Cruise is useless is because of flight time. So we could make Cruise faster - but this would breaks the pretty pattern of numbers. We could subsequently choose to reproduce a pretty pattern by reducing the speed of LMs, but this is absurd.

Of course, you could argue that missile velocity is not the pattern to look at, it should be flight time, reasoning that Cruise is bad because it has excessive flight time. But again, we already have a pretty pattern in flight time, doubling at each missile size graduation from LMs to Cruise. So now we could argue that it's actually the "wrong" pretty pattern, that Cruise flight time should only be three times that of LMs, not four times - but unless we break the pretty pattern of velocities then it's a straight Cruise nerf!


I am talking about overall range of Torpedoes, I do not subscribe in any way to the 'pretty patterns of numbers fallacy' that you talk about. There is plenty of room for flexibility in how Torpedoes' range is increased be in Velocity, Flight time or both.
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#82 - 2012-04-18 15:56:32 UTC
Sunviking wrote:
I am talking about overall range of Torpedoes, I do not subscribe in any way to the 'pretty patterns of numbers fallacy' that you talk about. There is plenty of room for flexibility in how Torpedoes' range is increased be in Velocity, Flight time or both.


Why do you think that torpedo range needs to be increased? What problem are you trying to solve? Why do you think that stealth bombers need boosting?
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse
#83 - 2012-04-18 16:03:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Ioci
People are confusing me in here. Cruise missile flight time needs to be reduced? Do they think the missile flight time is mandatory? 20 seconds but it only took 8 to get you so it's just going to follow you around for 12 more?

As for 'pretty patterns' there are none. It's a cliff.

Rocket explosion velocity 150, Light missile 170.
Heavy 81, Torp 71, Cruise 69.
Even a Heavy precision only gets buffed to 87. The only reason they work is, they chop your flight time in half so you are obligated to get closer. If you got closer with High damage they would have the exact same effect.

I use High Damage because I fly buffer tanked Damnations. My sig rad? who cares, they are going to hit me anyway.

R.I.P. Vile Rat
Ryuichi Hiroki
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#84 - 2012-04-18 16:24:54 UTC
Torpedo range is fine as it is.
Sunviking
Doomheim
#85 - 2012-04-18 16:24:57 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Sunviking wrote:
I am talking about overall range of Torpedoes, I do not subscribe in any way to the 'pretty patterns of numbers fallacy' that you talk about. There is plenty of room for flexibility in how Torpedoes' range is increased be in Velocity, Flight time or both.


Why do you think that torpedo range needs to be increased? What problem are you trying to solve? Why do you think that stealth bombers need boosting?


The problem is their usability in just about any scenario.

Torpedoes are currently very ineffective in both PvE and PvP. The only ship that can use Torpedoes effectively in PvE is the Golem. And there is a thread somewhere which argues that the Golem is currently the worst of the Marauders because of the problems with Torpedoes.

It's pretty obvious that the range of Torpedoes needs a boost.

An Amarr battleship can use Mega Pulse Lasers in many more PvE and PvP scenarios than a Torpedo boat can be. The same goes for an Autocannon Minmatar battleship and a Blaster Gallente battleship. The Tempest, Apocalypse and Megathron are all much more effective ships in PvP than a Torp Raven are. So many people know this.
Copine Callmeknau
Dirty Vagrants
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#86 - 2012-04-18 16:29:44 UTC
MIRV-FoF torpedo's

/thread

There should be a rather awesome pic here
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#87 - 2012-04-18 16:42:16 UTC
Sunviking wrote:


The problem is their usability in just about any scenario.

Torpedoes are currently very ineffective in both PvE and PvP. The only ship that can use Torpedoes effectively in PvE is the Golem. And there is a thread somewhere which argues that the Golem is currently the worst of the Marauders because of the problems with Torpedoes.

It's pretty obvious that the range of Torpedoes needs a boost.


No, it isn't obvious why torpedo range needs a boost at all. Why range? Why not explosion radius, raw damage or alterations to the torpedo launch platform?

And what about stealth bombers? Why do they need more range?
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse
#88 - 2012-04-18 16:45:03 UTC
Sunviking wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Sunviking wrote:
I am talking about overall range of Torpedoes, I do not subscribe in any way to the 'pretty patterns of numbers fallacy' that you talk about. There is plenty of room for flexibility in how Torpedoes' range is increased be in Velocity, Flight time or both.


Why do you think that torpedo range needs to be increased? What problem are you trying to solve? Why do you think that stealth bombers need boosting?


The problem is their usability in just about any scenario.

