These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Feature] Ballistic Enhancer

Author
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#61 - 2014-09-02 18:26:07 UTC  |  Edited by: scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Just make a mod that reduce flight time but grant better application OR more missile speed. Hell make it similar to a TC if you want with different scripts or 2 entirely different mod so a trade off has to be made at the fitting screen.

Seeker optimiser
(insert fitting cost here)
Missile explosion radius +10%
Missile explosion velocity +10%
Missile flight time -15%

Rocket engine overfeeding system <---- this name is sooooo bad
(insert fitting cost here)
Missile flight speed +10%
Missile flight time -15%

Working with what you have, I would like to see the top module idea as a low slot that competes with the BCS. You could fit Rigors and stack those in your lows and have a Torp Raven that can apply well to cruisers (or maybe frigs), but without the damage and ROF bonus from the BCS, or you could fit a HML Drake with 2/2 and have a versatile platform.
As for the second idea, I would love to see that as a scripted mid-slot like a TC so you could either extend your flight time (rockets/HAMs/Torps), or increase your flight speed (Lights/HMLs/Cruise/Torps).
These are the kinds of modules we're asking for, they come with fitting tradeoffs just like turret mods have. For example, look at an Incursion fit where they stack the lows with Gyro's/Heatsinks and then put multiple TC's in the mids and then get ReTC's from Scimi's/Oni's. A missile pilot doesn't even have the option to go super-duper overboard like that, you stack Rigors, put on 4 BCS's and that's it, that's all you can do. Besides the webs/TP's that help everyone.

Edit: Reverse what I said, the first would be the active mid and the second would be the passive low.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#62 - 2014-09-02 18:53:18 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Just make a mod that reduce flight time but grant better application OR more missile speed. Hell make it similar to a TC if you want with different scripts or 2 entirely different mod so a trade off has to be made at the fitting screen.

Seeker optimiser
(insert fitting cost here)
Missile explosion radius +10%
Missile explosion velocity +10%
Missile flight time -15%

Rocket engine overfeeding system <---- this name is sooooo bad
(insert fitting cost here)
Missile flight speed +10%
Missile flight time -15%

Working with what you have, I would like to see the top module idea as a low slot that competes with the BCS. You could fit Rigors and stack those in your lows and have a Torp Raven that can apply well to cruisers (or maybe frigs), but without the damage and ROF bonus from the BCS, or you could fit a HML Drake with 2/2 and have a versatile platform.
As for the second idea, I would love to see that as a scripted mid-slot like a TC so you could either extend your flight time (rockets/HAMs/Torps), or increase your flight speed (Lights/HMLs/Cruise/Torps).
These are the kinds of modules we're asking for, they come with fitting tradeoffs just like turret mods have. For example, look at an Incursion fit where they stack the lows with Gyro's/Heatsinks and then put multiple TC's in the mids and then get ReTC's from Scimi's/Oni's. A missile pilot doesn't even have the option to go super-duper overboard like that, you stack Rigors, put on 4 BCS's and that's it, that's all you can do. Besides the webs/TP's that help everyone.


You could go like TC/TE and make a low slot passive module and a med active module too. The idea really is just to ahve the options beside rigs for application. Then if CCP see the need, they could integrate an e-war module for countering missile application but I always wonder if people would use a counter to a weapon system you only face on one out of 4 ships or so...
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#63 - 2014-09-02 19:17:45 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Just make a mod that reduce flight time but grant better application OR more missile speed. Hell make it similar to a TC if you want with different scripts or 2 entirely different mod so a trade off has to be made at the fitting screen.

