These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Odyssey] Cruise Missiles

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Enya Sparhawk
Black Tea and Talons
#581 - 2013-05-02 21:52:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Enya Sparhawk
Gimme more Cynos wrote:

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.. Ugh

Agreed...

No disrespect to Bucca Zerodyme, (You do good work kid, but I just found your solution oversimplified where ideally the formula should be more complex as well as not be overly complicated)... it almost seems like to properly represent the damage instead of a smooth curve we would need something that graphs out as an S curve...

Or at least that is the image that is presently in my mind...

(Believe me when I say that my math is corroded beyond a little rusty; so this might not make sense)

Something that divides the curve into two parts, a curve representing the top part of 50% damage and an inverse of that curve representing the lower half...

Please tell me someone understands what I am trying to say... (because I'm not really sure how to explain it mathematically; at least not yet.)

Fíorghrá: Grá na fírinne

Maireann croí éadrom i bhfad.

Bíonn súil le muir ach ní bhíonn súil le tír.

Is maith an scéalaí an aimsir.

When the lost ships of Greece finally return home...
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#582 - 2013-05-02 22:55:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Bucca Zerodyme
Enya Sparhawk wrote:

Something that divides the curve into two parts, a curve representing the top part of 50% damage and an inverse of that curve representing the lower half...

Please tell me someone understands what I am trying to say... (because I'm not really sure how to explain it mathematically; at least not yet.)


You want to Split the function into 2 parts so far i get it, but the other part ... well in most cases a image of your function would be nice to understand what you mean. You can use even Paint to do it.

Edit: remember to explain, why do you think it need to be split into 2 parts.
Itis Zhellin
#583 - 2013-05-03 08:58:01 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Quote:
These two improvements will be balanced by an increase in power grid need for the launchers, and a small explosion radius increase for the missiles.


Reading is difficult, it seems.

Also:

200 added power grid need for all Cruise Missile launchers

Yay, extra dps ... but none do the math for the new grid needed to have all the launchers fited. If that's 200/launcher then some of us will have to remove one or more launchers or use T1 versions :|
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#584 - 2013-05-03 10:18:45 UTC
Itis Zhellin wrote:

Also:

200 added power grid need for all Cruise Missile launchers

Yay, extra dps ... but none do the math for the new grid needed to have all the launchers fited. If that's 200/launcher then some of us will have to remove one or more launchers or use T1 versions :|


Dont want to do math for you, but a Raven have no problem at all with PG. Didnt checked the Tyhpoon.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#585 - 2013-05-03 10:22:10 UTC
Itis Zhellin wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Quote:
These two improvements will be balanced by an increase in power grid need for the launchers, and a small explosion radius increase for the missiles.


Reading is difficult, it seems.

Also:

200 added power grid need for all Cruise Missile launchers

Yay, extra dps ... but none do the math for the new grid needed to have all the launchers fited. If that's 200/launcher then some of us will have to remove one or more launchers or use T1 versions :|


If you're talking about the Raven, then I can only refer you back to the "reading is difficult" comment. Six additional launchers will take 1080 PG more, but since the Raven itself is getting 1875 PG more, then I don't think this will pose a fundamental problem... P

Nor should it be a problem for the Typhoon, which has even more PG. If you're referring to the CNR or Fleetphoon, then it's a fairer comment, because they haven't been rebalanced yet, although it seems to be really quite difficult to use all the PG on a PVE cruise CNR. Even with 7x CML, MJD, MWD, HCB and XLSB you only need a single PG mod.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#586 - 2013-05-03 11:15:50 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
although it seems to be really quite difficult to use all the PG on a PVE cruise CNR.


Probably because it has the CPU of a 1980's digital watch......
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#587 - 2013-05-03 12:20:10 UTC
In case someone hasn't seen it.



CCP Ytterbium wrote:

Ah yes, this makes me remember to tell you guys something that should make you happy - we're going to increase calibration on all Navy Ships from 350 to 400. While it makes sense for Tech2 hulls to have less rig sots due to the specialized nature of the ships, Navy hulls are supposed to be an improvement over Tech1, but is not always the case right now due to rig / calibration restrictions.
Itis Zhellin
#588 - 2013-05-03 13:36:58 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Itis Zhellin wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Quote:
These two improvements will be balanced by an increase in power grid need for the launchers, and a small explosion radius increase for the missiles.