Torpedoes are currently very ineffective in both PvE and PvP. The only ship that can use Torpedoes effectively in PvE is the Golem. And there is a thread somewhere which argues that the Golem is currently the worst of the Marauders because of the problems with Torpedoes.

It's pretty obvious that the range of Torpedoes needs a boost.

An Amarr battleship can use Mega Pulse Lasers in many more PvE and PvP scenarios than a Torpedo boat can be. The same goes for an Autocannon Minmatar battleship and a Blaster Gallente battleship. The Tempest, Apocalypse and Megathron are all much more effective ships in PvP than a Torp Raven are. So many people know this.


Torp Ravens used to work, now they don't. The Glory days of the CNR lost to a CCP war dec.

R.I.P. Vile Rat
Sunviking
Doomheim
#89 - 2012-04-18 16:46:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Sunviking
Gypsio III wrote:
Sunviking wrote:


The problem is their usability in just about any scenario.

Torpedoes are currently very ineffective in both PvE and PvP. The only ship that can use Torpedoes effectively in PvE is the Golem. And there is a thread somewhere which argues that the Golem is currently the worst of the Marauders because of the problems with Torpedoes.

It's pretty obvious that the range of Torpedoes needs a boost.


No, it isn't obvious why torpedo range needs a boost at all. Why range? Why not explosion radius, raw damage or alterations to the torpedo launch platform?

And what about stealth bombers? Why do they need more range?


Explosion Radius also needs to be looked at, as does Explosion Velocity. I would say that raw damage is good enough already.

As for the 'do stealth bombers need more range' question you ask, do you see Battleship-sized Turrets getting an Optimal Range AND a Falloff bonus? No. The very fact that Slealth Bombers do have a Velocity and a Flight Time bonus kind of implies that Torpedoes are under-ranged. I say increase Torpedo range by 50%, and scrap the Flight Time bonus that Stealth Bombers currently get. That way more ships will be able to actually use Torpedoes in both PvE and PvP.
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#90 - 2012-04-18 17:13:43 UTC
Sunviking wrote:
Explosion Radius also needs to be looked at, as does Explosion Velocity. I would say that raw damage is good enough already

As for the 'do stealth bombers need more range' question you ask, do you see Battleship-sized Turrets getting an Optimal Range AND a Falloff bonus? No. The very fact that Slealth Bombers do have a Velocity and a Flight Time bonus kind of implies that Torpedoes are under-ranged. I say increase Torpedo range by 50%, and scrap the Flight Time bonus that Stealth Bombers currently get.


Finally we're getting somewhere. However..

Invoking BS turrets as justification is not useful, as missiles are not turrets, and bombers aren't BS, they're used in different fashions and environments. This is just more pretty patterns, just more copypasta of stats from unrelated ships

What problem are you trying to solve? By giving the Raven more torp range, do you want it to be used in a kiting role more? Do you tend to fly nano-Ravens much? I think they're rare, the preferred Raven style is massive damage application to tackled targets, I think you'd be better off focusing on the Raven's good points than trying to make it better at something that it's really bad at. More range would also help with Scorch-style damage projection, but current torp range and damage already compares favourably with blasters, while 50% extra range hardly helps the Typhoon at all and still doesn't allow the Raven to compete with Scorch.

So I'm having difficulty in understanding what you're trying to achieve by giving torps more range in a PVP context. I would advise you to focus on what the Raven is good at - close-up damage application, just like the Megathron - and improve it there, in terms of its ease of damage application or its survivability at those close ranges.

For damage application, torps currently have an explosion radius of 450 m. T1 BS sigs below 450 m, requiring a painter, Crash or other sig effect, are:

Domi 420
Megathron 400
Apoc 400
Geddon 370
Tempest 340 m
Typhoon 320

The other six BS have sigs over 450 m. There's a very reasonable argument to help out the Raven in its primary anti-BS role by cutting explosion radius to 400 m. Have to keep an eye on bombers though, fiddling with their explosion velocity bonus may be appropriate. Alternatively, fiddling with the Raven itself will help its survivability. Adding more PG/CPU will help it fit torps and MWD; moving a lowslot to medslot in addition will beef it up a bit.
Sunviking
Doomheim
#91 - 2012-04-18 17:43:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Sunviking
Gypsio III wrote:
Sunviking wrote:
Explosion Radius also needs to be looked at, as does Explosion Velocity. I would say that raw damage is good enough already

As for the 'do stealth bombers need more range' question you ask, do you see Battleship-sized Turrets getting an Optimal Range AND a Falloff bonus? No. The very fact that Slealth Bombers do have a Velocity and a Flight Time bonus kind of implies that Torpedoes are under-ranged. I say increase Torpedo range by 50%, and scrap the Flight Time bonus that Stealth Bombers currently get.


