These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

I am not crazy am i? (TD arguments inside as OT debate)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Exploited Engineer
Creatively Applied Violence Inc.
#41 - 2012-06-04 10:02:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Exploited Engineer
Maeltstome wrote:
Since the nano nerf, missile will almost alwayus do 100% damage unless its an MWD frigate (and even then a FAST one).


Problem in bold by me.

MWDs inflate your sig by about the same ratio that they increase your speed. Multiplying your speed by five while multiplying your sig radius by five provides exactly zero missile damage mitigation (or even increases missile damage, as your sig radius might now be higher than the missiles explosion radius, allowing the missile to actually hit for full damage).

You don't know how missile damage works and therefore don't know how to avoid it. Don't blame that on the missiles.

Maeltstome wrote:
Heavily missile do full damage against frigs up to about 900 m/s


No they don't. Unless the frigate is running a MWD instead of an AB.

In fact, the explosion radius of heavy missiles is large enough that they'll have a hard time hitting a frigate that's sitting still for full damage without either the frig having a hugely inflated sig radius (MSEs/shield rigs) or the ship fiting the missile is packed with rigor rigs.

If you want to avoid missile damage in your frig, first thing you need to do is turn off that MWD. It makes you take more damage from missiles, not less!

Heavy missiles have explosion velocities of ~90 m/s and an explosion radius of 125m (112m for precision). Even if you manage to double the former and halve the latter with rigs, skills and implants, you're still looking at something that never hits a target with less than 60m of sig radius for full damage, and will do less and less damage to small targets that move faster than ~200m/s.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#42 - 2012-06-04 10:34:23 UTC
TD working on missiles is such a fail idea it's not even funny....

The obviously correct choice would be to buff defenders to a point where they are actually viable...
Noisrevbus
#43 - 2012-06-04 14:45:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Vilnius Zar wrote:
1 yup that can (depending on scenario) but if you meant that you should have said that, You didn't. In you eagerness to use big words you forgot to convey your actual point because "Positive transversal" means nothing, what you meant was the ability to influence tracking and in that regard, without any more explanation, the most logical point is about TE/TC positively affecting turret performance which makes no difference if you give missiles that same option, as I stated earlier. Being able through navigation to affect tracking can't be construed from what you wrote, unless you know what you meant beforehand which kinda defeats the whole thing of trying to get your point across


All i hear is semantics, semantics. Are you going to adress the argument or keep complaining about my language?

Turrets have an accuracy that is relative based on transversal. Good piloting can turn transveral to null, any sensible piloting will diminish it. That's one of the reasons TD affect them. That's also one of the reasons why TD would affect missiles far more, and as such is a bad mechanic to apply to the missiles equation.

Missiles can be beaten by improving your sig-speed relative, so in essence, simply by moving your ship. Turrets can not be beaten in the same manner if your opponent also move his ship accordingly. Hence you can use a TD to affect the outcome of his movement.

Quote:
2 Giving missiles a small percentage better expl. radius like 5% for TE and 15% for scripted TC (numbers open to discussion ofcourse) is not going to make a huge difference but it does help while giving missiles more range in the process which is what unguided missiles desperately need. Just because TC gets scripted tracking of 30% doesn't mean the missile variant should get the exact same numbers, balance and all that and if a Raven wants to use all his tank/tackle slots for that new mod then so be it, then they might actually get used in pvp some time. (killing frigates is ofcourse an amazing role for a BS and there's no other BS that can do that either)


Once again, you don't seem to grasp what an accuracy increase do in a system that always do damage and is unaffected by things like transversal. The fact remain that even tiny increments of explosion velocity will quickly turn any missile ship into a veritable frigate-killer, simply because of how the equation work and how it's not built to consider TE.

Do you suggest we both introduce TE and change the missile equation to make room for missiles on TD?

Should we introduce transversal to missiles as well?

