These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Missile Problem
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#81 - 2013-12-08 02:07:16 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
Cruise missiles aren't that bad. They are quite effective against other battleships and have crazy range. Not saying they couldn't use a little work (and they have fundamental issues in PVP), but I'd be ecstatic if I woke up tomorrow and all the other missiles you listed suddenly measured up to cruise missiles.

Edit: Just realized you are suggesting a nerf to cruise missiles. WTF? People don't use torps because they are trash.

What I suggested was to dial back the range with cruise missiles, ie: reduce flight time by maybe 25% (keep velocity). The fact that they can hit out to over 350km when you can only target to 250km doesn't seem problematic? And as for torpedoes, I suggested a damage buff. Something like a straight 10-15% damage increase.


Missile flight time at extreme ranges majorly sucks though, so all that range (that you have to sacrifice damage application to get) is pretty meh.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#82 - 2013-12-08 02:14:24 UTC
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
Missile flight time at extreme ranges majorly sucks though, so all that range (that you have to sacrifice damage application to get) is pretty meh.

That was kind of my point. The majority of the extra range isn't really being utilized anyway, so the extra flight time is somewhat moot. The original heavy missile nerf traded flight time for missile velocity, and I'd love to see something similar to all the other missiles, ie: really fast heavy assault missiles and torpedoes.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#83 - 2013-12-08 02:29:29 UTC
Fourteen Maken wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
Cruise missiles aren't that bad. They are quite effective against other battleships and have crazy range. Not saying they couldn't use a little work (and they have fundamental issues in PVP), but I'd be ecstatic if I woke up tomorrow and all the other missiles you listed suddenly measured up to cruise missiles.

Edit: Just realized you are suggesting a nerf to cruise missiles. WTF? People don't use torps because they are trash.

What I suggested was to dial back the range with cruise missiles, ie: reduce flight time by maybe 25% (keep velocity). The fact that they can hit out to over 350km when you can only target to 250km doesn't seem problematic? And as for torpedoes, I suggested a damage buff. Something like a straight 10-15% damage increase.


The fact Incursion fleets looking for optimal efficiency don't want cruise missile pilots, suggests they are not OP. They are rarely used outside of lvl4 mission running so I don't see any evidence for them being OP. If your sitting at long range it's much better to have high alpha instant dps turrets, if people are using Cruise over Torps it has more to do with the poor damage application of torpedo's than range.

This.
Torps aren't useful in incursions outside of HQ fleets with a metric ****-ton of TPs and webs to spread around. And even then, only as a last resort if you can't fly a ship with a real weapon system. Cruise missiles have slightly less dps, but why is the range of cruise missiles a problem? Right now mine will hit at over 220km, but that doesn't mean I'm doing it even in missions. I would need multiple SeBos to make use of that range and then the stupid flight time makes it pretty much pointless unless I feel like wasting ammo and time. Outside of missions, when is engaging at long range with missiles ever a good idea? Especially when artillery seems to have a muzzle velocity of over 100km/s.
If missiles had an acceleration figure instead of a max velocity that would fix a lot of the problems and make some use of the long range of cruise missiles in some situations. Also, as many people have said, there are no missile specific mods to help with application. And 1 of the 2 only works within brawling range when you're already boned as a missile pilot.

Suffice to say, missiles are completely screwed-up and CCP has continually shown that missiles are a second rate weapon system, limited by an unrealistic maximum velocity that is outperformed by a projectile weapon with an unknown but constant muzzle velocity of insane speed.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#84 - 2013-12-08 03:42:19 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Suffice to say, missiles are completely screwed-up and CCP has continually shown that missiles are a second rate weapon system, limited by an unrealistic maximum velocity that is outperformed by a projectile weapon with an unknown but constant muzzle velocity of insane speed.

Based on the training requirements, maybe missiles should be OP. Seems just bizarre that we have a weapon system that takes substantially longer to train yet delivers sub-par results.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Actaeon Versaea
#85 - 2013-12-08 03:45:29 UTC
I see where you're coming from - but this essentially suggests making missiles use turret mechanics, which defeats the purpose... Also they have absolute range, as staged, but I think this has to stay just for the logic behind it (Fuel Limits) - otherwise how can they justifies what range the missle lowers damage at, also how it happens ("If it dosen't need fuel, why dose not it go for ever.

