These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123Next page
 

Torpedoes and other unguided missiles need fixing
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
half of eve
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2012-09-22 02:32:58 UTC
Soon Shin wrote:

Yes, I would agree with the premises you are saying. I believe that TC and TE will however not fix the fundamental flaws that remain with the missile systems. They will allevate those issues but the issues still remain. I believe a complete revamp is in order for all missile systems.

And if I were to make the claim that it's a fundamental flaw for missiles to have variable damage types, or such high raw DPS, or so much range, what then? It's not a fundamental flaw, it's a drawback; an intentional weakness in the weapon system to compensate for its advantages.

Soon Shin wrote:

I have stated several times that HAM's have poor damage applied.

I've have made my points clear on the top. Your lack of reading comprehension and logical understanding indicates that:

1. English is not your primary language.

2. You are a moron.

If you don't get it after I have clearly shown and stated why then you are dumb. Now if you want to talk more, then talk on your main. Otherwise I will not listen to some NPC noob.

You're adorable Big smile
You did a whole lot of comparing between HAMs and heavies, which as I've pointed out is pointless since heavies are crazy OP,

How HAMs stack up compared to heavies compared to other close/long range weapon platforms is also irrelevant, because again, heavy missiles are overpowered. Any comparison that involves heavy missiles is going to be inherently flawed, because of the lack of balance around said missiles.

You want to show that HAMs need a buff? Compare them to medium blasters, medium pulses, and medium ACs. Show that HAMs are underpowered compared to weapons of the same size and range, or stop insisting that they are based on a comparison to another type of missile that's been broken for ages.

As for the alt comment:
If I post with my main, and he has more pvp experience then you, will you admit to being wrong? No? Then stop whining.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#22 - 2012-09-23 08:04:38 UTC
half of eve wrote:
Soon Shin wrote:
Passive aggressive jab goes here.

From my last post:
Half of eve wrote:

The difference here is that missile tracking doesn't get affected by range, so you could make an argument that missiles SHOULD track better at close range (looking at base tracking) or that they shouldn't (looking at effective tracking)


Also aren't most cruisers in the 125m sig radius anyway?

Oh and it's also worth noting that heavy missiles are laughably OP, and have been for ages, arguing that HAMs are worse than heavies doesn't really mean anything when the same can be said of literally every single medium weapon system in the game, both close AND long range, but then I already mentioned that, had you bothered to read my last post.


Their range may be OP but the damage? Not even close.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#23 - 2012-09-23 08:17:02 UTC
HML's do need a range nerf, I agree with that. Damage nerf? Just no !

Hams eat up a ton of PG and are about useless.. I see rails more common in pvp than Hams.
Now lets look at the cerb.. Huge range but crap dps.. The idea of a sniping missile boat is a sick joke.. Given travel time of missiles. Something that guns dont have to worry about.

Now with the missile nerf, they are subject to all gun penalties plus more. Yet do not hit instantly, can be destroyed before impact
They are affected by the sig radius of the ship do to explosion velocity.
Sure heavies may hit if ship is in range, but you nullify the damage ten fold if moving fast. As for smaller ships, being hit for a few points of damage is nothing.

Hams cant even hit cruiser sized ships effectively, yet its a cruiser size weapon. Oh dont forget you cant fit them on a caracal in general and you can put them on a cerb, yet the dps suck and you have a crap tank because of the PG need..
So more PG for an inferior weapon that has short range and hitting anything smaller than BC size is more or less a laughable joke.

Funny how you say that HML's are OP, yet its only the range that people complain about, because its not the dps.
Mishima Reika
Perkone
Caldari State
#24 - 2012-09-23 11:03:08 UTC
Hagika wrote:
HML's do need a range nerf, I agree with that. Damage nerf? Just no !

Hams eat up a ton of PG and are about useless.. I see rails more common in pvp than Hams.
Now lets look at the cerb.. Huge range but crap dps.. The idea of a sniping missile boat is a sick joke.. Given travel time of missiles. Something that guns dont have to worry about.

