These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Kronos] Phoenix and Citadel Missiles

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Drew Li
Space Exploitation Inc
#281 - 2014-05-14 00:41:01 UTC
Rapid Torpedo/Cruise Launchers.
TheMercenaryKing
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#282 - 2014-05-14 00:53:40 UTC
Drew Li wrote:
Rapid Torpedo/Cruise Launchers.


these would actually work out well, and it would be rapid cruise missile launchers.

I know you may be butt hurt that your precious overpowered pre-rubicon RLMLs were nerfed, but please learn to use the new ones since your complaining isn't going to help at all.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#283 - 2014-05-14 00:57:11 UTC
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
Drew Li wrote:
Rapid Torpedo/Cruise Launchers.


these would actually work out well, and it would be rapid cruise missile launchers.

I know you may be butt hurt that your precious overpowered pre-rubicon RLMLs were nerfed, but please learn to use the new ones since your complaining isn't going to help at all.



The new ones are **** and the old ones were fine, the issue was never the LRML, its that HML and HAMs are trash.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#284 - 2014-05-14 01:06:56 UTC
Blodhgarm Dethahal wrote:
I don't understand why people feel the need that the Phoenix should be able to blap subcapitals.

Look, with this change its engagement profile has shot up significantly.

+selectable damage
+DPS buff
+tank buff
+still biggest volley damage

I will gladly trade the ability to blap subcaps for being the best in anti-capital warfare.


The problem is, they wont be. In terms of DPS, they are behind 2 other dreads. That also means they will be behind in structure killing and capital ship killing still, oh and they barely touch sub caps while all the others have no issue blapping them.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#285 - 2014-05-14 01:21:40 UTC
Hagika wrote:
Blodhgarm Dethahal wrote:
I don't understand why people feel the need that the Phoenix should be able to blap subcapitals.

Look, with this change its engagement profile has shot up significantly.

+selectable damage
+DPS buff
+tank buff
+still biggest volley damage

I will gladly trade the ability to blap subcaps for being the best in anti-capital warfare.


The problem is, they wont be. In terms of DPS, they are behind 2 other dreads. That also means they will be behind in structure killing and capital ship killing still, oh and they barely touch sub caps while all the others have no issue blapping them.


But missiles are supposed to lose to turrets, because Eve. It's the same reason we have instantaneous damage from artillery shells at 150+km but battleship size missiles take over 10seconds to travel that distance. It's a feature and, as much as I would like, it's never going to change.
unidenify
Deaf Armada
#286 - 2014-05-14 01:26:00 UTC
if Phoenix was meaning to be anti-capital, then why left Carrier's Sig radius alone at 2900 when increase Dread to 4k?
TheMercenaryKing
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#287 - 2014-05-14 01:34:14 UTC
unidenify wrote:
if Phoenix was meaning to be anti-capital, then why left Carrier's Sig radius alone at 2900 when increase Dread to 4k?


because they are nerfing the explosion velocity needlessly.
Linkxsc162534
Silent Scourge
#288 - 2014-05-14 01:44:36 UTC
Onictus wrote:
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
Drew Li wrote:
Rapid Torpedo/Cruise Launchers.


these would actually work out well, and it would be rapid cruise missile launchers.

I know you may be butt hurt that your precious overpowered pre-rubicon RLMLs were nerfed, but please learn to use the new ones since your complaining isn't going to help at all.



The new ones are **** and the old ones were fine, the issue was never the LRML, its that HML and HAMs are trash.



Make the rapid cruise launcher. Give it lower fitting requs than cit torps or cruises. Set it in a manner they can get about 4mins of fire in a ballpark of 2500 dps out of siege. And when they siege it goes to around 9000 but ofcourse they blast through ammo in a min or 2. Perhaps give it a 3min reload out of siege, and 1min while sieged.
There you dont have to worry about it blapping bses. Itll just dps them down like a boss, and still have its torps for taking down POSes
Xavier Thorm
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#289 - 2014-05-14 06:01:39 UTC
Hagika wrote:
So as often the devs ignore posts and what the far more learned player base knows and spends their waking hours on this game and more so than the devs, then they push through a ridiculous change that everyone knows is wrong and the devs basically say they do not care, and you dont expect people to be frustrated or mad because they were blown off ?

Surely that wouldnt cause people to respond harshly at all would it?

Think of it in terms of you being a coccain addict and your dealer is charging you the same price for the drugs but they are cutting it with baking powder. Make sense yet?


If you cut all the posts that consist primarily of unsupported opining or reactionary anger from every thread in this forum, you'd be left with a mostly seamless and intelligent discussion, with the side benefit of it being a lot easier to see what the informed members of the community are saying.