That said, I agree with the first replies, just add more application bonuses - or as you suggest, just a bigger range of ammo.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#86 - 2013-12-08 04:06:20 UTC
Actaeon Versaea wrote:
I see where you're coming from - but this essentially suggests making missiles use turret mechanics, which defeats the purpose... Also they have absolute range, as staged, but I think this has to stay just for the logic behind it (Fuel Limits) - otherwise how can they justifies what range the missle lowers damage at, also how it happens ("If it dosen't need fuel, why dose not it go for ever.

That said, I agree with the first replies, just add more application bonuses - or as you suggest, just a bigger range of ammo.

Yes, missiles have more range. They have to, simply because they don't offer variable range, damage type or damage application.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#87 - 2013-12-08 04:18:06 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Actaeon Versaea wrote:
I see where you're coming from - but this essentially suggests making missiles use turret mechanics, which defeats the purpose... Also they have absolute range, as staged, but I think this has to stay just for the logic behind it (Fuel Limits) - otherwise how can they justifies what range the missle lowers damage at, also how it happens ("If it dosen't need fuel, why dose not it go for ever.

That said, I agree with the first replies, just add more application bonuses - or as you suggest, just a bigger range of ammo.

Yes, missiles have more range. They have to, simply because they don't offer variable range, damage type or damage application.

And that range is not very useful past a certain point outside of PvE because missiles have a maximum velocity, which doesn't seem to be a problem with projectiles. But yea, if your opponent doesn't mind waiting around for you missiles to get there you'll be able to experience the disappointment of watching your damage not apply. :)
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#88 - 2013-12-08 04:35:46 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
And that range is not very useful past a certain point outside of PvE because missiles have a maximum velocity, which doesn't seem to be a problem with projectiles. But yea, if your opponent doesn't mind waiting around for you missiles to get there you'll be able to experience the disappointment of watching your damage not apply. :)

Correct. And if you get sensor-dampened that negates most of the range advantage. Since Caldari hulls don't receive web or scrambler bonuses, you're more or less giving everything up to be able to engage in close-range PvP. One of the few things Caldari ships have left going for them is ECM, but I think we can all see the writing on the wall.

We haven't been able to fix the Phoenix in years, but we can literally destroy the Caracal overnight...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Marcus Walkuris
Aww yeahhh
#89 - 2013-12-08 18:57:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Walkuris
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
And that range is not very useful past a certain point outside of PvE because missiles have a maximum velocity, which doesn't seem to be a problem with projectiles. But yea, if your opponent doesn't mind waiting around for you missiles to get there you'll be able to experience the disappointment of watching your damage not apply. :)

Correct. And if you get sensor-dampened that negates most of the range advantage. Since Caldari hulls don't receive web or scrambler bonuses, you're more or less giving everything up to be able to engage in close-range PvP. One of the few things Caldari ships have left going for them is ECM, but I think we can all see the writing on the wall.

We haven't been able to fix the Phoenix in years, but we can literally destroy the Caracal overnight...


Yes, and between everyone, you and me, we have discussed everything there is to be said about missiles. It is time for us all to drop missiles and move on. I mean we are not just whining, missiles really are stupid at this point. The only thing that has any real point to be flown is a Tengu and that alone isn't worth the effort. It will take maybe a month for people to get that cruise missiles are a joke again since now it is Marauder or go home. CCP doesn't give a **** after every point has been made. Move on and move out of missiles.
Edit: Kinda neglected mentioning LM and rockets but yeah blah, very niche although interceptors are quite popular.
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#90 - 2013-12-08 19:20:46 UTC
Marcus Walkuris wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
And that range is not very useful past a certain point outside of PvE because missiles have a maximum velocity, which doesn't seem to be a problem with projectiles. But yea, if your opponent doesn't mind waiting around for you missiles to get there you'll be able to experience the disappointment of watching your damage not apply. :)

Correct. And if you get sensor-dampened that negates most of the range advantage. Since Caldari hulls don't receive web or scrambler bonuses, you're more or less giving everything up to be able to engage in close-range PvP. One of the few things Caldari ships have left going for them is ECM, but I think we can all see the writing on the wall.

We haven't been able to fix the Phoenix in years, but we can literally destroy the Caracal overnight...


Yes, and between everyone, you and me, we have discussed everything there is to be said about missiles. It is time for us all to drop missiles and move on. I mean we are not just whining, missiles really are stupid at this point. The only thing that has any real point to be flown is a Tengu and that alone isn't worth the effort. It will take maybe a month for people to get that cruise missiles are a joke again since now it is Marauder or go home. CCP doesn't give a **** after every point has been made. Move on and move out of missiles.

I essentially said that in the Rapid Missile Launcher thread.

