Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You need to do more small gang.

Technically you all know that is correct! Projectiles wouldn't be instant. Hybrids would also not be instant. The only one that would truly be anything close to instant over 200-km would be lasers.

Though just to be a bit of a jerk: lasers would actually take 667.13 microseconds to hit. Hybrids firing at ~1/4 the speed of light would take 2.67 milliseconds. Projectiles would be significantly longer than hybrids due to limitations in the speeds attainable via the technology cited. Now, I think that you gents and ladies don't want to push the "realistic" concept now.

Cause, if you do, CCP please input the travel times for the respective weapons in via a physics engine. I will know if you cheat on the projectiles, hybrids or lasers. Since I can figure out and run capture on shots at 200 km and double-check. Also, due to the energy-density limitations on projectile-tech cited in lore, the damage for all projectile turrets also needs to be severely reduced (kinetic-damage value predominately). Also, while I am on a roll of realism critics: lasers need to do primary and secondary damage due to sublimation of target material. Meaning that initially the laser would deal the EM and Thermal damage. However, material would be flash-converted (sublimation) to plasma and do secondary explosive and kinetic damage to armor. Hybrids would also do some secondary explosive damage to armor after impact due to expansion of melted/vaporized material. Projectiles would actually be more limited to a little kinetic and mostly secondary effects of the warhead: shock-waves from explosive charges, thermal heat from incendiary etc. Get cracking CCP, you got a lot of work cut out for you!

Since I am reasonably certain now that you will show some sense and drop that stupidly pathetic "realistic" argument for instant-hitting turrets. Assuming that you are capable of realizing that, I will move on. If not, then I would suggest you all need to repeat all the physics and chemistry classes you ever took... Hopefully, you gents and ladies have more sense than to need that.

Back to missiles:

I agree in principle with Hagika that missiles need to have a fixed and constant damage-delay : 3-4 seconds max. It needs to be more than one second so as to be a noticeable difference from turrets. As has been mentioned before acceleration would be one way to do that. The other thing that should be changed with missiles is the damage application. Since at present it is rather pathetic against any moving target.

I thought of a possible solution to the damage application and the issues to missile mechanics:

1) Use the concept presently used in many modern RL missiles: uni-directional detonation. Most modern missiles when detonating send all the damage-causing fragments forward in a cone-like dispersion. This could be used in concept by Eve Online. The explosion radius could be changed to a distance value. The Explosion Range value would communicate the distance within the dispersion-cone that damage could be applied. You could think of that value as an indicator of density for damage: like the spread-pattern of a shotgun. The other part of the equation would be the velocity values. The speed of the missile would affect how close to the target it is when the warhead detonates.

In game, I would see the damage application value to work out like this for a 'fast-moving' frigate. The frigate's speed would determine how close the missile will get and thus the distance at which it explodes: explosion range. The explosion range would then be used to determine the density of the damage and thereby the damage applied to the frigate. *Maybe treat the explosion range like falloff range for turrets*.

This would still result in a fast moving frigate to take less damage than a cruiser. Larger ships which are slower would be hit harder. Then you are comparing the missile velocity and the target velocity: much simpler ratio and a better indication of whether the missile would intercept. Such a change to missile mechanics wouldn't need any change in the graphics. In Retribution the missiles were made to actually track the target ship as would be expected.

To counter missiles I think there are several ways we can go about it. One would be an ECM type module that interferes with missile tracking while in-flight. Another way would be a top slot mounted energy-based anti-missile system akin to a smartbomb but not omnidirectional. This energy-based missile interceptor should work similarly to how the present defender missiles work but without the glaring fail: range should be ~2500 meters optimal, no falloff. Third, there could be a specialized disruption script for missiles for the TD or SB (whichever makes more sense).

An extension of this proposal could mean the elimination of the confusing and inaccurate "guided" and "unguided" nomenclature. Instead the terms "long-range" and "short-range" could be applied. This would clarify to the pilot (new and old) the missile's intended philosophy-of-use (POU) and range. In addition, it would be similar to that of turrets and aid learning via familiarity.

EDIT: Refined the idea based on knowledge of present Air-to-Air missile engagement mechanics.
EDIT2: Missile graphics/flight pattern could be designed to intercept not follow the target. Doing that could make the present system more reasonable

No worries! I am glad that you clarified. I apologize that I didn't seem to have communicated necessarily well myself. Lol! Funny how hard it is to convey complicated concepts via text.. i would want to hear your opinion as you have been objective in what you have said in this discussion.

I agree with you on that damage calculation formula needs to be redressed. The issue that I am having is not knowing what the formula exactly is. If I don't know what it is, it is hard for me to correct it, mathematically. What I have been trying is to think of reasonable ways to address the issue. Yet, it may require a rewriting of the damage-calculation formula. The question that I think I would like to figure out is if the end result would be better.

I take you sadly don't have that damage-calculation formula for missiles would you?

That said, what do you think of the idea I mentioned above?

