These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tanaka Sekigahara
United Space Marine Corp
#101 - 2012-04-19 03:00:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanaka Sekigahara
Rath Kelbore wrote:
Traejun DiSanctis wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
Traejun DiSanctis wrote:
WolfeReign wrote:
you do NOT always apply full damage with missiles.


Fair enough. I misspoke. Full damage, minus defensive bonuses (speed/transversal being one of them).

Really, I mean there's no such thing as "glancing blows" with missiles. That's all.

I think 4 damage out of a possible 100 would be glancing.


But it's not the same kind of mechanic.


Let me help you make your point if I may.

Missiles always do SOME damage at least where as turrets can miss completely.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone in this thread just attempting to help this guy out :P


Thus, your point is that, if they do SOME damage any and all other imbalances are acceptable/negligible? That seems to be what your getting at. I would posit that's a ridiculous supposition on your part.
Tanaka Sekigahara
United Space Marine Corp
#102 - 2012-04-19 03:04:40 UTC
Super Chair wrote:
If they're gonna make TDs work against missiles they need to fix torps (add range, improve explosion velocty), and to some extent HAMs. Oh and remove these penalties from javelin ammo. Straight
I'm sorry, where was it mentioned tracking disruptors are going to work against missiles??I missed that.
Spc One
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#103 - 2012-04-19 03:24:10 UTC
Riddick Liddell wrote:
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.

Truth.
Spc One
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#104 - 2012-04-19 03:28:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Spc One
Tanaka Sekigahara wrote:
Super Chair wrote:
If they're gonna make TDs work against missiles they need to fix torps (add range, improve explosion velocty), and to some extent HAMs. Oh and remove these penalties from javelin ammo. Straight
I'm sorry, where was it mentioned tracking disruptors are going to work against missiles??I missed that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VcnkUaUCPA&t=36m39s&hd=1

You have to know that turrets are 100% better than missiles because turrets do instant damage, missiles have to travel to target first.
So by "nerfing" them with tracking disruptor will make them worst in game weapon.
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#105 - 2012-04-19 07:36:48 UTC
The problem with threads like this is that they get polluted by idiot carebears.
Sunviking
Doomheim
#106 - 2012-04-19 07:48:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Sunviking
Gypsio III wrote:
The problem with threads like this is that they get polluted by idiot carebears.


The real problem with Threads like this, is that people like You try and hijack them and/or Troll them with comments like that.

Can we keep to the discussion please.
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#107 - 2012-04-19 09:27:40 UTC
Sunviking wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
The problem with threads like this is that they get polluted by idiot carebears.


The real problem with Threads like this, is that people like You try and hijack them and/or Troll them with comments like that.

Can we keep to the discussion please.


Actually I wasn't referring to you, while you've made some silly mistakes in your posts you've actually been trying to construct rational arguments, although obviously this hasn't been very successful when it's come to torp range.

I'm referring to the fools who whinge about wanting a Cruise Naga (which would have been hilariously bad), people criticising painters because they're not missile-exclusive and people saying that missiles are bad then immediately stating that they have no SP in missiles. Sad
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#108 - 2012-04-19 13:33:28 UTC
Kattshiro wrote:
....
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?


Why not allow players to design their own mods to effect every aspect of every ship? We can make it so all the ships are balanced and none are over powered. The reason we don't do that is because then experience in the game will not count for as much.

Because there has to be some balance between what you can expect from a ship and what can surprise you about a ship. If every ship can be modified to handle every situation just as well as every other ship then knowledge of ship types will not benefit the wiser players. Every fight becomes a game of chance.

I think the balance between being able to surprise your opponent and making the game a complete crap shoot is pretty good as is. Right now you can have some surprises with say a drake. You can have hams fit, or you can even hams and dual webs. But its not like every ship should be like a t3 that you can adjust everything.

Games which do not benefit wiser players and a basically just games of chance are essentially dumbed down. Eve pvp will become like bingo or even more like rock paper scissors.

