These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Increase cruise missile hitpoints

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1 - 2013-07-05 11:55:03 UTC
I'm getting feedback that a major obstacle to deploying cruise missile ships into 0.0 fights is that they're too easily firewalled. Currently
  • Cruise Missiles have the same hitpoints as a Light Missile (70hp) whilst Torpedos have 280.

    • I propose that it should take at least a Large smartbomb to kill a CML in one pulse. The Faction medium smartbombs are relatively easy to fit & sustain on medium ships which can trivially outmanouvre battleships, making the firewall tactic over-effective vs CML fleets. The best faction medium smartbomb (True Sansha EMP M) does 150hp/cycle.

    Therefore I propose that cruise missiles have their hitpoints increased to 165. This would halve the effectiveness of medium smartbomb firewalls (At least 2 cycles instead of 1) and reduce light smartbomb firewalls by 50% (At least 3 cycles instead of 2).

    Possible side effects include: greater resistence to defender missiles

    "Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

    Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
    Harvey James
    The Sengoku Legacy
    #2 - 2013-07-05 12:04:19 UTC
    +1

    just one of many inconsistencies in this game.
    it would be great if CCP put up a thread sticky asking about such inconsistencies so we could have a place to put them so long as they actually bothered to listen and fix them that is..

    T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

    ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

    Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
    Malcanis
    Vanishing Point.
    The Initiative.
    #3 - 2013-07-05 12:09:32 UTC
    Well tbh I don't really care all that much about fixing inconsistencies for consistency's sake until they actually effect gameplay. Until now, CMLs were worthless in PvP, and NPCs don't firewall (although they totally should!). Now it's an issue, I think CCP should fix it.

    "Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

    Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
    Harvey James
    The Sengoku Legacy
    #4 - 2013-07-05 12:20:48 UTC
    Malcanis wrote:
    Well tbh I don't really care all that much about fixing inconsistencies for consistency's sake until they actually effect gameplay. Until now, CMLs were worthless in PvP, and NPCs don't firewall (although they totally should!). Now it's an issue, I think CCP should fix it.


    how about the inconsistency of HAMS having the same range as torps?

    T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

    ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

    Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
    Malcanis
    Vanishing Point.
    The Initiative.
    #5 - 2013-07-05 12:26:51 UTC
    Torps could definitely use a couple hundred m/s increase in the base velocity IMO, but that's for another thread.

    "Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

    Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
    Harvey James
    The Sengoku Legacy
    #6 - 2013-07-05 12:31:25 UTC
    Malcanis wrote:
    Torps could definitely use a couple hundred m/s increase in the base velocity IMO, but that's for another thread.


    that doesn't really fix the problem does it?
    Rockets and HAMS have double the range they should have .. FACT

    and surely as our representative you are honour bound to bring our concerns to CCP .. so surely making a thread on our behalf for CCP to interact with and listen to our concerns no matter how small even if they only fix a small percentage of them

    T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

    ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

    Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
    Malcanis
    Vanishing Point.
    The Initiative.
    #7 - 2013-07-05 12:32:37 UTC
    Malcanis wrote:
    but that's for another thread.

    "Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

    Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
    Harvey James
    The Sengoku Legacy
    #8 - 2013-07-05 12:34:04 UTC
    Malcanis wrote:
    Malcanis wrote:
    but that's for another thread.



    so what you just blank people if it doesn't suit you?

    T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

    ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

    Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
    Tsubutai
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #9 - 2013-07-05 12:34:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tsubutai
    Re: cruise HP change - good idea, plus one, etc.

    Harvey James wrote:
    Malcanis wrote:
    Torps could definitely use a couple hundred m/s increase in the base velocity IMO, but that's for another thread.


    that doesn't really fix the problem does it?
    Rockets and HAMS have double the range they should have .. FACT

    Missiles' range is equal to the product of their velocity and their flight time. Increasing the velocity of torps by "a couple of hundred m/s" would increase their range by a bit over 15%.
    Malcanis
    Vanishing Point.
    The Initiative.
    #10 - 2013-07-05 12:37:14 UTC
    Harvey James wrote:
    Malcanis wrote:
    Malcanis wrote:
    but that's for another thread.



    so what you just blank people if it doesn't suit you?


    Correct. Start a seperate thread on your issue rather than dragging it into someone else's on another issue and maybe you'll get some traction.