I second your motion Marcus! By continuing to use missiles we are only feeding the trolls that are CCP Rise and Fozzie. Their supervisors won't make them do anything unless it is "Holy ****, people aren't using them!". That said it would take some serious work along the lines of what has been said here for me to even reconsider missiles again.

Happy Holidays to you guys! I hope that next year is better for us...

Ps. We should make a bonfire with the coal and other crap from CCP Rise and Fozzie this year. Thoughts? ;P
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#91 - 2013-12-08 20:05:04 UTC
Marcus Walkuris wrote:
Yes, and between everyone, you and me, we have discussed everything there is to be said about missiles. It is time for us all to drop missiles and move on. I mean we are not just whining, missiles really are stupid at this point. The only thing that has any real point to be flown is a Tengu and that alone isn't worth the effort. It will take maybe a month for people to get that cruise missiles are a joke again since now it is Marauder or go home. CCP doesn't give a **** after every point has been made. Move on and move out of missiles.

And with a nerf on the horizon, I don't think the Tengu is going to be worth flying for very much longer, either. RIP Caldari.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Marcus Walkuris
Aww yeahhh
#92 - 2013-12-08 20:12:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Walkuris
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Marcus Walkuris wrote:
Yes, and between everyone, you and me, we have discussed everything there is to be said about missiles. It is time for us all to drop missiles and move on. I mean we are not just whining, missiles really are stupid at this point. The only thing that has any real point to be flown is a Tengu and that alone isn't worth the effort. It will take maybe a month for people to get that cruise missiles are a joke again since now it is Marauder or go home. CCP doesn't give a **** after every point has been made. Move on and move out of missiles.

And with a nerf on the horizon, I don't think the Tengu is going to be worth flying for very much longer, either. RIP Caldari.


I guess everything wasn't discussed lol. For real? Tengu getting a nerf? Well it doesn't really matter. I will probably get the most use out of missile skills with my 4 gimpy rattlesnake launchers. Simply because it is secondary dps so it can't screw me too much.
Edit: That sounded more selfish then intended, but I hope the message got across.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#93 - 2013-12-08 20:43:25 UTC
Marcus Walkuris wrote:
I guess everything wasn't discussed lol. For real? Tengu getting a nerf? Well it doesn't really matter. I will probably get the most use out of missile skills with my 4 gimpy rattlesnake launchers. Simply because it is secondary dps so it can't screw me too much.
Edit: That sounded more selfish then intended, but I hope the message got across.

CCP Fall said that T3s "…wouldn't be nerfed to the point of uselessness", but seeing as how the Tengu is already borderline ineffective - that pretty much seals its fate. If I could run guns on the Rattlesnake that would be pretty tempting.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Marcus Walkuris
Aww yeahhh
#94 - 2013-12-08 22:17:35 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Marcus Walkuris wrote:
I guess everything wasn't discussed lol. For real? Tengu getting a nerf? Well it doesn't really matter. I will probably get the most use out of missile skills with my 4 gimpy rattlesnake launchers. Simply because it is secondary dps so it can't screw me too much.
Edit: That sounded more selfish then intended, but I hope the message got across.

CCP Fall said that T3s "…wouldn't be nerfed to the point of uselessness", but seeing as how the Tengu is already borderline ineffective - that pretty much seals its fate. If I could run guns on the Rattlesnake that would be pretty tempting.


I always hoped they would change guristas to have both missiles and hybrids as options. And I'm not talking split weapon-systems. Well potentially but not as an optimal setup.
AskariRising
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#95 - 2013-12-08 22:33:04 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Seranova Farreach wrote:
i some how disagree.. missles seem to work for frigs and dessys(mostly) but yes other then those ships turrets seem to be better over all :|

Frigates and destroyers... that's it? So basically you mean rockets. That's 1/8 missile systems.


anyone remember roflkets? lol and now ppl say theyre the best missile lol? times have changed
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation
#96 - 2013-12-09 13:41:17 UTC
What I think about missile damage is that it should actually deliver normal damage is, say, you throw missiles into your enemy's face. I mean completely opposite directions, because really explosion won't come throuth the ship and will deliver its full damage. Also, explosion should maintain missile's velocity so if missile was actually faster then from behind damage should be increased as well. So if a frig goes straight to a cruise missile, it'll be blapped; if 90 degreees - well some damage, if away from - possibly increased damage as well. Will need some tweaks to missile stats though.
jiujitsutou
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2013-12-10 12:07:11 UTC  |  Edited by: jiujitsutou
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Actaeon Versaea wrote:
I see where you're coming from - but this essentially suggests making missiles use turret mechanics, which defeats the purpose... Also they have absolute range, as staged, but I think this has to stay just for the logic behind it (Fuel Limits) - otherwise how can they justifies what range the missle lowers damage at, also how it happens ("If it dosen't need fuel, why dose not it go for ever.