Another thing we should consider is that on many occassions missile users still favour HML over other missiles because of it's damage-accuracy relative. Why would you further want to hamper smaller missiles by introducing TE? Should we additionally balance the accuracy of all missiles into better scales, because you want to shoehorn missile TD and TE?

It's alot of post-work on account of one stupid change. Plus, that post-work will never be done so the system will remain broken. I think we both know that the proposed changes are proposed with any balancing factors in mind - just another fruitless attempt at dealing with Drakeblobs, because they like you belive the problem lie in the missiles - not the blob.

Quote:

3 they do cancel out, if something affects both "sides" (turrets and missiles) you can't use that as a reason why missiles specifically have issues with them, because it affects turrets users in the exact same way. Not sure why this is difficult to understand tbh


Not once in our series of posts have i claimed missiles "have issues".

Why would i use TD specificly to deal with ships at distance if i had Damps? I would never stack both sets of modules on top of you to reap a double bonus. No stacking, no 2+1. More options do still not equate to better options. That there are more ships shooting turrets than missiles (and that a missile ship thus can expect to see a larger variety of turret ships) does not make missiles worse or in any way in need of stupid changes.

That leaves accuracy, and as stated, missiles do not take transversal into account, have no accuracy modules and are not chance-based. Those are the reasons, the same ones you've tried to weasel yourself out of adressing for the past 3-4 posts now, while complaining about difficult words.

As per question two, why should we introduce both a TD and TE for Missiles?
(by your logic they'd cancel each other out anyway, so wouldn't it be a waste of time and effort?) P

Quote:
4 have a scrammed drake shoot an AB frigate that orbits him at 500m, now have a scrammed turret BC shoot that same frigate at that same 500m orbit. Tell me how the Drake has it more difficult than the turret BC. Two different mechanics, two different pros and cons but in the end there's really not that much difference in effectiveness. Just because they're not the same doesn't mean it's not on par


Why is the pilot in your drummed up example an idiot who let an AB frig both approach, tackle and orbit him before he reacts?

If you're gonna use an example, try not to use one so obviously colored.

Quote:

Bringing up the difference between alpha and dps is hilarious if you're trying to convince people that hit quality variance is a actually a deciding factor. While it CAN be it also can NOT be which cancels each other out. Again, not that difficult to understand.


Who mentioned hit quality? You think alpha is about hit quality? That you keep introducing more and more factors at a whim while not adressing the arguments that stand is getting rather tiresome.

Go read Dato Koppla's post on the last page - which you, not surprisingly, merrilly skipped.
FlinchingNinja Kishunuba
Crunchy Crunchy
#44 - 2012-06-04 14:51:31 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
TD working on missiles is such a fail idea it's not even funny....

The obviously correct choice would be to buff defenders to a point where they are actually viable...


What a revolutionary idea mate, actually using an existing game mechanic that was designed to do what this thread is talking about.

Making defenders AOE and able to fire multiples at the same time, having them damage the defending ship if too close would be pretty cool too.

Or we could use the Monocle to increase accuracy of the missiles... yeah that would work :D
Nicholas Tong
Doomheim
#45 - 2012-06-04 20:47:34 UTC
I don't condone TDs having another much more significant advantage to them, but look at ECM Roll. It seems to me that at this rate they'll be having to add another gimmicky upgrade like the drone damage module, we already have TPs that work twice better for missiles than for turrets, so It's very little use to add an explosion velocity module, but make fitting medium slots for more damage seems more an elegant idea than just use lows exclusively for damage modifier modules, it would tone done the notion of caldari fitting mids for max tankage.
Vilnius Zar
SDC Multi Ten
#46 - 2012-06-04 20:51:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Vilnius Zar
"Turrets have an accuracy that is relative based on transversal. Good piloting can turn transveral to null, any sensible piloting will diminish it"

So how is a Harbinger going to get null transversal on a 500m orbiting orbiting rifter, in a way that it wouldn't also help missile damage?


Quote:
Not once in our series of posts have i claimed missiles "have issues".