Seeker optimiser
(insert fitting cost here)
Missile explosion radius +10%
Missile explosion velocity +10%
Missile flight time -15%

Rocket engine overfeeding system <---- this name is sooooo bad
(insert fitting cost here)
Missile flight speed +10%
Missile flight time -15%

Working with what you have, I would like to see the top module idea as a low slot that competes with the BCS. You could fit Rigors and stack those in your lows and have a Torp Raven that can apply well to cruisers (or maybe frigs), but without the damage and ROF bonus from the BCS, or you could fit a HML Drake with 2/2 and have a versatile platform.
As for the second idea, I would love to see that as a scripted mid-slot like a TC so you could either extend your flight time (rockets/HAMs/Torps), or increase your flight speed (Lights/HMLs/Cruise/Torps).
These are the kinds of modules we're asking for, they come with fitting tradeoffs just like turret mods have. For example, look at an Incursion fit where they stack the lows with Gyro's/Heatsinks and then put multiple TC's in the mids and then get ReTC's from Scimi's/Oni's. A missile pilot doesn't even have the option to go super-duper overboard like that, you stack Rigors, put on 4 BCS's and that's it, that's all you can do. Besides the webs/TP's that help everyone.


You could go like TC/TE and make a low slot passive module and a med active module too. The idea really is just to ahve the options beside rigs for application. Then if CCP see the need, they could integrate an e-war module for countering missile application but I always wonder if people would use a counter to a weapon system you only face on one out of 4 ships or so...

I agree, and your post pointed out an error in mine that I corrected with an edit.
As to why have a flight speed bonus, look at the main reason that you almost never see a missile boat in an Incursion fleet: Delayed damage in a fleet with light-speed artillery. These types of modules wouldn't insta-fix anything, but they would add a new layer of versatility to missile boats as a trade off for raw damage and/or tank, which I think most people can agree is reasonable. The actual numbers may not be spot on, I for one am too lazy to crunch them, but the principle is sound.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#64 - 2014-09-02 19:22:03 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:

I agree, and your post pointed out an error in mine that I corrected with an edit.
As to why have a flight speed bonus, look at the main reason that you almost never see a missile boat in an Incursion fleet: Delayed damage in a fleet with light-speed artillery. These types of modules wouldn't insta-fix anything, but they would add a new layer of versatility to missile boats as a trade off for raw damage and/or tank, which I think most people can agree is reasonable. The actual numbers may not be spot on, I for one am too lazy to crunch them, but the principle is sound.


If missile ship trade damage potential for missile speed, they would still not get taken in incursion fleet because their dps would be to low to justify them being there. People would still need as many BCU to bring similar damage level to what gets in fleet. They would use leftover low/mid slots for application like gunnery ship do.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#65 - 2014-09-02 19:43:24 UTC  |  Edited by: scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Frostys Virpio wrote:
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:

I agree, and your post pointed out an error in mine that I corrected with an edit.
As to why have a flight speed bonus, look at the main reason that you almost never see a missile boat in an Incursion fleet: Delayed damage in a fleet with light-speed artillery. These types of modules wouldn't insta-fix anything, but they would add a new layer of versatility to missile boats as a trade off for raw damage and/or tank, which I think most people can agree is reasonable. The actual numbers may not be spot on, I for one am too lazy to crunch them, but the principle is sound.


If missile ship trade damage potential for missile speed, they would still not get taken in incursion fleet because their dps would be to low to justify them being there. People would still need as many BCU to bring similar damage level to what gets in fleet. They would use leftover low/mid slots for application like gunnery ship do.

Depends on the number of low slots and the fleet (ISN, no, but one of the entry-level fleets, maybe), if you were able to fit 3 BCS and 2speed mods the lower, but more consistent, DPS might be desirable. It might not. Just an example of something that missiles aren't preferred for that might open up a bit. That might be a bad example, probably is in fact, but it was just something off the top of my head.

Overall, this makes missile fits a lot less rigid and opens the door for a much larger variety of fits based on the situation in the same way that turret weapons are tweakable to the situation.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#66 - 2014-09-02 20:13:16 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:

I agree, and your post pointed out an error in mine that I corrected with an edit.
As to why have a flight speed bonus, look at the main reason that you almost never see a missile boat in an Incursion fleet: Delayed damage in a fleet with light-speed artillery. These types of modules wouldn't insta-fix anything, but they would add a new layer of versatility to missile boats as a trade off for raw damage and/or tank, which I think most people can agree is reasonable. The actual numbers may not be spot on, I for one am too lazy to crunch them, but the principle is sound.