Finally we're getting somewhere. However..

Invoking BS turrets as justification is not useful, as missiles are not turrets, and bombers aren't BS, they're used in different fashions and environments. This is just more pretty patterns, just more copypasta of stats from unrelated ships

What problem are you trying to solve? By giving the Raven more torp range, do you want it to be used in a kiting role more? Do you tend to fly nano-Ravens much? I think they're rare, the preferred Raven style is massive damage application to tackled targets, I think you'd be better off focusing on the Raven's good points than trying to make it better at something that it's really bad at. More range would also help with Scorch-style damage projection, but current torp range and damage already compares favourably with blasters, while 50% extra range hardly helps the Typhoon at all and still doesn't allow the Raven to compete with Scorch.

So I'm having difficulty in understanding what you're trying to achieve by giving torps more range in a PVP context. I would advise you to focus on what the Raven is good at - close-up damage application, just like the Megathron - and improve it there, in terms of its ease of damage application or its survivability at those close ranges.

For damage application, torps currently have an explosion radius of 450 m. T1 BS sigs below 450 m, requiring a painter, Crash or other sig effect, are:

Domi 420
Megathron 400
Apoc 400
Geddon 370
Tempest 340 m
Typhoon 320

The other six BS have sigs over 450 m. There's a very reasonable argument to help out the Raven in its primary anti-BS role by cutting explosion radius to 400 m. Have to keep an eye on bombers though, fiddling with their explosion velocity bonus may be appropriate. Alternatively, fiddling with the Raven itself will help its survivability. Adding more PG/CPU will help it fit torps and MWD; moving a lowslot to medslot in addition will beef it up a bit.


The role of Caldari ships is actually meant as long-range platforms, not short-range. Long-range is what Caldari are best at, they can do Short-range combat as well, but the Khanid missile boats are best at that. That is why so many of the Caldari missile and hybrid boats have range bonuses. So you saying that the Raven is best used at close-range damage application is kind of wrong. It's possible, but not what Caldari ships are good or best at. If the Raven is better at close-range than long-range, then that is yet another indication that Torpedoes are under-ranged.
Kattshiro
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#92 - 2012-04-18 17:58:58 UTC
Hmm most everyone uses tracking comps or enhancers with turret boats...It's a given that you fit them. But people dont seem to do this as much with missiles boats. (TP) why not? That or add rigs that aid in explosion...rather they seem to add ROF more or dont add any.

So are missiles all that ****** up or just that we dont have as many mods to enhance them or even add the mods we do have?
Sunviking
Doomheim
#93 - 2012-04-18 18:00:50 UTC
Kattshiro wrote:
Hmm most everyone uses tracking comps or enhancers with turret boats...It's a given that you fit them. But people dont seem to do this as much with missiles boats. (TP) why not? That or add rigs that aid in explosion...rather they seem to add ROF more or dont add any.

So are missiles all that ****** up or just that we dont have as many mods to enhance them or even add the mods we do have?


You've made a good point, one which I will add to the list. We are lacking modules for missiles.
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#94 - 2012-04-18 18:56:42 UTC
Target painters do exist, but they effect only precision, not missile velocity. Generally, this has been regarded as part of the balance of there be no anti-missile ewar. However, with CCP now considering the latter, they should simultaneously introduce a lowslot missile velocity/precision enhancer. That would also be a somewhat more refined way of addressing concerns about delayed damage in larger gangs without a crude blanket velocity boost.

Re. Caldari being long-ranged. Hmm, not exactly. For the rail platforms, yes - range bonuses to the longest range weapon. But for missiles, it's not nearly so clear cut. Notice that almost no Caldari missile boat has bonuses to guided missiles only. The trend is more for kinetic damage bonuses for both short- and long-range missiles, and when exceptions (Raven, Rook) do exist, their ROF bonuses still apply to both LR and SR missiles. Khanid, as you say, gets true rainbow damage but for short-range only.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#95 - 2012-04-18 20:17:22 UTC
Sunviking wrote:

UPDATE: I've started making a list of all the issues players are finding with Missiles below and will keep it updated for all.
Current Issues
1. Range of Torpedoes compared to HAMs and Rockets (Torps currently have no more range over HAMs, that is just wrong)
2. Uselessness of Cruise Missiles in PvP (maybe shift damage to more Alpha to compensate?)
3. Fitting Requirements of Light Missile Launchers (too high)
4. DPS of Javelin HAMs (too low)
5. Explosion Velocity of missiles too low in general (too easily speed-tanked)
6. Inflight missile volley damage wasted where target dies before target reached.
7. Tech2 Precision Ammunition. All-round they are just not effective, as they can still be speed-tanked by most ships, and are inferior in most ways to Faction Missiles.
8. Tech2 Missile penalties i.e. Signature radius and Ship Velocity.
9. Only 1 missile-specific module, Ballstic Control System, which is a damage mod. There are no missile equivalents of Tracking Computers or Tracking Enhancers. Webbers and Target Painters aid both Turrets and Launchers.