I'll keep repeating this: using dampening as a reason why TDs shouldn't affect missiles is hilarious, because that somehow means that you "forget" that damps also affect turret users in the exact same way OR, if you didn't forget that, you somehow feel that Missiles have it worse. Whichever of the two it is, it's wrong.

Quote:
The fact remain that even tiny increments of explosion velocity will quickly turn any missile ship into a veritable frigate-killer
HML drake vs AB rifter, difference in applied missile dps normally and with 3 T2 flare rigs is uhm... not that much. So yeah, you're wrong.


Quote:
Why is the pilot in your drummed up example an idiot who let an AB frig both approach, tackle and orbit him before he reacts?

If you're gonna use an example, try not to use one so obviously colored.


That's generally what is going to happen in combat, a fast tackler grabbing a bigger target and orbiting him, do you even PVP or is it all just blob warfare following FC orders? Also, good luck killing an incoming tackler who doesn't use approach but a nice angle instead.


Quote:

(by your logic they'd cancel each other out anyway, so wouldn't it be a waste of time and effort?) P
And by your logic that means we can now remove TD's and TCs from the game as well as they cancel eachother out. How about removing webs and AB, same thing right? Lets remove tank and dps mods, if you really think about it they cancel eachother out so just remove those as well. Another non-reason

Quote:
Go read Dato Koppla's post on the last page - which you, not surprisingly, merrilly skipped.
All he did was using lots of words to describe the difference between dps and volley and how that works in fleet situations. Also, you should probably read his last paragraph.


So far, lots of stuff that just isn't true and reasonings and "logic" that don't make sense. You're not doing too well.
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#47 - 2012-06-05 08:24:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Mfume Apocal
Maeltstome wrote:
Since the nano nerf, missile will almost alwayus do 100% damage unless its an MWD frigate (and even then a FAST one).

Missiles need a nerf... or at least a counter.


This is untrue. HMLs (the 'best' missiles) won't even hit a moving, non-MWDing, Vaga for full damage unless specifically rigged/Crashed for it.

Vilnius Zar wrote:
"Turrets have an accuracy that is relative based on transversal. Good piloting can turn transveral to null, any sensible piloting will diminish it"

So how is a Harbinger going to get null transversal on a 500m orbiting orbiting rifter, in a way that it wouldn't also help missile damage?


You're setting up the turret boat in the worst situation possible given it's limitations, then complaining that HMLs would have no issues there. Me personally, if I have a neut available, I'd neut away, which isn't really a direct answer to your question, but among the first responses to being scrammed by a frig that's under my tracking. I'd also probably call my gangmates to clear the Rifter off me. Or if I have no gangmates, I would use my drones, because I'm not going to solo in a turret boat that can't at least employ a full flight of Warriors.

If all those things fail me, I'd go for the low percentage chances: if he's long point fit and using an automatic orbit, try to sling him from under my tracking (which incidentally would not help missile damage assuming he kept his speed up). Or I'd try to bounce him off a rock, a gate, a POCO, while continuing to try to sling him from under my guns. By now his backup has probably arrived and I'm more than likely simply seeking out low-transversal targets of opportunity I can kill before dying: stealth bombers, dictors, destroyers, etc.
Vilnius Zar
SDC Multi Ten
#48 - 2012-06-05 08:41:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Vilnius Zar
I know all that :P

He whines about how missiles would be super OP would they get some range&radius/velocity mods (which isn't true) and at the same time he's whining about how bad they are (which also isn't true) and shouldn't get a counter, while feverishly trying to sound superior (which just makes it funny) by trying to use big words that just get him into trouble.

Missiles have their issues and turrets have their issues but only turrets have a direct counter. That's all this whole offtopic (sorry for that :P) thread is all about. At that same time missiles have no range and applied dps mods, both need to be solved (preferably at the same time).
Noisrevbus
#49 - 2012-06-05 18:33:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
I must say, you are slippery character Vilnius Zar P.