Now with the missile nerf, they are subject to all gun penalties plus more. Yet do not hit instantly, can be destroyed before impact
They are affected by the sig radius of the ship do to explosion velocity.
Sure heavies may hit if ship is in range, but you nullify the damage ten fold if moving fast. As for smaller ships, being hit for a few points of damage is nothing.

Hams cant even hit cruiser sized ships effectively, yet its a cruiser size weapon. Oh dont forget you cant fit them on a caracal in general and you can put them on a cerb, yet the dps suck and you have a crap tank because of the PG need..
So more PG for an inferior weapon that has short range and hitting anything smaller than BC size is more or less a laughable joke.

Funny how you say that HML's are OP, yet its only the range that people complain about, because its not the dps.


Was time to read true infos about this thread. Thanks to God, everyone in this game is not only from and about real tv shows generation. Gunners should experiment this to hit someone at 'optimal' with full skill for a 18 dmg when they are supposed to scratch their target sheet metal paint ...

Funny how they speak yes.
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#25 - 2012-09-23 18:02:17 UTC
Hagika wrote:
Hams cant even hit cruiser sized ships effectively, yet its a cruiser size weapon. Oh dont forget you cant fit them on a caracal in general and you can put them on a cerb, yet the dps suck and you have a crap tank because of the PG need..
So more PG for an inferior weapon that has short range and hitting anything smaller than BC size is more or less a laughable joke.


Whether or not I agree with the HM changes -- and I'm currently of the mind that they're a bit too harsh -- I find it very hard to believe that people aren't seeing what a boon introducing TE/TCs to missiles is for HAMs.

Before these changes, the options to help them apply damage over range were limited to rigs (flares for damage application and the two range rigs) and targeted modules (painters and webs). Now, these did work to make HAMs viable, but the combinations required made the rest of any given fit laughable.

After the changes -- assuming they are done well -- HAMs will have a low slot module that increases both range and damage application and a mid slot module with selectable options to do one or the other or both. This solves the major problem of HAMs.

Yes, they are still tough on grid and won't fit on the current Caracal (but will on the boosted Caracal). No, they will not have the range of HMs. But -- again, assuming the changes are done effectively -- if you can't make HAMs work for you in the new environment, you are doing it wrong.
Lester Knight Chaykin
Doomheim
#26 - 2012-09-23 21:31:26 UTC
Soon Shin wrote:
Tragedy wrote:
OOORRRRR nerf HAMs range. To around say 15kms. Which you could get to around 25-30 with tracking enhancers. Just like med autocannons! Then torpedos could get to 30-40 with the TEs, still better than blasters right? Right?

I like my idea better.


Lex Luther says: WRONG!

Neutron Blasters with T1 Antimatter: 4.5 optimal + 13 km falloff. Optimal + 2 x falloff= max range. = 31 km max range. Still does damage within this range

Torpedo Launcher with T1 Mjolnir: <20.3 ~ 16-18 km based on missile acceleration. Beyond that range does zero damage.

Neutron Blasters will Null: 13 km optimal + 18 km falloff. = 49-50 km max range.

Torpedo Launcher with Javelin: <30.4 km ~ 26-27 km based on missile acceleration.


lol you are a noob or an idiot
play the game instead of posting bull*hits like that
Al Anders
Star Revival
#27 - 2012-09-26 13:24:43 UTC
Soon Shin wrote:
Tragedy wrote:
OOORRRRR nerf HAMs range. To around say 15kms. Which you could get to around 25-30 with tracking enhancers. Just like med autocannons! Then torpedos could get to 30-40 with the TEs, still better than blasters right? Right?

I like my idea better.


Lex Luther says: WRONG!

Neutron Blasters with T1 Antimatter: 4.5 optimal + 13 km falloff. Optimal + 2 x falloff= max range. = 31 km max range. Still does damage within this range

Torpedo Launcher with T1 Mjolnir: <20.3 ~ 16-18 km based on missile acceleration. Beyond that range does zero damage.

Neutron Blasters will Null: 13 km optimal + 18 km falloff. = 49-50 km max range.

Torpedo Launcher with Javelin: <30.4 km ~ 26-27 km based on missile acceleration.

