These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#121 - 2012-04-21 22:52:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Markus Reese
Ion Breeze wrote:
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...


Hopefully what myself and others have been asking for will happen. Essentially double velocity, half duration or something similar. This will keep effective range, but make missiles more fun and feasable in a pvp setting.

On that note, it of course cannot be confirmed, and gauging ranges on videos is difficult, but from what can be seen in the missile demo videos, variant on what missiles were used, is they appear to me to move faster :s

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Sunviking
Doomheim
#122 - 2012-04-26 11:35:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Sunviking
UPDATE: CCP has hinted that they are looking into Missile balancing alongside other modules.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1174422#post1174422
Sunviking
Doomheim
#123 - 2012-04-29 14:00:08 UTC
UPDATE: Had a quick chat with CCP Guard on Friday night at the London Meet in Loose Cannon.

He said he wasn't aware of any Missile Balancing on the horizon. Shocked

He said he had heard that some people at CCP wanted to look at it, but that he wasn;t aware of anything going on... Shocked

Can we have some clarification please? This kind of goes against what was hinted at in my link above.
Thomas Kreshant
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#124 - 2012-04-29 14:10:33 UTC
How does it go against it?

CCP Ytterbium said they need to rebalance lots of things

CCP Ytterbium wrote:
changes to put that in a single release - not only ships need be looked into, but some modules / weapon systems need rebalancing as well (ex: active versus passive tanking, missiles...)

Hope that helps Blink


And Guard said he heard people at CCP wanted to but wasn't aware of anything going on.

Ytterbium didn't say and yes I'm working on missiles this week, month or even year but just included them in things that need to be looked into at some point.
Sunviking
Doomheim
#125 - 2012-04-30 16:20:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Sunviking
I suppose I would just like a consistent answer from a Dev on this subject as soon as possible. Are they going to be looked at or not? Hybrids got looked at, Projectiles got looked at.

Battleship-class Missiles need a serious look at, as has been stated on many threads now, as evidenced by the pitifully low value in the market of Meta 4 'Arbalest' Cruise and Torpedo Launchers. Virtually nobody uses them for PvP, because they are terrible for PvP.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#126 - 2012-04-30 16:36:09 UTC
Sunviking wrote:
I suppose I would just like a consistent answer from a Dev on this subject as soon as possible. Are they going to be looked at or not? Hybrids got looked at, Projectiles got looked at.

Battleship-class Missiles need a serious look at, as has been stated on many threads now, as evidenced by the pitifully low value in the market of Meta 4 'Arbalest' Cruise and Torpedo Launchers. Virtually nobody uses them for PvP, because they are terrible for PvP.



Cruise launchers aren't used for pvp that is true but the arbalest torps are used on sbs quite a bit.

Also the heavy missiles and launchers are probably one of the most sold weapons and ammo items in the game. Rockets work pretty well too.

Not many are seeing much of an issue here.

Making missiles more like guns is not a bad idea IMO.



Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#127 - 2012-04-30 16:42:38 UTC
Sunviking wrote:
UPDATE: Had a quick chat with CCP Guard on Friday night at the London Meet in Loose Cannon.

He said he wasn't aware of any Missile Balancing on the horizon. Shocked

He said he had heard that some people at CCP wanted to look at it, but that he wasn;t aware of anything going on... Shocked

Can we have some clarification please? This kind of goes against what was hinted at in my link above.


I really don't think that Ytterbium's idea of missile tweaks will be even remotely the same as your desired changes. Particularly the part where you want the explosion velocity of HMs to be increased.
Sunviking
Doomheim
#128 - 2012-04-30 16:51:50 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Sunviking wrote:
UPDATE: Had a quick chat with CCP Guard on Friday night at the London Meet in Loose Cannon.

He said he wasn't aware of any Missile Balancing on the horizon. Shocked

He said he had heard that some people at CCP wanted to look at it, but that he wasn;t aware of anything going on... Shocked

Can we have some clarification please? This kind of goes against what was hinted at in my link above.


I really don't think that Ytterbium's idea of missile tweaks will be even remotely the same as your desired changes. Particularly the part where you want the explosion velocity of HMs to be increased.


You're probably correct, right now Heavies and HAMs are the most balanced of all the Missiles. I wouldn't want to see explosion velocity for those increased. I ought to update the OP.

As an aside, there are alot of other people writing in other threads complaining about Battleship-class missiles.
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#129 - 2012-04-30 16:59:55 UTC
I'd say that general consensus is that rockets are basically fine too now.

Cruise is hopeless, no argument here at all. But fixing it will not be easy, there are fundamental game mechanics standing in the way.