I don't think i have ever seen someone weasel himself out discussion so much before. It's not an insult, you are putting out quite an impressive effort. You are still avoiding the discussion while throwing up a number of smokescreens though. Mfume gave you the same answer to your orbit-example as i did, and now you turn tail again. You are still avoiding the discussion and puffing more smoke as you slip away.

As Vilnius have a love for claiming other people say things: let's recap what has actually been said...



If you go back to my first post in this thread you can see it summed up quite clearly in my argument:
(one i actually made Blink)

Missiles are "dumbfire": their equation is much more simplistic. That can work both ways and is a balancing factor. They are easier to use but they are also easier to combat by conventional means (ie., without a "direct counter") which also imply that they are less in need of a direct counter.

The heart of the discussion still stand: Missiles work differently and are no better nore worse than Turrets.

It is true that TD is more effective against Turrets than Defenders are against Missiles.

It is still also true that Mobility is better against Missiles than Turrets. There are no Tracking Computer equivalent for Missiles (and there should be none since it's not needed and would be a bad addition to the game as it would allow a blunt weapon system that always do damage to overpower fine systems in this game that rely on mitigation; such as small fast ships with low HP-pools).


It is incorrect to claim that missiles have no range-counter to them (so there "need to be one to make things fair"), as all ships are affected more by dampeners (and ECM), and it is additionally incorrect to turn tail and claim that because TD can also affect the range of Turrets: "there need to be an extra effect to make things even". They don't stack.

The primary function of a TD is to affect accuracy in the balance of transversal. Missiles have no such balance and thus need no application of TD. TD would however affect missiles more. Just like better accuracy is volatile on the blunt missile equation, less accuracy is also volatile. The Missile equation was made without accuracy modifiers in mind. Changing that would make the overall game more imbalanced.


Here's the crunchpoint:

It wouldn't make Missiles comparatively better or worse compared to Turrets, but it would make the game worse. I don't compare the two directly to each other. Instead i worry about what such a perspective would to do everything else. It's naive to belive the balance between Missiles and Turrets is all you have to care about, and then trample everything else. Small ships, small gangs, EW, the list go on.

Vilnius problem, since he can't see past "Missiles versus Turrets", is that he doesn't understand how something can be both too powerful and too weak at once, impact other things in the game negatively and cause imbalance. Frustrated he resorts to personal abuse and ridicule.
Jta Grl
2 Pingeons Incorporated
#50 - 2012-06-05 18:48:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Jta Grl
When posts take more than 2 mouse rolls to reach their end in a video game forum it means people have issues.

EDIT: could also mean a small screen, but let's face it, that's not the case here.
Zyress
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#51 - 2012-06-05 20:39:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Zyress
Maeltstome wrote:
Vilnius Zar wrote:
Maeltstome wrote:
Since the nano nerf, missile will almost alwayus do 100% damage unless its an MWD frigate (and even then a FAST one).

Missiles need a nerf... or at least a counter.


Running AB can lower missile damage considerably, they don't need a nerf but they do need a counter.


Heavily missile do full damage against frigs up to about 900 m/s

Do 900 m/s in a tight orbit around a turret cruiser and suddenly things seem a bit less balanced...

Plus they have 50-70km range...


LoL A standard Heavy Missile has a Explosion Velocity of 81 m/sec and an explosion radius of 125m and I've never heard of a frigate with zero resistance, if you are traveling 900m/sec it will do little to no damage and if you are doing it at a range much over 60 km's the missile will run out of flight time before it can hit you. Oh and btw with a top velocity of 3750m/s there are a few boats that can outrun them.
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#52 - 2012-06-06 05:38:36 UTC
Tracking disruptors affecting missiles? Pffft, CCP. The only thing that should affect missiles is the target's speed, his sig radius, and his resists. Much like it does now. Any module has to address one of these three things.

If you want a way to reduce inbound missile damage, aside from Defenders (lol) it would be a module which affects the missile's perception of your ship's signature. Much like, say, an electronic warfare system which dazzles the missiles. It would, in fact, make more sense for a target painter to do this via blinding missiles with laser light (you know, kinda like flares or chaff do IRL).