Uh... I never said anything like that... at all. I *was* saying that cruiser sized missile systems, including T2 variants like Rage, should do full damage to stationary cruiser-sized targets. Currently, they do not. The current signature radius part of the damage equation is probably fine. The velocity portion of the equation needs to be less harsh. I have no idea where you got what you wrote.

Well some baseline has to be used and if there is a scenario where full damage is applied, it would be stationary. I'm not saying the damage falloff for unmodified velocity (ie no prop mods) should be as steep as it is.

Also, the turret 'chance to hit' equation seems way more complicated than what you presented (though I understand the need to gloss over stuff when making a point). Turret shots won't do full damage on every shot even when in range and tracked (though some will do triple damage).

Already done. it seems i got forgotten easily.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2939186#post2939186

and

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2952112#post2952112

Okay i promised someone to post some math.

The calculation will be done without skills, except missiles, because they have 2 dmg application skills. Both dmg applications will be at 4.

There are some Links to understand how Turrets work.

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Tracking_Guide
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage

Okay Lets pick a Ship. Lets pick the worst-case, the Typhoon.

Typhoon
max velocity: 130
Signature radius: 330

Traversal-velocity < max(my ship velocity, enemy ship velocity)
So lets assume we dont move and the Typhoon is orbiting.

Lets pick the weapon with the worst tracking: 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II

Data so far:
Traversal-velocity = 130 m/s
Signature radius = 330 m
Distance = [25KM,50KM]
Explosion Velocity = 96.6 m/s
Explosion Radius = 264 m
Tracking = 0.009 rad/s
Weapon Resolution = 400m

DMG Missiles = (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^(log(4.5) / log(5.5)) = (96.6/264 * 330/130)^(0.882287) = 0.93695
DMG Turrets = 0.5^((Traversal Velocity / (Distance * Tracking) * Weapon Resolution / Signature radius)^2) = 0.5^((130 / (50000 * 0.009) * 400 / 330)^2) = 0.5^(0.122617873) = 0.918519
Now 25KM:
DMG Turrets = 0.5^((130 / (25000 * 0.009) * 400 / 330)^2) = 0.5^(0.490471493) = 0.71179

Okay missiles have an advantage, but lets increase the speed, lets double the speed:

DMG Missiles = (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^(log(4.5) / log(5.5)) = (96.6/264 * 330/260)^(0.882287) = 0.50830
DMG Turrets = 0.5^((Traversal Velocity / (Distance * Tracking) * Weapon Resolution / Signature radius)^2) = 0.5^((260 / (50000 * 0.009) * 400 / 330)^2) = 0.5^(0.490471493) = 0.71179
Now 25KM:
DMG Turrets = 0.5^((260 / (25000 * 0.009) * 400 / 330)^2) = 0.5^(1.96188) = 0.25669

Lets be honest, if you get close missiles win, but if you have a proper range turrets are much better. See the plot:
http://www.walterzorn.de/grapher/grapher.htm

Formula to use:
Min(1, (86.6/264 * 330/x)^(log(4.5) / log(5.5)));
0.5^((x / (50000 * 0.009) * 400 / 330)^2)

Red: Missiles
Green: Turrets

As you can see the DMG-Application of a Turret is much smoother. Why cant have missiles the same dmg-application-curve?

That, right there, encapsulates the exact problem I've been trying to explain.

Missiles lose nothing from short ranges. Given a constant target speed they do the same damage at 0 as they do at 225+.

That is not possible to balance that situation without a radical shake up to the ENTIRE platform.

It what I've been trying to say, if you make missiles on a par with turrets at distance you're ALSO making them JUST as effective at point blank ranges, it wouldnt be balanced - not without the shakeup I mentioned. There could be no tactical flying - fighting a missile boat becomes a pure and simple DPS race - one which (if missiles are boosted more) the turret boat would lose, every time.

Basically what I'm saying is that it could be solved - but it cannot be solved tweaking individual missile stats alone - it's a bigger problem than that. Or - we accept the status quo that cruises just aint great in PvP. Remember, I'm a big missile user, it's a shame - but they're far from the only sub-par module choice in PvP.

Perhaps it's just one of those things. Perhaps I'm a little too magnanimous this time in the morning

If full dmg is applied to stationary targets only, double-clicking in space would result in a huge dmg mitigation. That's where I got it out of. Obviously, that wasn't part of your suggestion. Sry



Nah, that's not what I'm doing. I guess all missile-users know where the flaw is. The point is, that you'ld need to figure out how much damage a missile should do against targets of various sizes and at various speeds before you change the formula. Yes, a new formula would make sense, but it's a thin line between OP and useless.

It isn't as easy as proposing a new formula based on RL physics.. It needs to fit for EvE..

I would also like to address the fact that if a frig is standing still, a Cruise or Torp ship should be able to one shot it just as any turret ship would do, provided the weapon has enough damage to destroy it.

A torp or cruise would be like dropping a giant nuke on a tiny ship. It makes perfect sense for it to go splat right after.