Reading is difficult, it seems.

Also:

200 added power grid need for all Cruise Missile launchers

Yay, extra dps ... but none do the math for the new grid needed to have all the launchers fited. If that's 200/launcher then some of us will have to remove one or more launchers or use T1 versions :|

...

If you're referring to the CNR or Fleetphoon, then it's a fairer comment, because they haven't been rebalanced yet, although it seems to be really quite difficult to use all the PG on a PVE cruise CNR. Even with 7x CML, MJD, MWD, HCB and XLSB you only need a single PG mod.

That and also Rattlesnake and more than anything.. Nemesis. Nemesis which is a damn tight fit ship.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#589 - 2013-05-03 13:54:04 UTC
Enya Sparhawk wrote:
Gimme more Cynos wrote:

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.. Ugh

Agreed...

No disrespect to Bucca Zerodyme, (You do good work kid, but I just found your solution oversimplified where ideally the formula should be more complex as well as not be overly complicated)... it almost seems like to properly represent the damage instead of a smooth curve we would need something that graphs out as an S curve...

Or at least that is the image that is presently in my mind...

(Believe me when I say that my math is corroded beyond a little rusty; so this might not make sense)

Something that divides the curve into two parts, a curve representing the top part of 50% damage and an inverse of that curve representing the lower half...

Please tell me someone understands what I am trying to say... (because I'm not really sure how to explain it mathematically; at least not yet.)


i guess you refer to something like the way the "chance to hit" looks like in falloff ?
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/File:Falloff.png

if dmg applied vs signatur radius/ speed of target would look similar for missiles (maybe with a steeper slope) that would make sense. but then i do not know how it looks like atm.
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#590 - 2013-05-03 14:58:23 UTC
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:


i guess you refer to something like the way the "chance to hit" looks like in falloff ?
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/File:Falloff.png

if dmg applied vs signatur radius/ speed of target would look similar for missiles (maybe with a steeper slope) that would make sense. but then i do not know how it looks like atm.


I dont know how often i have posted it on this thread. Current Missiles Formula:

Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(sig/Er, 1, (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^(log(drf) / log(5.5)))

If you want to make it more simple you can write:

Damage = min( 1, Ev/Er * sig/vel)

If you want it even more simpler:

Damage = min(1, 1/vel)

I hope i could help you. [No im not gonna plot it]
see https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=226046&p=29
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#591 - 2013-05-03 20:51:41 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
In case someone hasn't seen it.



CCP Ytterbium wrote:

Ah yes, this makes me remember to tell you guys something that should make you happy - we're going to increase calibration on all Navy Ships from 350 to 400. While it makes sense for Tech2 hulls to have less rig sots due to the specialized nature of the ships, Navy hulls are supposed to be an improvement over Tech1, but is not always the case right now due to rig / calibration restrictions.



Does nothing for the current missile issue at hand, much less the struggling raven issue. All the same, its a nice add on to navy ships
Enya Sparhawk
Black Tea and Talons
#592 - 2013-05-03 21:40:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Enya Sparhawk
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:

You want to Split the function into 2 parts so far i get it, but the other part ... well in most cases a image of your function would be nice to understand what you mean. You can use even Paint to do it.

Edit: remember to explain, why do you think it need to be split into 2 parts.

A curve that looks like this...
A normal reduction in damage to start out with and then a below normal reduction for the last part...

The idea being that the change in damage shouldn't be so severe at below 50% so that large missles aren't getting raped hitting small ships, while still not doing insane damage...

I got the idea from a Wöhler curve used for determining material fatigue (I'm evening wondering if a similar formula could be retranslated and applied to what we need at least conceptually... It uses a logarithmic scale as does the current formula; treat missle base damage as the "material" and the formula like the fatigue, stress factors???)

so plotting on a graph:
Y = 0-1 (0 -100%),
X = logarithmic scale factoring the explosion radius/velocity, sig, velocity in some relationship (max & min ranges defined by 0.5)
Z = rdf (just for a three dimensional graph comparing how the scale visually affects all range of missles)

Make sense?