So basically, if you actually want game devs to listen to you, make a real argument and stop wasting their time by being dicks to them.
ZecsMarquis
The Northerners
Pandemic Horde
#290 - 2014-05-14 08:54:22 UTC
I still feel increasing sig with siege modules and triage modules is the best choice. Rather than increasing the base signature of dreads, just leave them as is. This is a fair compromise no? Maybe you do not do 100% citadel damage to a carrier/dread out of siege but you most certainly can do full damage to one in siege/triage. This is way better than increasing the base signature radius.

Does anyone disagree with this? Obviously they are worried about the citadel missiles being too strong and want some sort of compromise. That way you have to make yourself both vulnerable to do full damage and to do the triage reppin. Seems like a better way to balance this issue.

Thoughts?
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#291 - 2014-05-14 10:41:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
There's a problem there with torp damage application to slowcat-type fleets, but it's pretty easy to solve it with a painter.

Not so with triage. The motivation for increasing torp explosion radius is to hinder the blap thing, which is fine by me, it's little more than a gimmick anyway. But doing so at the cost of effectiveness against a triaged carrier is just perverse.

You could replicate this effect by a lesser nerf to torp explosion radius, retaining full damage against a stationary linked triage carrier, along with an increase to DRF, making damage fall off more quickly against fast targets such as subcaps.

Or just increase carrier sig to a minimum of 3600 m, to maintain equality between turret and missile dreads even with a Ragnorak's sig bonus (3600 x 0.625 = 2250 m). Haloes and X-Instinct can then reduce torp damage, but are counterable via Crash.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#292 - 2014-05-14 10:48:18 UTC
Xavier Thorm wrote:
Hagika wrote:
So as often the devs ignore posts and what the far more learned player base knows and spends their waking hours on this game and more so than the devs, then they push through a ridiculous change that everyone knows is wrong and the devs basically say they do not care, and you dont expect people to be frustrated or mad because they were blown off ?

Surely that wouldnt cause people to respond harshly at all would it?

Think of it in terms of you being a coccain addict and your dealer is charging you the same price for the drugs but they are cutting it with baking powder. Make sense yet?


If you cut all the posts that consist primarily of unsupported opining or reactionary anger from every thread in this forum, you'd be left with a mostly seamless and intelligent discussion, with the side benefit of it being a lot easier to see what the informed members of the community are saying.

So basically, if you actually want game devs to listen to you, make a real argument and stop wasting their time by being dicks to them.


Unsupported opinion....So people who play the game and speak of how the mechanics are bad for missiles and for ships are unsupported opinion? The math has been proven 100 times over. How many ,more times does it need to be proven?

The others are players who are angry because their posts are largely ignored and changes that are not for the better are pushed through instead of devs responding to them and listening to more experienced player base.

While you are at it, please stop your unsupported opinions on how devs are treated. The only person making a big stink about it is you. Everyone has had years of dealing with this and are tired of being ignored and having bad changes pushed through. Have respect for their right to be angry and stop kissing butt.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#293 - 2014-05-14 10:49:49 UTC
Hagika, stop ranting and make a real argument.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#294 - 2014-05-14 12:58:59 UTC
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
unidenify wrote:
if Phoenix was meaning to be anti-capital, then why left Carrier's Sig radius alone at 2900 when increase Dread to 4k?


because they are nerfing the explosion velocity needlessly.


that is to ensure that battleships even painted will not be blapped easily. Remember missiles do not MISS so they can NEVER do full damage to a lower sized target.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Roguehellhound
State War Academy
Caldari State
#295 - 2014-05-14 13:41:14 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
unidenify wrote:
if Phoenix was meaning to be anti-capital, then why left Carrier's Sig radius alone at 2900 when increase Dread to 4k?


because they are nerfing the explosion velocity needlessly.


that is to ensure that battleships even painted will not be blapped easily. Remember missiles do not MISS so they can NEVER do full damage to a lower sized target.


But thats the THING, they don't even vs other caps. Not to mention before the update to the buff, it wouldn't even fully hit a dread until Fozz came by and updated on them increasing sig of Dreads.

Whats apparent is that the missile formula in its current iteration has a lot of problems and they are simply adding patches to a leaking dam.

Its not as if they other caps can't alpha subcaps either but the way they buff/nerfed it does not make sense.
Burneddi
Avanto
Hole Control
#296 - 2014-05-14 14:34:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Burneddi
ZecsMarquis wrote:
Obviously they are worried about the citadel missiles being too strong and want some sort of compromise.

Kagura Nikon wrote:
that is to ensure that battleships even painted will not be blapped easily. Remember missiles do not MISS so they can NEVER do full damage to a lower sized target.


I would like to take this moment to remind you gentlemen about the practicalities of these changes. Since this is like the fifth time I post a very similar reply in this thread, excuse my resorting to bullet points.