If there is a specific problem as to why missile ships are not being used then ok. But just saying these other systems have mods to adjust stats, or lets make more mods to adjust every stat in the game for variety sake, is not really a good argument.

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
#109 - 2012-04-19 13:45:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Kattshiro
Actually I'll just plainly disagree. Variety is a good thing because it causes tactics to change. Sound wave in a interview at fanfest states "If we add something to the game and everyone complains because now they have to change fits or tactics then I think we've done a good thing."

Without variety there is no guessing it's just all cookie cutter, and game play stagnates. (Everyone is going to use the same thing) Options are always a good thing.

Giving missile mods will not change missile boats into some amorphous blop in which they're all the same, just like turret mods don't to turret ships.

I'm not seeing as you say a "surprise my drake is HAM fit!" v. standard HML is going to take away surprise because well it would add more by the shear factor that there are now more options to be had.


Quote:
Games which do not benefit wiser players and a basically just games of chance are essentially dumbed down. Eve pvp will become like bingo or even more like rock paper scissors.


Once again this doesn't make sense or you're not backing up your argument very well that more mods == dumber game play. Also combat in eve is already a dice roll with player actions helping to narrow negative dice rolls (missing glancing shots, but given the random component in the formula someone with perfect skills in a scenario can still have a poor shot due to this.)
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#110 - 2012-04-19 14:08:08 UTC
Spc One wrote:
Tanaka Sekigahara wrote:
Super Chair wrote:
If they're gonna make TDs work against missiles they need to fix torps (add range, improve explosion velocty), and to some extent HAMs. Oh and remove these penalties from javelin ammo. Straight
I'm sorry, where was it mentioned tracking disruptors are going to work against missiles??I missed that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VcnkUaUCPA&t=36m39s&hd=1

You have to know that turrets are 100% better than missiles because turrets do instant damage, missiles have to travel to target first.
So by "nerfing" them with tracking disruptor will make them worst in game weapon.




Come back with this argument when you can use at least 2 other T2 weapon types.
You'll figure out quite quick missiles are dam fine for the job they're intended to do, HM's have a stupid flight time with witch you can snipe at 150km+ with a Cerberus -no other ship for the same purpose in the same class can do this for the same amount of dmg

If there's something I can safely say is that indeed HM's are in need of some flight time nerf (nothing else)
Rockets HAM's and Torps maybe 2 sec more flight time wouldn't hurt the game at all but would bring more variety (ships)
Cruise missiles need to loose some of the flight time and win some explosion velocity.

These are some little annoyances for specific uses but overall missiles are really good and don't start complaining about missiles mods, those are LOW SLOTS not mid ones. Think about Amarr/Gallente (Minmatar ar OP so forget those)
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#111 - 2012-04-19 15:26:15 UTC
Kattshiro wrote:
Actually I'll just plainly disagree. Variety is a good thing because it causes tactics to change. Sound wave in a interview at fanfest states "If we add something to the game and everyone complains because now they have to change fits or tactics then I think we've done a good thing."

Without variety there is no guessing it's just all cookie cutter, and game play stagnates. (Everyone is going to use the same thing) Options are always a good thing.

Giving missile mods will not change missile boats into some amorphous blop in which they're all the same, just like turret mods don't to turret ships.

I'm not seeing as you say a "surprise my drake is HAM fit!" v. standard HML is going to take away surprise because well it would add more by the shear factor that there are now more options to be had.


Quote:
Games which do not benefit wiser players and a basically just games of chance are essentially dumbed down. Eve pvp will become like bingo or even more like rock paper scissors.


Once again this doesn't make sense or you're not backing up your argument very well that more mods == dumber game play. Also combat in eve is already a dice roll with player actions helping to narrow negative dice rolls (missing glancing shots, but given the random component in the formula someone with perfect skills in a scenario can still have a poor shot due to this.)