Torps are also complicated, being very much tied up with the Raven. I still don't see how your idea of more range particularly helps a torp Raven. You could do something interesting with HBT rigs to create a med-range torp Raven, but what's the point? Fix the torp Raven by making it better at what it's used for - damage application at close ranges to BS and BCs. Raven fitting/survivability and torp explosion radius are the subjects here.
Sunviking
Doomheim
#130 - 2012-04-30 17:10:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Sunviking
Gypsio III wrote:
I'd say that general consensus is that rockets are basically fine too now.

Cruise is hopeless, no argument here at all. But fixing it will not be easy, there are fundamental game mechanics standing in the way.

Torps are also complicated, being very much tied up with the Raven. I still don't see how your idea of more range particularly helps a torp Raven. You could do something interesting with HBT rigs to create a med-range torp Raven, but what's the point? Fix the torp Raven by making it better at what it's used for - damage application at close ranges to BS and BCs. Raven fitting/survivability and torp explosion radius are the subjects here.


Increased Torp Range helps the non-missile velocity bonuses ships - it would make ships like the SNI actually be able to use Torpedoes in PvE and PvP. The Turret-based battleships dont need range bonuses to make effective use of their Large-calibre guns with short-range ammo, but the SNI is useless when fitted with Torpedoes. Your effective range on Tech2 Rage Torps is about 15km, which may not sound that bad at first, but when you take into account flight time, it seems to take forever to actually hit the target with your first volley, by which every other short raneg Large turret has fired its second volley.

Yes, Explosion Radius is an issue with Torpedoes, but not as big as you would think. Base Torp exp rad is 450metres, the equivalent Turret signature resolution is 400metres, so you can only really reduce torp exp rad down to 400metres before they start to become overpowered, in my opinion. Tech 2 exp rad is 650 metres, which is more of a problem, but its hard to justify it being reduced down past 550metres. It's a high damage torpedo after all.
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#131 - 2012-04-30 17:19:34 UTC
Sunviking wrote:
I suppose I would just like a consistent answer from a Dev on this subject as soon as possible. Are they going to be looked at or not? Hybrids got looked at, Projectiles got looked at.

Battleship-class Missiles need a serious look at, as has been stated on many threads now, as evidenced by the pitifully low value in the market of Meta 4 'Arbalest' Cruise and Torpedo Launchers. Virtually nobody uses them for PvP, because they are terrible for PvP.


All large Meta 4 are at their reproc value except 1400mm Arti and Auto's. Cruise are by far at the bottom of the barrel for sure. In part due to the mineral content in them, in part because they just plain suck.

Large Neutron T2: sell at4.5 mill, Meta 4: sell at 2.4, 50% of T2
Large Auto T2: Sell at 4.14, Meta 4: Sell at 4.9 around 120% of T2.

Large Beam Tach T2 at 4.5 with Meta 4 at 1.2 or 25% of T2.
Large Pulse T2 at 1.9 with Meta 4 at 1.1 or 60% of T2.

Large 1400 T2 Arti 4.8 with Meta 4 at 5.5 or 140% of T2
Large 800 auto at 4.2 with Meta 4 at 2.6 or 60% of t2.

T2 Cruise sell at 1.7 where Meta 4 stands at 110K on a good day. 5% of T2 price.
T2 Torp at 2.7 with Meta 4 at 600K or just under 25% of the T2 model.

Meta 4 are the fleet standard when you would rather use faction ammo. In all cases except Arti and rails, it's far and away cheaper to fit meta 4.
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#132 - 2012-04-30 17:26:52 UTC
There's nothing the matter with torp range on a SNI or Typhoon, I use these ships in small scale fights! I also use a torp Rattler quite frequently, and the torp range bonus is basically unnecessary (I generally prefer the Rattler because its sentries and high sensor strength offer a way of combating ECM). I cannot understand your obsession with wanting another ~10 km range, most of the time in small fights you'll be operating inside web range anyway, to stop your victim trying to get away!

Lesser range on Rage is particularly irrelevant. Rage torps' targets are generally capitals or structures, which don't tend to move much. If you have time to reload from CN, then you have time to MWD closer.
Nomistrav
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#133 - 2012-04-30 17:58:24 UTC
Ah yes, give people -more- incentive to fly Caldari; not like Drakes aren't the most used ship in the game.

I'll just repeat what everyone else said as to maybe get the point across.


  • Never miss.


  • -ALWAYS- in the optimal range with no turn over for close range. If your max range is 80km, I will always be taking damage despite being 50m away from you and orbiting.


  • Can select damage type; unlike Lasers/Hybrids.


  • No Cap Usage what-so-ever.


  • F.O.F Missiles, while not often used, can still fire while jammed; unlike -any- turret.


  • Defender missiles (obvious troll here) to shoot down other missiles from other cookie-cutter fits.


Swear people are never happy.


"As long as space endures,

as long as sentient beings exist,

until then, may I too remain

and dispel the miseries of the world."

~ Vremaja Idama