If missile ship trade damage potential for missile speed, they would still not get taken in incursion fleet because their dps would be to low to justify them being there. People would still need as many BCU to bring similar damage level to what gets in fleet. They would use leftover low/mid slots for application like gunnery ship do.

Depends on the number of low slots and the fleet (ISN, no, but one of the entry-level fleets, maybe), if you were able to fit 3 BCS and 2speed mods the lower, but more consistent, DPS might be desirable. It might not. Just an example of something that missiles aren't preferred for that might open up a bit. That might be a bad example, probably is in fact, but it was just something off the top of my head.

Overall, this makes missile fits a lot less rigid and opens the door for a much larger variety of fits based on the situation in the same way that turret weapons are tweakable to the situation.


With only speed mods, it means you still have application problems to anything not painted AND webbed while gunnery ships only need webs to be applied so you still fall short. Missile ships already gets taken in non optimal fleet so it change nothing for those and they still would not be taken by optimized fleet because vindi would still do a better job at close range and mach/nightmare would still do a better job at range.

Making missile better so they compete in incursion would break other things. Not making them better in some way mean they won't be taken by the best fleet and people will keep crying about it not being balanced.

Adding application options on the fitting of missile ships has value in it's own right even if it will not change the current incursion meta of using the best tool for the job. The idea is to make sure the module constitute a trade-off like the gunnery version do. I personally think a penalty on some stats for another benefit can be balanced without the need to add a dedicated missile e-war since you pay the slot price just like turret boat do and pay the penalty on the mod while they pay the e-war headache.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#67 - 2014-09-02 20:31:37 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:

I agree, and your post pointed out an error in mine that I corrected with an edit.
As to why have a flight speed bonus, look at the main reason that you almost never see a missile boat in an Incursion fleet: Delayed damage in a fleet with light-speed artillery. These types of modules wouldn't insta-fix anything, but they would add a new layer of versatility to missile boats as a trade off for raw damage and/or tank, which I think most people can agree is reasonable. The actual numbers may not be spot on, I for one am too lazy to crunch them, but the principle is sound.


If missile ship trade damage potential for missile speed, they would still not get taken in incursion fleet because their dps would be to low to justify them being there. People would still need as many BCU to bring similar damage level to what gets in fleet. They would use leftover low/mid slots for application like gunnery ship do.

Depends on the number of low slots and the fleet (ISN, no, but one of the entry-level fleets, maybe), if you were able to fit 3 BCS and 2speed mods the lower, but more consistent, DPS might be desirable. It might not. Just an example of something that missiles aren't preferred for that might open up a bit. That might be a bad example, probably is in fact, but it was just something off the top of my head.

Overall, this makes missile fits a lot less rigid and opens the door for a much larger variety of fits based on the situation in the same way that turret weapons are tweakable to the situation.


With only speed mods, it means you still have application problems to anything not painted AND webbed while gunnery ships only need webs to be applied so you still fall short. Missile ships already gets taken in non optimal fleet so it change nothing for those and they still would not be taken by optimized fleet because vindi would still do a better job at close range and mach/nightmare would still do a better job at range.

Making missile better so they compete in incursion would break other things. Not making them better in some way mean they won't be taken by the best fleet and people will keep crying about it not being balanced.

Adding application options on the fitting of missile ships has value in it's own right even if it will not change the current incursion meta of using the best tool for the job. The idea is to make sure the module constitute a trade-off like the gunnery version do. I personally think a penalty on some stats for another benefit can be balanced without the need to add a dedicated missile e-war since you pay the slot price just like turret boat do and pay the penalty on the mod while they pay the e-war headache.