I'm not being clear and it is sort of a subtle point. But maybe answer my question about allowing all sorts of variations in modules that can adjust every statistic. That is why don't they allow manufacturers of ships and mods to design them such that they can modify the stats on everything that is a stat. That would increase variation wouldn't it? Do you know why that would be bad for the game?

Knowing what ship(s) you are fighting currently gives you a decent amount of information which you can use to actually form a decent plan. For example if you see two drakes are 70 km off you know you can likely engage a ship that is closer so long as you pull it outside 70 k from the drakes. Your knowledge of the game helps you in that encounter and produces a fight.

If drakes all of a sudden get mods that help their range well your knowledge of drakes becomes less relevant. The lines become blurred in a way were the only thing you can rely on as to whether or not you should take a fight is - whether you have a bigger group.

It is a balance. I am not saying every ship should be a cookie cutter and right now they are not. But I am saying that people should be able to learn about the game from experience and it shouldn't be that for the sake of variety in the abstract you never can get an educated guess of the limits of the ships in the game.

As far as soundwave saying we need to shake things up that is ok - and it is a seperate issue. You can do that by just changing the stats of the modules that already exist. So long as they do that with some balance Im ok with that as well. Personally I was getting tired of having to update eft every month and refigure out ships. Give me some time to actually fly the ships I do figure out before the game changes again. But anyway that is a seperate issue because he can do that by changing existing modules.

But when we *add* modules that allow ships to overcome inherent weaknesses they have, then experienced players will not benefit from their knowledge of those weakeness as much. Hence tactics based on wisdom will be less important and replaced with just numbers of ships in fleet.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Riddick Liddell
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#112 - 2012-04-19 16:01:36 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Sunviking wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
The problem with threads like this is that they get polluted by idiot carebears.


The real problem with Threads like this, is that people like You try and hijack them and/or Troll them with comments like that.

Can we keep to the discussion please.


Actually I wasn't referring to you, while you've made some silly mistakes in your posts you've actually been trying to construct rational arguments, although obviously this hasn't been very successful when it's come to torp range.

I'm referring to the fools who whinge about wanting a Cruise Naga (which would have been hilariously bad), people criticising painters because they're not missile-exclusive and people saying that missiles are bad then immediately stating that they have no SP in missiles. Sad


I think he was calling on me.

It doesn't mean I am wrong. It just means he can't find an effective way to debunk me.
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#113 - 2012-04-19 16:23:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
Gypsio III wrote:


1. Torps don't need more range. If they need anything, then cutting explosion radius down to 400-425 m would be it. But I think the real problem isn't with torps, it's with the Raven - it needs a bit more fittings and a lowslot moved to a medslot, it doesn't really have the tank it needs to survive as a close-range anti-BS/BC gank platform.

2. Cruise has no role. It will still have no role even with more alpha. There are no targets worth shooting with Cruise (over another weapon system) and there is no effective Cruise platform. F*** knows how you solve all this.


1. I totally agree

2. Perhaps making cruise missiles the masters of long range alpha? Sure the mael-pilots will **** and moan, but they woudl still have great alpha, but combined with instant damage.

Another way would perhaps being only being redboxed when shot at by missiles when they actually hit. But that would require messing with other stuff I don't see CCP very willing to do. It would certainly make missiles more interesting. I hate how every balancing 'solution' of CCP just turns missiles more and more into turrets.

Sure, plenty of people got CONCORDOKKEND when those crazy torpedos still did AoE damage, but at least they were different, unique and awesome.

Edit: ok we have bombs now ofcourse, but CCP should just remove the idiot-protection and allow those in empire.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!

Lord Dravius
Doomheim
#114 - 2012-04-19 17:01:05 UTC
Sunviking wrote:
And many of us know that Light Missile launchers need to have their fitting requirements looked at.

We don't know that for sure. The frigates are going to be rebalanced and they may get more power grid and CPU. They do need looked at if the frigates aren't getting a PG/CPU buff though.
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#115 - 2012-04-19 17:15:07 UTC
Tobiaz wrote:

2. Perhaps making cruise missiles the masters of long range alpha? Sure the mael-pilots will **** and moan, but they woudl still have great alpha, but combined with instant damage.