  • The nerfed Explosion Radius means that the Phoenix will become flat out 50% worse at hitting anything that's either stationary or webbed enough to effectively be considered stationary by the equation, and has a signature below its Explosion Radius. The maximum speed for "webbed enough" is targetSigRadius / missileExplosionRadius * missileExplosionVelocity.

  • The buffed Explosion Velocity means that the Phoenix will become about 25% better at hitting anything that is moving above the minimum speed you got from the equation above, assuming they aren't several times larger in Signature Radius than the new Explosion Radius of the Phoenix is (because small Explosion Radius makes up for small Explosion Velocity, see point 2 here). In practice this means that the Phoenix becomes a little better at hitting everything as small or smaller than a Carrier that is moving at its top speed while not being webbed/painted. However, since triaged Carriers and Dreads aren't moving and can't be target painted, the Phoenix applies worse to them.

  • The above means that the Phoenix becomes universally better at blapping (moving) cruisers, and better at hitting not-quad webbed battleships. However, if you have enough webs on a battleship to reduce its speed below the minimum tanking speed, the Phoenix becomes comparably worse at applying to it.

  • Also, because Stasis Webifiers are more effective than Target Painters, the more Target Painters and Stasis Webifiers you apply on a target, the closer to 0% the "25% buff" becomes, turning into the negatives (becoming a nerf) if you have "enough" (again, see the equation) webs.

  • Note that this doesn't translate to "less webs = better". It translates to "less webs doesn't hurt you as much, and more webs or 90% webs won't give you as much benefit".



Here's a post with two practical examples against armor+afterburner subcaps. As you can see, the Phoenix applies comparably better to the Proteus than the Abaddon, but overall the difference in subcap application isn't very significant.
TheMercenaryKing
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#297 - 2014-05-14 15:09:13 UTC
Burneddi wrote:
ZecsMarquis wrote:
Obviously they are worried about the citadel missiles being too strong and want some sort of compromise.

Kagura Nikon wrote:
that is to ensure that battleships even painted will not be blapped easily. Remember missiles do not MISS so they can NEVER do full damage to a lower sized target.


I would like to take this moment to remind you gentlemen about the practicalities of these changes. Since this is like the fifth time I post a very similar reply in this thread, excuse my resorting to bullet points.


  • The nerfed Explosion Radius means that the Phoenix will become flat out 50% worse at hitting anything that's either stationary or webbed enough to effectively be considered stationary by the equation. The minimum speed for "webbed enough" is targetSigRadius / missileExplosionRadius * missileExplosionVelocity.

  • The buffed Explosion Velocity means that the Phoenix will become about 25% better at hitting anything that is moving above the minimum speed you got from the equation above, assuming they aren't several times larger in Signature Radius than the new Explosion Velocity of the Phoenix is (because small Explosion Radius makes up for small Explosion Velocity, see point 2 here). In practice this means that the Phoenix becomes a little better at hitting everything as small or smaller than a Carrier that is moving at its top speed while not being webbed/painted. However, since triaged Carriers and Dreads aren't moving and can't be target painted, the Phoenix applies worse to them.

  • The above means that the Phoenix becomes universally better at blapping (moving) cruisers, and better at hitting not-quad webbed battleships. However, if you have enough webs on a battleship to reduce its speed below the minimum tanking speed, the Phoenix becomes worse at applying to it.

  • Also, because Stasis Webifiers are more effective than Target Painters, the more Target Painters and Stasis Webifiers you apply on a target, the closer to 0% the "25% buff" becomes, turning into the negatives (becoming a nerf) if you have "enough" (again, see the equation) webs.



Here's a post with two practical examples against armor+afterburner subcaps. As you can see, the Phoenix applies comparably better to the Proteus than the Abaddon, but overall the difference in subcap application isn't very significant.


Using the tats you give:

Abaddon:
Signature: 1122m
Velocity: 35m/s

Proteus:
598m
53m/s

New Torp vs Abaddon you made.
BD * [(1122/2250)*(52.5/35)]
BD * [(.50)*(1.5)]
BD * 0.75

New Torp vs archon
BD * [(2920/2250)*(52.5/87.5)]
BD * [(1.30)*(.6)]
BD * 0.78

Almost like hitting a carrier at full speed

New Torp vs Proteus:
BD * [(598/2250)*(52.5/53)]
BD * [(.26)*(1)]
BD * 0.26

I would say there is a significant difference, by a 50% reduction in base damage before resists.

New Torp, old radius, Abaddon:
BD * [(1122/1500)*(52.5/35)]
BD * [(0.75)*(1.5)]
BD * 1.12 = 1

New Torp, old radius, Archon
BD * [(2920/1500)*(52.5/87.5)]
BD * [(1.94)*(.6)]
BD * 1.16=1

New Torp, old radius, Proteus:
BD * [(598/1500)*(52.5/53)]
BD * [(0.40)*(.1)]
BD * 0.40

So the question is, Does a battleship with 4 ship bonus-ed painters and 4 webs on it deserved to be blapped, I say yes.
Roguehellhound
State War Academy
Caldari State
#298 - 2014-05-14 15:12:30 UTC
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
Burneddi wrote:
ZecsMarquis wrote:
Obviously they are worried about the citadel missiles being too strong and want some sort of compromise.