That said, I agree with the first replies, just add more application bonuses - or as you suggest, just a bigger range of ammo.

Yes, missiles have more range. They have to, simply because they don't offer variable range, damage type or damage application.


that is actually wrong missles do offer selectable damagetypes (only because some ships have a kinetic bonus it doesnt mean they cant (and sometimes must) use other amos for great effect) and they also offer you missle wich hit smaller targets (precision) or missles wich do more damage but only hit bigger targets (fury /rage) so you infact have the options at hand to pick damage type and aplication

i really canot see where you people get your arguments from , missles can be a as good weapon system as turrets (if we ignore hms) , they now have the same skill requirements /path for the individual gun / launcher, they have the same options to influence damage and application (implants, rigs) . They are not broken , but they follow their own mechanics , just as drones do follow their own mechanic. Hms are special as they have been nerfed for a reason a while agon and their turret equivalents (rail,artillery and beam) have received a damage buff , so i assume ccp will find a solution to not make them the new med railguns .

On a side note : This thread isnt about ships , and even if it was i canot see the tengu beeing useless. Things change sometimes and than you need to adapt and not beg for some one to come and change things back ....
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#98 - 2013-12-10 23:45:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenshi Hanshin
Shade Alidiana wrote:
What I think about missile damage is that it should actually deliver normal damage is, say, you throw missiles into your enemy's face. I mean completely opposite directions, because really explosion won't come throuth the ship and will deliver its full damage. Also, explosion should maintain missile's velocity so if missile was actually faster then from behind damage should be increased as well. So if a frig goes straight to a cruise missile, it'll be blapped; if 90 degreees - well some damage, if away from - possibly increased damage as well. Will need some tweaks to missile stats though.

Agreed! However that is highly unlikely to occur given the CCP trackrecord.

jiujitsutou wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Actaeon Versaea wrote:
I see where you're coming from - but this essentially suggests making missiles use turret mechanics, which defeats the purpose... Also they have absolute range, as staged, but I think this has to stay just for the logic behind it (Fuel Limits) - otherwise how can they justifies what range the missle lowers damage at, also how it happens ("If it dosen't need fuel, why dose not it go for ever.

That said, I agree with the first replies, just add more application bonuses - or as you suggest, just a bigger range of ammo.

Yes, missiles have more range. They have to, simply because they don't offer variable range, damage type or damage application.


that is actually wrong missles do offer selectable damagetypes (only because some ships have a kinetic bonus it doesnt mean they cant (and sometimes must) use other amos for great effect) and they also offer you missle wich hit smaller targets (precision) or missles wich do more damage but only hit bigger targets (fury /rage) so you infact have the options at hand to pick damage type and aplication

i really canot see where you people get your arguments from , missles can be a as good weapon system as turrets (if we ignore hms) , they now have the same skill requirements /path for the individual gun / launcher, they have the same options to influence damage and application (implants, rigs) . They are not broken , but they follow their own mechanics , just as drones do follow their own mechanic. Hms are special as they have been nerfed for a reason a while agon and their turret equivalents (rail,artillery and beam) have received a damage buff , so i assume ccp will find a solution to not make them the new med railguns .

On a side note : This thread isnt about ships , and even if it was i canot see the tengu beeing useless. Things change sometimes and than you need to adapt and not beg for some one to come and change things back ....

However, the kinetic damage bonus means that you lose the bonus when you change damage type. Which is not the case if you look at the damage bonuses for say Minmatar Turret ships.

Furthermore, the damage-application mechanics for missiles result in a minimum damage-reduction of 50% and a maximum of over 90%. Turrets when they hit will always hit for their full damage and sometimes will hit for bonus damage due to surgical strike. Missile mechanics are crap and anyone that has used them for more than a week would know that. Though logic alone would tell you that the mechanic cor missiles is a bunch of arbitrary bs.

It affects the Tengu cause three of the four offensive subsystems for that ship are...MISSILE based. Missiles being out of parity in any shape or form will affect that ship. Doubly more so if the Tengu is to be nerfed. Thus is does matter as per a previous pilot's question of whether it was worth training for that T3. It matters to anyone that is a new player that is curious whether it is worth their time to train those skills.