To sum this two-man threadnaught all up:

Vilnius and Nosirevbus are arguing about sensor damps as a EW module which counters the equations affecting both turret and missile boats. What? Damps, aside from being weaksauce, don't actually affect the equations that you guys are arguing about. They just squash lock range down so you can't be damaged/pointed, or murder sensor resolution so badly it takes forever. So, while Vilnius is right on this point, you both are silly for arguing paragraphs about it.

Damps are not a range counter for missiles. They don't affect the missiles' range like a TD does! They affect the ship's targeting range! Argh! Equating damps and ECM with TD's is facetious and wrong.

Claiming TD's affect the balance of transversal is also incorrect. An optimal-scripted TD on a ship can slash vital kilometres off a foe's optimal + falloff. If you are, eg, kiting a Tempest in a Curse you will be within his falloff (for Barrage L, 48km). But you can push his Optimal down from 8km to 2km. This then pushes you further into the faloff band and out of the 100% and down towards the 50% chance interval, resulting in less hits and less landed DPS. This does not take into account transversal!

If a TD affected missiles, in terms of Optimal degradation, the TD would affect a one of either a missile's flight time or velocity (NOT explosion velocity). In terms of Tracking, the TD would affect the missile's explosion velocity - but your Drake would still be hitting to 80km and Tengus to 110km. So, hello!

N. is right that the missile equation is simpler. It makes sense that it is; the missile determines its damage upon point and time of impact. The turret does so upon time and point of firing. The turret thus has to deal with angular velocity, range, and "sig radius". The missile, however, simply flies towards its target and when it hits, it determines damage by saying;
"Right. I'm going this fast, exploding this quickly, and he is going that fast. Simple! I can now go home and have a rum!"

With the argument about imbalance and breaking of the game, ading a TD-like effect to missiles wouldn't break the game. And considering you can rig, implant and drug yourself to increase missile parameters and it doesnt become totally WTFBBQPWN, adding low-slot missile modules wouldn't break the game after all.

N. is right that the Drakes lend themselves to problems of scale; they do this because it's a simple to use, simple to deploy, cheap, effective DPS/Tank combo. Not because of all the other crud he spouted about. The reason they are used is because the majority of FC's are abusive screaming twats dealing with half-deaf lemmings who would derp constantly if they had to gain angular velocity while TD'ing a foe and picking low-transversal targets. The fact some groups (PL, etc) don't rely on them is a testament to their greater skill and discipline, not to the broken scaling of Drake blobs.

ECM, again, is pretty easy to use effectively because it is vastly more powerful than SD's on a per-module basis, and it is also more powerful than deploying TD's and hoping your enemy brings arty canes, or SD's and hoping to hell your enemy wants to sit at 100km and be damped to impotence. ECM works close, far, slow, fast, versus everyone and is powerful.

I think you two would be well served if N. could actually make a cogent point without trying to make up non-jargon like "positive transversal". Um, all transversal is positive. Relativity is not the word you were looking for. Etcetera. Arguing is as much about making your points coherent and cogent, as it is about making up stuff to make it seem like you are smarter than your opponent. I couldn't understand half your points in detail.

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Cardano Firesnake
Fire Bullet Inc
#53 - 2012-06-06 06:30:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Cardano Firesnake
There are two missile types:
Guided Missiles and Non-Guided Missiles
Guided Missiles should be Affected by a system that jams the ship tracking .
Non-guided missiles should not.
But the game mechanics do not really make difference with the two types.

In fact, I can easily imagine a specific tracking disruptor script that affect missiles.

I do not see the problem because I see more Falcon than Curse with TD or Pilgrim with TD in combat.
In fact I do not remember a fight against a ship with a TD.
ECM are far more a problem than Tracking Disruptor to me.

