Player Features and Ideas Discussion

yeah unfortuantly our call to boost torps will now result in a nerf to ham and rocket range

maybe then we can get te/tc to work for missiles...

What about fixing Torps too?

I don't recall this confusion about focusing on weapons or fitted ships, so no comment.

All ships may have a ROF or damage bonus, but they don't all have the same number of weapons. The actual raw DPS figures for CN cruise Typhoon/Raven look very similar to those of other BS carrying LR guns with close range ammo, disregarding secondary weapons and drones. Hmm reading on it seems we agree here.

I don't think large rails are a weak weapon either. Certainly I'd agree that it's more likely that cruise has been overbuffed rather than underbuffed, and I think it's very easy to argue that cruise is too easy to fit. I am, however, wary of the comment that cruise outdamages rails at all ranges. While a CN cruise Raven/Typhoon does 681 DPS and a Rokh can do 609 DPS (although AFAIK fleet Rokhs tend to be dual-MFS), the fact remains that people fly fleet Rokhs not for their raw damage output, but for their toughness and damage projection abilities. Even with the seventh medslot and formidable damage projection, the future Raven is flimsy and, for that reason, it will be unlikely to replace the Rokh as a fleet battleship.

So if the Raven/Typhoon isn't going to be used in large fleets much, where will they be used? On the small scale, I see ABCs being a much preferable choice because of the mobility advantage, although I'm of the opinion that of the ABS, the Raven and Typhoon are probably the best, certainly superior to the Tempest. What of medium-scale fleets? I'm not sure that this exists as a discrete area of gamespace.

Actually, playing with fleet Raven fits more, I think we can drop the cap booster and SeBo and just rely on natural cap and a sig amp in low for extra lock range. That frees up medslots to fit a tank comparable to that of a fleet Rokh. What do you think? Do you see the Raven complementing or replacing the Rokh as a fleet BS?

Here is my overall observations since patch release. CCP Rise pay attention!

1) CMLs still have the absurdly long range (more apparent with Raven than new Typhoon or Armaggedon).
1a) CML do not need a 100 km+ range. As we will never engage that far out since it would be pointless.

2) Typhoon from my testing/evaluation outdamages the Raven in *99% of situations. So it is one more point for WINmatar and another jab with the rod in the rectum of Caldari.

*Not 100% so as to account for the improbable situation where the statement is untrue

3) Missile mechanics are still screwed up as I elaborated on before. So for the sake of everyone's sanity I will summarize it below somewhere...

4) Torps need to be re-evaluated/rebalanced now to fit properly in contrast to the new CML.
________

#3:

Missiles as a generic rule have extremely (absurdly in HML, CML cases) amusingly long flight times. In terms of reality and physics missiles would constantly accelerate till 'terminal velocity' is reached. 'Terminal velocity' being the point where the thrust of the engine is no longer sufficient to increase velocity meaningfully. Yet, to do that in a video game engine would be a too costly use of server resources.

As such, it was proposed to increase flight velocity while reducing the flight times to maintain range and add a semblence of reasonable time-to-target. Since a flight time of "12 seconds" for CM is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. This proposal would not require any change in the flight mechanics of missiles. It would mitigate damage-delay at outer-edge of range to a reasonable level. If the present missile velocity mechanics are built well there will be no significant difference in time-on-target at closer ranges.

In bullet-point form:

1) Set range as constant
2) Increase missile maximum velocity >ergo> decrease flight time
3) Solve such that: range-final = range-initial for a high Vmax-final versus Vmax-initial

I could solve this problem with a Ti-89 for every missile type based on default or base-range. Yet, I am not being paid to do that so I am not going to.

End result of the proposal summary above would be No Effect on game-dynamics by missiles overall.

*Note: Proposal summarized above was based on a ~100 Km 'maximum' range for CMLs.

Think about EVE as a game about submarines in terms of logic :3

It's actually supposed to have something to do with the warp drive on a ship amplifying the gravity of nearby celestials or something like that, and that's why everything behaves as if in a gravitational field. Also, it's far easier to code, and less stressful on the servers.

Point is, they have some strange lore-ey things going on to explain it.




There's this crazy mathy science **** where adding energy adds mass, etc. etc. up until the point where you would need infinite energy to accelerate any more, or something like that, therefore based on the fuel one missile could carry and all that there would be a speed cap.

I probably got some of that wrong. I should have paid more attention during science classes.

Comment.
If an event that drives you to consider rebalancing,
is an logical event that follows plausible [in game] physics,
then changing such events,
would inevitably cause more knots;
knots that lead to more knots.

Logic example (likely-hood of . . ).
It is logical to dodge a missile : It is illogical to dodge a bullet.

Follow these steps.
1) Leave this rebalancing madness and run, seriously.
2) Do what thou wilt.

Why?
Do not let a group of whiners define how the game rules are defined.