Let me introduce you to some basics of falloff mechanics/

Neutron Blasters with T1 Antimatter: 4.5 optimal (100% DPS) + 13 km falloff. (50% DPS) Optimal + 2 x falloff (10% DPS)= max range. = 31 km max range. Still scratch paint within this range

Torpedo Launcher with T1 Mjolnir: <20.3 ~ 16-18 km based on missile acceleration. Beyond that range does zero damage.

Neutron Blasters will Null: 13 km optimal(100% DPS) + 18 km falloff. (50% DPS) = 49-50 km max range(10% DPS).

Torpedo Launcher with Javelin: <30.4 km ~ 26-27 km based on missile acceleration
And i haven't factored tracking. According to higher DPS of Torps your whine just silly.
Now instead of TP's that damn hard to manage (and they can miss) i can fit my Golem with TC/TE's and ignore that crazy TP management. (Launch torps, paint target, wait until cycle end, etc...)
And... Have anyone ever tried 4 BCU nighthawk or drake? With active/nano tanking? Without sig bloom? Try it and stop cry. That sh*t as caremobile outperforms hurr or sleip with much more range and damage application even with mjolnirs. With scourge that's butter-cutter of guristas.
Sry for my bad English, not my native.
Renier Gaden
Immortal Guides
#28 - 2012-09-26 19:20:49 UTC
My understanding was that Rockets and HAMs fired faster than their longer range counterparts. So individually the short range ones do less damage, but you can fire more short range missiles in a fight than long range, with the effect that you do more damage with short range missiles if you are in range to use them than you would with long range missiles. (5 HAMs do more damage than 3 Heavy’s sort of idea.) Am I wrong on this, or is the OP missing the hits/time component in the damage calculation?

I do agree that Torpedos could use a little more range.
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#29 - 2012-09-26 20:22:47 UTC
Renier Gaden wrote:
My understanding was that Rockets and HAMs fired faster than their longer range counterparts. So individually the short range ones do less damage, but you can fire more short range missiles in a fight than long range, with the effect that you do more damage with short range missiles if you are in range to use them than you would with long range missiles. (5 HAMs do more damage than 3 Heavy’s sort of idea.) Am I wrong on this, or is the OP missing the hits/time component in the damage calculation?


You're correct, but the OP did control for that. His numbers are DPS numbers which already have RoF factored in. His complaints are strictly about hit quality.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#30 - 2012-09-27 00:24:44 UTC
Tragedy wrote:
OOORRRRR nerf HAMs range. To around say 15kms. Which you could get to around 25-30 with tracking enhancers. Just like med autocannons! Then torpedos could get to 30-40 with the TEs, still better than blasters right? Right?

I like my idea better.



Because having to take away missile dps for range and now tracking when they already do less dps than guns is really a way to improve anything.

Keep your idea to yourself., because its not about making missiles equal, its about making sure a broken and weaker weapon system worse than it already is.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#31 - 2012-09-27 00:29:36 UTC
half of eve wrote:
Soon Shin wrote:

The problem is that short range missiles don't even have higher absolute accuracy than its longer range counterpart.

Its like saying that short range turrets are fine even though they don't get bonus from motion prediction that long range turrets are.

What do you have to say about that?

Do you not see a flaw in your reasoning?

There is no flaw here. Longer range turrets have better effective tracking than shorter range ones, since tracking is affected by range. If you were to balance missiles despite their "tracking" not being affected by range, you could do so by either making the close range OR the long range better at applying their damage, because in the end either can be justified quite easily.

That said, you do seem to ignore a few key factors in missile balancing:
DPS/range before bonuses (max skills, t1 ammo) of the 4 main large weapon types:

800mm AC II: 43 / 3km
Mega Pulse II: 48 / 15km
Neutron Blaster II: 59 / 4.5km
Torp launcher II: 62 / 20km

And I know from your other posts that you want to include falloff in range, which is fine, but then we also have to take into account the reduced damage from fighting in falloff (which averages out to full DPS at optimal, and half dps anywhere from optimal+1m to 2X falloff) so I'll throw those numbers out there, mostly because I'm bored:

Average DPS of each main BS weapon from 0 - optimal + 2X falloff:
800mm AC II: 23.7 / 51km
Mega Pulse II 34.3: / 35km
Neutron Blaster II: 33.85 / 30.5km
Torp launcher II: 62 / 20km

Less total range (though counting range as optimal+2X falloff is hilariously stupid to begin with) but MUCH more DPS applied. This also ignores damage types and cap use.