Unfortunately I think it's much more complicated than that. Cruise is a multifaceted problem involving the 150 km soft range cap, the need for smaller gangs to fly more mobile ships firing more flexible ammo (HMs) and the relative rarity of targets for which Cruise is appropriate. More alpha is nice, but unless it's silly alpha it won't override all the other drawbacks. There's almost no environment where Cruise is useful today, and changing that requires changing more than Cruise.
Sunviking
Doomheim
#116 - 2012-04-19 19:43:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Sunviking
Gypsio III wrote:
Sunviking wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
The problem with threads like this is that they get polluted by idiot carebears.


The real problem with Threads like this, is that people like You try and hijack them and/or Troll them with comments like that.

Can we keep to the discussion please.


Actually I wasn't referring to you, while you've made some silly mistakes in your posts you've actually been trying to construct rational arguments, although obviously this hasn't been very successful when it's come to torp range.

I'm referring to the fools who whinge about wanting a Cruise Naga (which would have been hilariously bad), people criticising painters because they're not missile-exclusive and people saying that missiles are bad then immediately stating that they have no SP in missiles. Sad


Fine - but I don't believe I have made any silly mistakes in my posts, so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on certain points! Big smile
Sunviking
Doomheim
#117 - 2012-04-19 19:45:00 UTC
Lord Dravius wrote:
Sunviking wrote:
And many of us know that Light Missile launchers need to have their fitting requirements looked at.

We don't know that for sure. The frigates are going to be rebalanced and they may get more power grid and CPU. They do need looked at if the frigates aren't getting a PG/CPU buff though.


Agreed - I don't really care how it is done, but Light Missile Launchers are a pain to fit onto a frigate at the moment. So whether it is Powergrid/CPU buff or lower fitting needs for the modules themselves, I'm not bothered.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#118 - 2012-04-19 19:53:31 UTC
Spc One wrote:
Riddick Liddell wrote:
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.

Truth.


Not quite. Remember the naga originally had both torp and rail bonus on the sisi. They took it off because myself and others were able to severely overpower torp nagas by missile stacking. Fitted for flight time rigs and rate of fire, we could stack the torps pretty easily, We would burn in fast volley of torps, a second volley of torps almost right on top of the first, and then they all hit. Essentially 4 ships hitting like 8. orbit to finish off, but would get double the initial alpha of any of the other ones, and of course once in, the missile time no longer matters. They were overpowered, and on top of that the torp naga could run battleship afterburner, auto repeat off, was turn and burn since you didn't care about tracking

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Sunviking
Doomheim
#119 - 2012-04-20 13:12:01 UTC
Markus Reese wrote:
Spc One wrote:
Riddick Liddell wrote:
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.

Truth.


Not quite. Remember the naga originally had both torp and rail bonus on the sisi. They took it off because myself and others were able to severely overpower torp nagas by missile stacking. Fitted for flight time rigs and rate of fire, we could stack the torps pretty easily, We would burn in fast volley of torps, a second volley of torps almost right on top of the first, and then they all hit. Essentially 4 ships hitting like 8. orbit to finish off, but would get double the initial alpha of any of the other ones, and of course once in, the missile time no longer matters. They were overpowered, and on top of that the torp naga could run battleship afterburner, auto repeat off, was turn and burn since you didn't care about tracking


I suspect another reason CCP dropped Missiles from the Naga before Crucible was released, was because they realised they shouldn't create any more missile boats until they rebalanced Missiles. It might even have been said somewhere too, although I can't quite remember.
Ion Breeze
Redshift Syndicate
#120 - 2012-04-21 16:18:45 UTC
Dam, reading most of this is depressing.

I wonder howerver, if the new missile features are just all cosmetics....
I mean technically we have launchers now that track targets (save BS and above launchers, they look like silos)
So I wonder if its an missile overhaul in game mechanics as well as cosmetics...