I'm not aware of players finding these as issues but anyway:

1) Its not wrong. Its fine.
2) Not every module needs to work in pvp.
3) What ship is this an issue for?
4) Too low for what? But yeah perhaps give them a buff. Maybe take away the drawbacks to using tech 2 missiles see your 8 below.
5) Use webs.
6) So what? Dont run around in a blob and your missiles will have time to hit before the target blows up.
7) I agree the tech 2 precision missiles are bad. But they better than t1 and are allot cheaper than faction missiles. If precision missiles are buffed when would you use faction?
8) Yeah I agree they are pretty bad It makes no sense.
9) Caldari have the most missile boats and they have few low slots to spare anyway. Its not like every weapon systems needs to be set up with equivalant modules.




Drake is pretty much the best tier 2 bc. Hookbill is the best faction frigate. The 2 missile afs are decent. Rockets are generally the best thing to put in an empty slot that you can't fit a bonused turret in. Caracal is a good cruiser.

Its unclear that there is any real issue that missiles in general need a buff. Its more that some of the tech 2 missiles could use some tweaking and maybe torps could be tweaked. But really it would be more the ships that use torps not the torps themselves. If they are the best for shooting stationary structures then I do not know they need to be the best at that and other pvp tasks as well.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Kattshiro
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#96 - 2012-04-18 21:02:09 UTC
^
Right but seeing as there are comps, enhancers, and damage/rof mods. Which can be fit in lows, and meds AND they impact Optimal, falloff, tracking speed, rof, and damage... Why dont missiles have similar mods for lows, and meds as well that help certain missile factors? There are TP's, but those aren't missile only mods like the rest.
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse
#97 - 2012-04-18 23:41:25 UTC
Kattshiro wrote:
^
Right but seeing as there are comps, enhancers, and damage/rof mods. Which can be fit in lows, and meds AND they impact Optimal, falloff, tracking speed, rof, and damage... Why dont missiles have similar mods for lows, and meds as well that help certain missile factors? There are TP's, but those aren't missile only mods like the rest.


Even Drones have enhancement modules.

R.I.P. Vile Rat
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#98 - 2012-04-19 00:03:01 UTC
Kattshiro wrote:
^
Right but seeing as there are comps, enhancers, and damage/rof mods. Which can be fit in lows, and meds AND they impact Optimal, falloff, tracking speed, rof, and damage... Why dont missiles have similar mods for lows, and meds as well that help certain missile factors? There are TP's, but those aren't missile only mods like the rest.


Missiles don't have fallll off optimals and tracking so they don't have mods that effect that. Missiles have damage and rof and a mod that effects that.

You have rigs that help other aspects of missile damage.

Look at how much damage hams with faction ammo do on a webbed ab frigate orbitting at 500 compared to to say a myrm with Med. Blasters a.nd faction ammo. The blasters need the tracking mod. Missiles don't. Unless you just want them to blap small ships.

Your just posting in the abstract and saying if guns have this sort of mods then missiles need it too.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Kattshiro
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#99 - 2012-04-19 02:05:29 UTC
No not really. Just one example of missiles doing really well or guns doing really well isn't a justification. Rather an examination of why not give more options. We mention certain missiles and certain boats...but why mod the system its self? Mods could be fit to ships to make up for deficiencies. Just like we add more mods to guns or scripts on certain turret boats and not others.

Rigs aren't enough because there are stricter fitting issues or certain ships only have 2 spots. Why do we have mods, and why are we getting new ones? Adds variety, and new tactics. This would be the same. Especially with talk of making TD's work on missile boats as well. (Range, and explosion Velocity).

So no it's not guns have mods why not missiles. It's why should missiles not have mods when we have them for every system offensive or defensive...prop, ECM, drones (getting new ones for drones btw), mining... (Fucks sake look how many are for armor!)

So aside from the "You'll make them OP" argument... (Which can be used for any argument...) Why do missiles not have mods other than ROF?
Riddick Liddell
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2012-04-19 02:24:26 UTC
We knew missiles were obselete when they put hybrid on the Naga. I came in 2011. I don't even have the Missile category on my skill sheet. I can use a Drake and do, to salvage.