The point I'm trying to make here is that you can't just point out the flaws of a weapon system and claim that it's unbalanced because of that. All weapons have drawbacks, that's how they're supposed to be. If you want to show that something is underpowered, prove that it's ADVANTAGES are crap.


EDIT:
Soon Shin wrote:

TC and TE will NOT fix the issue that long range missiles will have superior "tracking" and "damage application" than short range missiles; due to the fact that only guided missiles can get reduction in exp radius from skills and rigs

Trading damage application for raw DPS is arguably the most important aspect of balancing any weapon system in any game ever. This is working as intended.

Soon Shin wrote:

Neither will it address the issue that Torpedoes still have the same range as HAMs. Why do every Larger weapon have more range than its shorter range counterpart, except for Torpedoes.
So why buff torps instead of nerfing HAMs?

Hams themselves aren't bad, the reason they see little use is that heavies are hilariously OP.



Nerf HAMS? are you insane? Its either that or you have never bothered to use them, because even up close people refuse to use them...A drake with heavies up close does better applied dps than with HAMS..

They also eat a bunch of PG in which you cant even fit them on a caracal and on a Cerb they are laughable. Hell a cerb is laughable and its almost as bad as the Eagle, which is pretty much useless
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#32 - 2012-09-27 00:40:35 UTC
half of eve wrote:
Soon Shin wrote:
Passive aggressive jab goes here.

From my last post:
Half of eve wrote:

The difference here is that missile tracking doesn't get affected by range, so you could make an argument that missiles SHOULD track better at close range (looking at base tracking) or that they shouldn't (looking at effective tracking)


Also aren't most cruisers in the 125m sig radius anyway?

Oh and it's also worth noting that heavy missiles are laughably OP, and have been for ages, arguing that HAMs are worse than heavies doesn't really mean anything when the same can be said of literally every single medium weapon system in the game, both close AND long range, but then I already mentioned that, had you bothered to read my last post.



You keep mentioning that everything is laughably over powered with missiles.. Yet what weapon system is most common in PVP by far? Guns... what ships are in the far majority of use? Armor...Drake is the only 1 true pvp ship caldari has and its use because of range and tank, the dps is far less than its gun counterparts.

It was put into use because A. Its easy for a new person to get into and can be a part of the fleet. B. in a fleet fight, it gave logi time to throw reps on it before it goes pop.
When people want high dps fleets, its guns... The only reason people really complain about a drake blob is because they just cant hop in and beat them instantly, nor are they creative enough fly in, tackle and web the anchor and then proceed to beat the crap of the rest of the ships.

What beats a drake fleet? An alpha fleet... Once again guns... People are to lazy to think outside the box and with Goon numbers its hard to contest most of their fleets. Just like a typical left, they blame the ship, not the people..

Once the ship has been nerfed into the ground as you go on cheering, then comes Cane fleets, with arts or heavy tanked with autos.
Then of course when large numbers are brought, you will complain how they need to be nerfed too. Then will come HAC fleets, because they are too mobile and high dps.. Then comes BS fleets, because they will be too powerful. The circle will continue till every ship has been nerfed, all because you all complain when you can not handle something.

This circle has continued and these nerfs come around because of cry babies..

Perhaps CCP needs to nerf you whiners.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#33 - 2012-09-27 00:45:45 UTC
Also for those who actually never bothered to try and use torps.
You can null a ton of torp damage just by having a MWD on your ship. Ever see Raven fleets? Nope... They are best used for station games in which any one of the other races BS's do station games better..

Of all races, caldari has the least number of pvp ships used. Drake being the only real one, aside from a handful of tengus..

After drake comes canes with a close 2nd and then its a mix of Minnie,Amarr and gallente in which Minnie makes up the far majority of the ships used in pvp.