Kagura Nikon wrote:
that is to ensure that battleships even painted will not be blapped easily. Remember missiles do not MISS so they can NEVER do full damage to a lower sized target.


I would like to take this moment to remind you gentlemen about the practicalities of these changes. Since this is like the fifth time I post a very similar reply in this thread, excuse my resorting to bullet points.


  • The nerfed Explosion Radius means that the Phoenix will become flat out 50% worse at hitting anything that's either stationary or webbed enough to effectively be considered stationary by the equation. The minimum speed for "webbed enough" is targetSigRadius / missileExplosionRadius * missileExplosionVelocity.

  • The buffed Explosion Velocity means that the Phoenix will become about 25% better at hitting anything that is moving above the minimum speed you got from the equation above, assuming they aren't several times larger in Signature Radius than the new Explosion Velocity of the Phoenix is (because small Explosion Radius makes up for small Explosion Velocity, see point 2 here). In practice this means that the Phoenix becomes a little better at hitting everything as small or smaller than a Carrier that is moving at its top speed while not being webbed/painted. However, since triaged Carriers and Dreads aren't moving and can't be target painted, the Phoenix applies worse to them.

  • The above means that the Phoenix becomes universally better at blapping (moving) cruisers, and better at hitting not-quad webbed battleships. However, if you have enough webs on a battleship to reduce its speed below the minimum tanking speed, the Phoenix becomes worse at applying to it.

  • Also, because Stasis Webifiers are more effective than Target Painters, the more Target Painters and Stasis Webifiers you apply on a target, the closer to 0% the "25% buff" becomes, turning into the negatives (becoming a nerf) if you have "enough" (again, see the equation) webs.



Here's a post with two practical examples against armor+afterburner subcaps. As you can see, the Phoenix applies comparably better to the Proteus than the Abaddon, but overall the difference in subcap application isn't very significant.


Using the tats you give:

Abaddon:
Signature: 1122m
Velocity: 35m/s

Proteus:
598m
53m/s

New Torp vs Abaddon you made.
BD * [(1122/2250)*(52.5/35)]
BD * [(.50)*(1.5)]
BD * 0.75

New Torp vs archon
BD * [(2920/2250)*(52.5/87.5)]
BD * [(1.30)*(.6)]
BD * 0.78

Almost like hitting a carrier at full speed

New Torp vs Proteus:
BD * [(598/2250)*(52.5/53)]
BD * [(.26)*(1)]
BD * 0.26

I would say there is a significant difference, by a 50% reduction in base damage before resists.

New Torp, old radius, Abaddon:
BD * [(1122/1500)*(52.5/35)]
BD * [(0.75)*(1.5)]
BD * 1.12 = 1

New Torp, old radius, Archon
BD * [(2920/1500)*(52.5/87.5)]
BD * [(1.94)*(.6)]
BD * 1.16=1

New Torp, old radius, Proteus:
BD * [(598/1500)*(52.5/53)]
BD * [(0.40)*(.1)]
BD * 0.40

So the question is, Does a battleship with 4 ship bonus-ed painters and 4 webs on it deserved to be blapped, I say yes.



every single ship in the game deserves to be blapped TwistedTwisted
Burneddi
Avanto
Hole Control
#299 - 2014-05-14 15:22:14 UTC
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
New Torp, old radius, Abaddon:
BD * [(1122/1500)*(52.5/35)]
BD * [(0.75)*(1.5)]
BD * 1.12 = 1

New Torp, old radius, Proteus:
BD * [(598/1500)*(52.5/53)]
BD * [(0.40)*(.1)]
BD * 0.40

These actually become 0.748 damage modifier for the Abaddon and 0.395 damage modifier (as opposed to your ~0.399) for the Proteus. The reason for this being, if stationary damage would be lower than moving damage, the formula uses the stationary damage.

TheMercenaryKing wrote:
So the question is, Does a battleship with 4 ship bonus-ed painters and 4 webs on it deserved to be blapped, I say yes.

Probably yeah. The difference is that these changes make the Phoenix comparably worse at blapping that battleship than the old Phoenix, and comparably better at blapping a Proteus. I really don't see why it should be so.
Lady Ayeipsia
BlueWaffe
#300 - 2014-05-14 15:48:47 UTC
Any thoughts on if we will see a Rapid Cruise Missile launcher for use on the phoenix? Given rgat we have rapid lighta for cruiser.size, rapid heavies for BS size, a Rapid Cruise would fit, no clue,on balancing though.