I agree.
Making missile ships fit into the incursion meta is not high on my list of priorities and is definitely not a factor in what kind of modules I think we need, it was simply the first example of a play style where missiles are not commonly found that sprang to my mind. Although I will say that if an active mid-slot module were to be added for application it would solve that particular problem insofar as incursions, however I digress.

I do not think that there needs to be a new type of e-war even if the modules that I initially quoted were to be created, the reasoning being that you can counter long-range combat with sensor damps, you can counter any missile with Defenders, and of course any ship can mitigate partial damage just by moving faster than a certain threshold. Not all ships are able to move fast enough, but sufficient speed is enough mitigate missile damage regardless of transversal such that a ship flying directly into your missile takes just as much damage as a ship moving directly away from it at the same speed. I think that, without crunching any numbers, the counters (excluding Defenders) already in existence should be sufficient.

I, of course, agree that Defenders are just as much, if not more, in need of a rework as Heavy Missiles, especially if that is the price to pay for a balance of missiles and an introduction of new modules. Possibly even have varying sizes of Defender launchers, such that the frigate size launches a single charge per cycle, the cruiser size launches 2/cycle (with a proportionate increase in fitting), and the Battleship size launches 3/cycle. A change similar to that would allow a utility high to be used to be used effectively instead of "spitting into the wind", although if launchers are going to spit out that many charges I would be interested to see the impact if a new Defender ammo could have the effect of confusing an enemy turret.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#68 - 2014-09-02 20:47:51 UTC

I think we need better analysis of the numbers.

Altering the explosion Velocity and/or Radius may have significantly different effects on missile damage application (compared to changing tracking for turret damage application).

Damage Upgrade module, T2 (such as Gyrostabilizer, Heat Sink etc):
♦ The 1st T2 Damage Upgrade module increase damage with +23.5%
♦ The 2nd T2 Damage Upgrade module increase damage with +20%
♦ The 3rd T2 Damage Upgrade module increase damage with +13%
♦ The 4th T2 Damage Upgrade module increase damage with +6.5%

Tracking Enchancer, T2:
♦ When Angular velocity = 25% of your Tracking: +9.5% more tracking is the same as +1.1% damage
♦ When Angular velocity = 50% of your Tracking: +9.5% more tracking is the same as +4.2% damage
♦ When Angular velocity = 75% of your Tracking: +9.5% more tracking is the same as +9.5% damage
♦ When Angular velocity = 100% of your Tracking: +9.5% more tracking is the same as +16.6% damage


In comparison, a 10% decrease in explosion radius has an 11% increase in damage to a slow target.

A target must be moving faster than the a threshold to receive a reduction in damage do to speed. This threshold is easily calculated as Target Size * (Missile Explosion Velocity / Missile Explosion Radius). The last two terms are both altered by by 10% with this module. A 10% increase in explosion Velocity with a 10% decrease in explosion radius is a net 22% increase, meaning ships need to travel 22% faster to reduce missile damage.

To sum up:
Your module is an 11% increase in raw damage, and increases the minimum velocity to reduce damage by 22%. It doesn't stack with target painters or Ballistic Control Systems either.

I have a feeling your numbers are out of line, especially since reducing missile dps is much more difficult than reducing turret dps!
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#69 - 2014-09-02 20:51:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
defender missiles
- add them too a new midslot module .. called defender launcher ...

light defenders could be fast anti drone missiles
heavy defenders - designed too destroy medium missiles
add super heavy defenders - designed too kill torps/cruises
add bomb defenders - designed too kill bombs
add disruptor missiles - designed too affect a ships missile launcher - i.e. a missile tracking disruptor

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

scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#70 - 2014-09-02 21:01:40 UTC
At a glance I would say that the numbers are arbitrary, however your point is valid and possibly the scripted module would allow you to choose an unscripted bonus of 5% to each, or scripting to receive 12% to one.
In my opinion, the important thing is that people can agree on the base concept of a passive low trading speed for flight time, and an active, possibly scripted, mid that allows you to affect your application by trading tank. If players can agree on this then we can proceed to crunch numbers and present a consolidated front to CCP and push for the change as a majority. Doing so would also mean that when the changes came out they would be received much better than if CCP just ran out another RLML system fiasco.