If missiles were so over powered, why are caldari and missiles ships the least used of all the ships in pvp these days?
Oh it must be because people feel guilty of using such over powered weapons right?Roll
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#34 - 2012-09-27 04:05:31 UTC
Hagika wrote:
Nerf HAMS? are you insane? Its either that or you have never bothered to use them, because even up close people refuse to use them...A drake with heavies up close does better applied dps than with HAMS..

They also eat a bunch of PG in which you cant even fit them on a caracal and on a Cerb they are laughable. Hell a cerb is laughable and its almost as bad as the Eagle, which is pretty much useless


HAM Drake used to be the default PvP fit (back when people were just learning that Drakes were good in PvP). It will be so again. And it shouldn't have any trouble applying damage. Are you intentionally missing the part where missiles are getting benefits from tracking mods?

As for the fitting issues... yes. They exist. Hopefully they'll disappear with the ship rebalancing.

Also: you seriously know how to rant a thread into the ground without making a point.
Robert Lefcourt
BigPoppaMonkeys
E.B.O.L.A.
#35 - 2012-09-27 12:04:16 UTC
Soon Shin wrote:
Tragedy wrote:
OOORRRRR nerf HAMs range. To around say 15kms. Which you could get to around 25-30 with tracking enhancers. Just like med autocannons! Then torpedos could get to 30-40 with the TEs, still better than blasters right? Right?

I like my idea better.


Lex Luther says: WRONG!

Neutron Blasters with T1 Antimatter: 4.5 optimal + 13 km falloff. Optimal + 2 x falloff= max range. = 31 km max range. Still does damage within this range

Torpedo Launcher with T1 Mjolnir: <20.3 ~ 16-18 km based on missile acceleration. Beyond that range does zero damage.


Well, so Torpedoes do full damage out to 18km - blasters will only do half. Where the hell is the problem?


reagrds,

rob
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#36 - 2012-09-27 12:11:31 UTC
i always thought it was pretty stupid from day one to have missile skills that dont effect all the missiles.

Lets change motion prediction skill so it only effects long range weapon platforms! no? exactly.

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Zeomebuch Nova
Undrinkable Grog Inc.
#37 - 2012-10-03 22:00:15 UTC
Robert Lefcourt wrote:
Soon Shin wrote:
Tragedy wrote:
OOORRRRR nerf HAMs range. To around say 15kms. Which you could get to around 25-30 with tracking enhancers. Just like med autocannons! Then torpedos could get to 30-40 with the TEs, still better than blasters right? Right?

I like my idea better.


Lex Luther says: WRONG!

Neutron Blasters with T1 Antimatter: 4.5 optimal + 13 km falloff. Optimal + 2 x falloff= max range. = 31 km max range. Still does damage within this range

Torpedo Launcher with T1 Mjolnir: <20.3 ~ 16-18 km based on missile acceleration. Beyond that range does zero damage.


Well, so Torpedoes do full damage out to 18km - blasters will only do half. Where the hell is the problem?


reagrds,

rob


problem is that torps will never do full damage.
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#38 - 2012-10-04 18:29:38 UTC
Muad 'dib wrote:
i always thought it was pretty stupid from day one to have missile skills that dont effect all the missiles.

Lets change motion prediction skill so it only effects long range weapon platforms! no? exactly.


Exactly my point. It's a good thing CCP Fozzie realized such. All missiles will receive bonus from gmp in the expansion .

Now it remains to be see how damage application will perform.

Torpedoes still need more range but BS class missiles will be made better in time.
Exploited Engineer
Creatively Applied Violence Inc.
#39 - 2012-10-04 21:00:12 UTC
Zeomebuch Nova wrote:
problem is that torps will never do full damage.


Other problems are:

- you can load the neutron blaster with other T1 ammo to get more range. The torpedo launcher needs T2 ammo for that.
- there are modules for extending turret range. There are no modules that extend missile range (yet?)
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#40 - 2012-10-04 22:01:07 UTC
YOU all do realise that this is a threadnaught in the F&I section don't you?! Shocked

Go look at it and see how they are changing missiles for the winter expansion....


Or



just continue your whining and trumpet blowing between yourselves!! Roll

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.
Previous page123Next page