In summary, you have in one post managed to completely discredit yourself in terms of your understanding of the issues and mechanics involved. Congrats! As a disclaimer, this is not meant as a in-depth response merely a short synopsis of the hundreds of pages of positive-feedback in the HM, RHML and CM threads.

ps. Precision missiles larger than LMs are a joke... Don't believe me, feel free to train for them on either Tranq or Singularity and test it. Oh and be sure to target the intended sized ship as well as smaller than intent-size.

ps. Fury is also a joke. It has damage sure. However, it is even less efficient than the faction missiles on damage application. The only thing that Fury can be used with acceptable efficiency on his significantly larger than intended-size targets.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#99 - 2013-12-13 19:20:30 UTC
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:
Furthermore, the damage-application mechanics for missiles result in a minimum damage-reduction of 50% and a maximum of over 90%. Turrets when they hit will always hit for their full damage and sometimes will hit for bonus damage due to surgical strike. Missile mechanics are crap and anyone that has used them for more than a week would know that. Though logic alone would tell you that the mechanic cor missiles is a bunch of arbitrary bs.


You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

Applied damage = raw damage * MIN(1,sigRad/eRad,(eVel/Vel*sigRad/eRad)^(LOG(drf)/LOG(5.5))). Therefore the minimum amount of damage is an infinitely small number that is greater than zero. But that damage is applied linearly across the entire possible range of the missile.

The turret damage formula is a little more complex. The tl;dr is that turrets can and do miss completely or hit for double damage. There is always the chance of both, though this chance is affected by sigRad, signature resolution, range, and transversal as described in the wiki.

Missiles always hit for something. Turrets do not. The pay off is that missiles will never hit for more than their maximum damage while turrets can score wrecking hits. Missiles are delayed damage that can be reduced or destroyed in-flight, while turrets are instant.

This has led to a lack of missile usage in pvp because blasters simply do more damage at the extreme short ranges where delayed damage or smartbomb firewalls would be least effective.

Kenshi Hanshi wrote:
ps. Precision missiles larger than LMs are a joke... Don't believe me, feel free to train for them on either Tranq or Singularity and test it. Oh and be sure to target the intended sized ship as well as smaller than intent-size.

ps. Fury is also a joke. It has damage sure. However, it is even less efficient than the faction missiles on damage application. The only thing that Fury can be used with acceptable efficiency on his significantly larger than intended-size targets.


Both ammo types work fine for their purpose. Precision has better application stats and reduced overall damage and is intended for one size smaller targets. Thus is will do less damage to on-sized targets and apply more damage to smaller sized targets than faction ammo of the same size.

Fury is intended for one size larger. It has more raw damage and worse application stats than faction. It will therefore do more applied damage to larger targets. However, if your application skills are well trained, it will still apply most of its damage to on-sized targets. I find a HAM Drake is an awesome belt ratting ship, and is still effective in anoms so long as you don't have to burn around too much.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#100 - 2013-12-13 19:43:40 UTC
jiujitsutou wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Actaeon Versaea wrote:
I see where you're coming from - but this essentially suggests making missiles use turret mechanics, which defeats the purpose... Also they have absolute range, as staged, but I think this has to stay just for the logic behind it (Fuel Limits) - otherwise how can they justifies what range the missle lowers damage at, also how it happens ("If it dosen't need fuel, why dose not it go for ever.

That said, I agree with the first replies, just add more application bonuses - or as you suggest, just a bigger range of ammo.

Yes, missiles have more range. They have to, simply because they don't offer variable range, damage type or damage application.


that is actually wrong missles do offer selectable damagetypes (only because some ships have a kinetic bonus it doesnt mean they cant (and sometimes must) use other amos for great effect) and they also offer you missle wich hit smaller targets (precision) or missles wich do more damage but only hit bigger targets (fury /rage) so you infact have the options at hand to pick damage type and aplication

i really canot see where you people get your arguments from , missles can be a as good weapon system as turrets (if we ignore hms) , they now have the same skill requirements /path for the individual gun / launcher, they have the same options to influence damage and application (implants, rigs) . They are not broken , but they follow their own mechanics , just as drones do follow their own mechanic. Hms are special as they have been nerfed for a reason a while agon and their turret equivalents (rail,artillery and beam) have received a damage buff , so i assume ccp will find a solution to not make them the new med railguns .

On a side note : This thread isnt about ships , and even if it was i canot see the tengu beeing useless. Things change sometimes and than you need to adapt and not beg for some one to come and change things back ....


Arthur has done a lot (and I mean A LOT) of testing with missiles in many different circumstances. Can you say the same?