    "Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

    Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
    Harvey James
    The Sengoku Legacy
    #11 - 2013-07-05 12:47:48 UTC
    Malcanis wrote:
    Harvey James wrote:
    Malcanis wrote:
    Malcanis wrote:
    but that's for another thread.



    so what you just blank people if it doesn't suit you?


    Correct. Start a seperate thread on your issue rather than dragging it into someone else's on another issue and maybe you'll get some traction.


    well excuse me for wanting to talk to my supposed representative .... what was i thinking?

    T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

    ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

    Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
    Grath Telkin
    Amok.
    Goonswarm Federation
    #12 - 2013-07-05 12:51:37 UTC
    Good, if you want to see cruise in use they need not only the recent buff but a few more hit points.

    Also a little consistency wouldn't hurt, rockets and cruise missiles having the same hp sounds silly

    Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
    Sway M4G
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #13 - 2013-07-05 13:01:49 UTC
    i agree the cruise missles need a ehp buff too them and torps are too slow maybe add + 200m/s to the speed of them and would be more effective i think.

    Reminder : Bigger broadcast buttons please :)
    Meep Thong
    Doomheim
    #14 - 2013-07-05 13:25:30 UTC
    Funny, I thought we were talking about rebalancing cruise missiles. I guess if we can't talk about rebalance in general, then why talk about smart bombs?

    Faster cruise missiles would get through more smartbombs too, cause they'd be in the radius for a shorter time. So wouldn't this discussion be allowed here as well, mr. almighty (intentionally lowercase) representative of the people and thread integrity monitor?
    Lallante
    Blue Republic
    RvB - BLUE Republic
    #15 - 2013-07-05 13:31:06 UTC
    As per our discussion on FHC on this topic:
    http://failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?13121-navy-Scorps-being-used/

    I support the 165hp suggestion
    Lallante
    Blue Republic
    RvB - BLUE Republic
    #16 - 2013-07-05 13:32:44 UTC
    Meep Thong wrote:
    Funny, I thought we were talking about rebalancing cruise missiles. I guess if we can't talk about rebalance in general, then why talk about smart bombs?

    Faster cruise missiles would get through more smartbombs too, cause they'd be in the radius for a shorter time. So wouldn't this discussion be allowed here as well, mr. almighty (intentionally lowercase) representative of the people and thread integrity monitor?


    Cruise speed affects lots of other things (delay of dmg application, total range etc etc) and is fine as is. HP is the only thing thatn eeds to change. Also you are totally an alt of the gimp shitposting above.
    Malcanis
    Vanishing Point.
    The Initiative.
    #17 - 2013-07-05 13:33:11 UTC
    Meep Thong wrote:
    Funny, I thought we were talking about rebalancing cruise missiles. I guess if we can't talk about rebalance in general, then why talk about smart bombs?

    Faster cruise missiles would get through more smartbombs too, cause they'd be in the radius for a shorter time. So wouldn't this discussion be allowed here as well, mr. almighty (intentionally lowercase) representative of the people and thread integrity monitor?


    No, that's a valid comment because it actually relates to the specific suggestion being made.

    The answer is: yes, the increased speed does help CMLs get through smartbombs, but they've still only been made as fast as HMLs. By definition, if you're firing cruise missiles, you're firing them from a battleship-sized platform, and you're less effective at hitting small signature targets. Thus medium ships are comparitively more effective at firewalling (because they can outmaneouvre battleships) and the firewall ship itself is less vulnerable to those missiles that do make it through. So even with the speed increase, CMLs are still disproportionately affected by medium size firewalls compared to HMLs/HAMs, and as a result, they're under-utilized on the battlefield.

    "Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

    Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
    Andrea Griffin
    #18 - 2013-07-05 13:43:54 UTC
    Having read through a good and thorough discussion on the merits of a CML HP increase, it seems like a good idea to me and something the balancing team should look at.

    CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer.
    Samillian
    Angry Mustellid
    #19 - 2013-07-05 13:44:53 UTC
    Seems reasonable to me.

    NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
    The Djego
    Hellequin Inc.
    #20 - 2013-07-05 16:01:02 UTC  |  Edited by: The Djego
    I think, Assembly Hall would be the better forum for this, since it is a bit more serious idea, that addresses specific game mechanics.

    Some questions:

    Should the large smart bomb receive a shorter cycle time, to improve the obvious counter a bit?

    Wouldn't a smart bomb BS firewall be a easy target for a few bombers?

    Should both player and npc defender missiles receive a damage buff to address the changes in pve? Since with 160+ HP, it would take 3 defenders to kill one.

    Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
    123Next page