These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Samas Sarum
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#721 - 2013-05-31 20:46:13 UTC
ITTigerClawIK wrote:
any ETA on any torpedo changes?


Read Dev posts in the Small Navy Boosters thread. Short Answer: What torp changes?
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#722 - 2013-05-31 21:05:53 UTC
Samas Sarum wrote:
ITTigerClawIK wrote:
any ETA on any torpedo changes?


Read Dev posts in the Small Navy Boosters thread. Short Answer: What torp changes?


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

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

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
#723 - 2013-06-02 11:57:58 UTC
Samas Sarum wrote:
ITTigerClawIK wrote:
any ETA on any torpedo changes?


Read Dev posts in the Small Navy Boosters thread. Short Answer: What torp changes?


kinda weird id have to go to the cap booster thread of all places for this kidna info lol
Baracuda
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#724 - 2013-06-03 11:33:27 UTC
What about fixing Torps too?
Samas Sarum
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#725 - 2013-06-03 13:28:18 UTC
Baracuda wrote:
What about fixing Torps too?


Read the thread before posting
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#726 - 2013-06-04 10:45:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Roime wrote:
Gypsio,

first you critisized my assertion for not focusing solely on the weapon system, but when I didn't include ship stats then you critisize that? Considering all ships have either a RoF or damage bonus, their effect is not as big as you might think, the numbers just get bigger but relations stay the same.

Yes, large LR turrets and the new cruises are pretty much equal at medium ranges. Same missiles are superior damage-vise at shorter and longer ranges. I'm also aware that under certain conditions turret tracking formula has advantages over missile damage formula, and vice versa, and I'm not ignoring delayed damage, which is also situational.

I just don't think that large rails are a weak weapon system, and cruises outdamaging them at all ranges with no cap penalty and selectable damage type means that they were overbuffed. I'm also not saying that cruises didn't need a buff, just that less would have been sufficient. I'm also unsure whether the current missile BS were rebalanced for the new cruise stats or old ones, but they do seem incredibly powerful in the damage department compared to the traditionally highest damage platforms.

And for the others, feel free to compare high-damage close range turret ammo with the missiles. I chose T2 LR ammos for turrets to reach similar range to the missiles.


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?
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#727 - 2013-06-06 20:45:51 UTC
When are these going be unstickied to give Page 1 back to Player Posts? Odyssey is in and the Feedback and Issues threads are active. Why not replace these with a "Link Sticky" to those two threads?

We all know how lazy we are to go clicking...wait for it...past Page 3 of this Forum section. Blink
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#728 - 2013-06-06 22:28:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenshi Hanshin
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.
Samas Sarum
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#729 - 2013-06-06 23:25:22 UTC
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:
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.


Correct me if I'm wrong but would missiles in space even have a terminal velocity? There's no drag or gravity (for the most part). So wouldn't they continue accelerating as long as there's fuel?
TehCloud
Guardians of the Dodixie
#730 - 2013-06-07 01:41:06 UTC
Samas Sarum wrote:
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:
*snip*


Correct me if I'm wrong but would missiles in space even have a terminal velocity? There's no drag or gravity (for the most part). So wouldn't they continue accelerating as long as there's fuel?


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

My Condor costs less than that module!

Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#731 - 2013-06-07 14:38:39 UTC
Samas Sarum wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong but would missiles in space even have a terminal velocity? There's no drag or gravity (for the most part). So wouldn't they continue accelerating as long as there's fuel?

In EVE's universe space is fairly obviously a fluid medium.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#732 - 2013-06-07 18:29:24 UTC
Josilin du Guesclin wrote:
Samas Sarum wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong but would missiles in space even have a terminal velocity? There's no drag or gravity (for the most part). So wouldn't they continue accelerating as long as there's fuel?

In EVE's universe space is fairly obviously a fluid medium.


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.


Samas Sarum wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong but would missiles in space even have a terminal velocity? There's no drag or gravity (for the most part). So wouldn't they continue accelerating as long as there's fuel?


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.
Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#733 - 2013-06-07 19:35:21 UTC
Goldensaver wrote:
Josilin du Guesclin wrote:
Samas Sarum wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong but would missiles in space even have a terminal velocity? There's no drag or gravity (for the most part). So wouldn't they continue accelerating as long as there's fuel?

In EVE's universe space is fairly obviously a fluid medium.


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.


Samas Sarum wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong but would missiles in space even have a terminal velocity? There's no drag or gravity (for the most part). So wouldn't they continue accelerating as long as there's fuel?


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.


From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_travel_using_constant_acceleration

Bottomline: At the speeds we're dealing with, the missiles should keep accelerating.

A Half Myth: It gets harder to push a ship faster as it gets closer to the speed of light

This is a half myth because it depends on the frame of reference. This is true for those watching from the planetary reference frame. For those experiencing the journey-those in the ship reference frame-this is not true. For both the planetary frame, and in the ship reference frame the ship will change speed in a Newtonian way—push it a little and it speeds up a little, push it a lot and it speeds up a lot. However, in the planetary frame the ship will appear to be gaining mass due to its high kinetic energy, and the Mass-energy equivalence principle. Should the engines be giving a constant thrust, this will result in progressively smaller acceleration due to the higher mass it is required to accelerate.

From the ships frame, the acceleration would continue at the same rate. However, due to the Lorentz contraction The galaxy around the ship would appear to become squashed in the direction of travel, and a destination many light years away, would appear to become much closer. Traveling to this destination at sub luminal speeds would become practical for the onboard travellers. Ultimately, from the ships frame, it would be possible to reach anywhere in the visible universe, before the ship has time to accelerate to light speed.
Sir Dragon
Einherjar Yggdrasils
#734 - 2013-06-09 06:55:12 UTC
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.
Pantera Home Videos:    http://pktube.onepakistan.com/video/ck2ykdBrDRM/Pantera-Vulgar-Video-Full-Completo.html  ;  http://pktube.onepakistan.com/video/xpma3u7OjfU/Pantera-Watch-It-Go-Full-Completo-CD1.html ;    http://pktube.onepakistan.com/video/yyO9rAx8eoQ/Pantera-Watch-It-Go-Full-Completo-CD2.html .