Fíorghrá: Grá na fírinne

Maireann croí éadrom i bhfad.

Bíonn súil le muir ach ní bhíonn súil le tír.

Is maith an scéalaí an aimsir.

When the lost ships of Greece finally return home...
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#593 - 2013-05-03 22:38:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Bucca Zerodyme
Enya Sparhawk wrote:

A curve that looks like this...
A normal reduction in damage to start out with and then a below normal reduction for the last part...

The idea being that the change in damage shouldn't be so severe at below 50% so that large missles aren't getting raped hitting small ships, while still not doing insane damage...

I got the idea from a Wöhler curve used for determining material fatigue (I'm evening wondering if a similar formula could be retranslated and applied to what we need at least conceptually... It uses a logarithmic scale as does the current formula; treat missle base damage as the "material" and the formula like the fatigue, stress factors???)

so plotting on a graph:
Y = 0-1 (0 -100%),
X = logarithmic scale factoring the explosion radius/velocity, sig, velocity in some relationship (max & min ranges defined by 0.5)
Z = rdf (just for a three dimensional graph comparing how the scale visually affects all range of missles)

Make sense?


The Wöhler-Curve looks like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/BrittleAluminium320MPA_S-N_Curve.jpg

Do you want the same behavior?

I dont understand what do you mean with X,Y, Z ? Is this a graph, which you want to explain?

If you want to have the same behavior as the Wöhler-Curve, then there is a problem. This Graph, which i linked, is logarithmic scaled. That mean:
- Short Version: You cant use the same formula
- Long Version: If you really want to know, then look for yourself.
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#594 - 2013-05-04 00:57:44 UTC
Hagika wrote:

Does nothing for the current missile issue at hand, much less the struggling raven issue. All the same, its a nice add on to navy ships
With a 40-60M ISK increase in price... isn't the Raven already dead?
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#595 - 2013-05-04 06:45:22 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
Hagika wrote:

Does nothing for the current missile issue at hand, much less the struggling raven issue. All the same, its a nice add on to navy ships
With a 40-60M ISK increase in price... isn't the Raven already dead?


Yes, this last round of garbage thrown at it finally put the raven out of its misery.

It became a pve ship because in pvp it sucked horribly and now with the huge increase, it becomes a 200+ mil piece of garbage.

The scorp got a low slot though so it can armor tank now !Roll
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#596 - 2013-05-04 07:24:13 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
intriguing changes i think people would be more likely to use them if you made them THE alpha damage platform ROF is less of an issue i think.

They will be the best LR weapon for dps by far, and the second best for alpha...

PS : you are looking at more than 800 dps with fury...


Which makes sense.

Caldari are suppose to be the long range specialists. Kinda balanced by the fact that it still takes them a while to reach their target.
marVLs
#597 - 2013-05-04 11:00:52 UTC
Just one thing to help missiles (and torps) one tiny little thing that will help them more than some strange stats manipulating...


Move Target Painters to High Slot ffsAttention
Jezza McWaffle
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#598 - 2013-05-04 11:31:04 UTC
Guns dont get tracking in their highs why should missiles.

Wormholes worst badass | Checkout my Wormhole blog
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#599 - 2013-05-04 11:33:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Bucca Zerodyme
Jezza McWaffle wrote:
Guns dont get tracking in their highs why should missiles.


Because missiles dont have tracking enhancer

Edit: Im not really sure if it would be of any use, because you cant fit any other utility and only 1 TP then.
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#600 - 2013-05-04 11:35:23 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
intriguing changes i think people would be more likely to use them if you made them THE alpha damage platform ROF is less of an issue i think.

They will be the best LR weapon for dps by far, and the second best for alpha...

PS : you are looking at more than 800 dps with fury...


Which makes sense.

Caldari are suppose to be the long range specialists. Kinda balanced by the fact that it still takes them a while to reach their target.


Yeah if you are looking for PvE, then yes. If you are looking for PvP, then no.
Did you even read the whole thread? Missiles sucks and you can use Fury's only on bigger Targets.