Posted - 2010.07.01 11:24:00 - [4] Erase learning skills, remap all SP. That's all.
Vilnius Zar
SDC Multi Ten
#54 - 2012-06-06 08:46:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Vilnius Zar
Trinkets friend wrote:
Vilnius and Nosirevbus are arguing about sensor damps as a EW module which counters the equations affecting both turret and missile boats. What? Damps, aside from being weaksauce, don't actually affect the equations that you guys are arguing about. They just squash lock range down so you can't be damaged/pointed, or murder sensor resolution so badly it takes forever. So, while Vilnius is right on this point, you both are silly for arguing paragraphs about it.



I'm not the one arguing, it's just that keep keeps clinging to that wrong logic. Back and forth etc etc :)

He just doesn't want to see it that way because that would mean he'd "lose that point", and I'm not so sure that someone who frantically tries to use fancy words to "overpower" others (but generally fails at it) is capable of admitting to that.
Azara Erata
Generic Tax Shelter Conglomerate
#55 - 2012-06-06 10:41:28 UTC
Jta Grl wrote:
When posts take more than 2 mouse rolls to reach their end in a video game forum it means people have issues.

EDIT: could also mean a small screen, but let's face it, that's not the case here.


When you have multiple such posts, arguing over a "balance issue"...

Well, that's just plain idiotic.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#56 - 2012-06-06 11:36:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Lin-Young Borovskova
Noisrevbus wrote:
Vilnius Zar wrote:
IIshira wrote:
Maybe they realized how bad an idea it was? How could a module designed to effect a turrets tracking have any effect on how fast the explosion is from a missile???

How about some shield boosters that repair armor? :-)


How about some game balance where you can hamper missile effectiveness just like you can with turrets?


You mean the game balance where they would also introduce missile accuracy modifiers akin to tracking enhancers and computers, effectively rendering all missile platforms able to throw the curve and raise their damage application on smaller ships - enabling things like Torp Ravens and scaling their damage up on anything from frigs to BC? That sounds like a brilliant plan to a mechanic that relies on linear application rather than chance.

Yes, that is definately a 'balance' we'd all love to see... cough.


No, of course, this is a completely onesided interference with a dumbfire system. Like placing a fat kid alone on an empty swingboard.

This ridiculous approach is just another completely backward attempt at trying to deal with a problem that doesn't exist.

The HML (Drake) is only considered overpowered in an element or paradigm that the developers themselves continue to feed and nurture; the blob.

It's a reliable damage projection on a low-cost, immobile and high-buffer platform, that completely rely on other ships to: maintain hostiles on grid, maintain hostiles in range, stay alive and pin down to apply accuracy. It's only powerful when piling numbers exceed intricate execution of all ship roles (or active modules), and/or exceeding the invididual or collective ability to afford extending numbers. Essentially, when you have more numbers than the other side have buttons to push.

"Big awesome fights" is the problem, no self-deceptive notion of 'balance'.

They can continue to introduce these self-deceptive changes that will only serve to removing balance where it exist, yet not do anything to deal with the percieved imbalance.

This was the case with ECM, still is, and will be the same with HML.
They do not yet understand the concept of scale impact.

In short, this change will never be effective on a large scale - only on a small scale - or more importantly (applying the scale-perspective of Malcanis' Law) only to the benefit of a large group when dealing with a small group (more Drakes, more numbers; feeding the blob, consolidation of forces in the game and AFK empires).


Finally someone in this forum writing decently English at the point even I understand. Need more educated people posting so I can improve my English plz.

Ho, and +1 on the grand lines and still maintaining that if people think Heavy Missiles are op they should learn to read and train some comprehension up to 5, the only dumb stuff on HM is the base 14 sec flight time that should be reduced to 12.

You should not be able to fit a huge tank, hit at far distances other ships in the same category have to do big trade offs, apply a very decent dmg and keep everything cap stable while MWD'n.

Aside comment: Are 100MN AB Tengus about to be replaced by XL- Ancillary SB HAM Tengu?

*where did I put that fecking tear collector?*

brb
Previous page123