As for Defenders, there is already a module for them so why create an entirely new one? I would much rather see the existing module/ammo fixed to take advantage of utility highs.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#71 - 2014-09-02 21:32:19 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
At a glance I would say that the numbers are arbitrary, however your point is valid and possibly the scripted module would allow you to choose an unscripted bonus of 5% to each, or scripting to receive 12% to one.
In my opinion, the important thing is that people can agree on the base concept of a passive low trading speed for flight time, and an active, possibly scripted, mid that allows you to affect your application by trading tank. If players can agree on this then we can proceed to crunch numbers and present a consolidated front to CCP and push for the change as a majority. Doing so would also mean that when the changes came out they would be received much better than if CCP just ran out another RLML system fiasco.

As for Defenders, there is already a module for them so why create an entirely new one? I would much rather see the existing module/ammo fixed to take advantage of utility highs.


because people don't sacrifice high slot launchers for defender missiles ...
then ofc there are ship without spare highs or launchers .. as a highslot defenders are not viable thus the reason they are unused now ..

but as a midslot people would use 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

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#72 - 2014-09-02 22:51:09 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
At a glance I would say that the numbers are arbitrary, however your point is valid and possibly the scripted module would allow you to choose an unscripted bonus of 5% to each, or scripting to receive 12% to one.
In my opinion, the important thing is that people can agree on the base concept of a passive low trading speed for flight time, and an active, possibly scripted, mid that allows you to affect your application by trading tank. If players can agree on this then we can proceed to crunch numbers and present a consolidated front to CCP and push for the change as a majority. Doing so would also mean that when the changes came out they would be received much better than if CCP just ran out another RLML system fiasco.

As for Defenders, there is already a module for them so why create an entirely new one? I would much rather see the existing module/ammo fixed to take advantage of utility highs.


because people don't sacrifice high slot launchers for defender missiles ...
then ofc there are ship without spare highs or launchers .. as a highslot defenders are not viable thus the reason they are unused now ..

but as a midslot people would use them


Most people also don't fit TD but you think people would fit a module countering only about 1/4 of the ship you could face?
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#73 - 2014-09-02 22:52:35 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


I have a feeling your numbers are out of line, especially since reducing missile dps is much more difficult than reducing turret dps!


It's harder to generate raw speed than angular velocity?

I'm not saying the number are balanced because they were basically chosen just to illustrate the idea at that point.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#74 - 2014-09-02 22:56:40 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
At a glance I would say that the numbers are arbitrary, however your point is valid and possibly the scripted module would allow you to choose an unscripted bonus of 5% to each, or scripting to receive 12% to one.
In my opinion, the important thing is that people can agree on the base concept of a passive low trading speed for flight time, and an active, possibly scripted, mid that allows you to affect your application by trading tank. If players can agree on this then we can proceed to crunch numbers and present a consolidated front to CCP and push for the change as a majority. Doing so would also mean that when the changes came out they would be received much better than if CCP just ran out another RLML system fiasco.

As for Defenders, there is already a module for them so why create an entirely new one? I would much rather see the existing module/ammo fixed to take advantage of utility highs.


because people don't sacrifice high slot launchers for defender missiles ...
then ofc there are ship without spare highs or launchers .. as a highslot defenders are not viable thus the reason they are unused now ..

but as a midslot people would use them


Most people also don't fit TD but you think people would fit a module countering only about 1/4 of the ship you could face?


thats the dilemma of adding missiles too TD's .. they would become very powerful omni tools ... but making defenders do things even TD's can't do (assuming missles were added too them) would make them worth using

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

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#75 - 2014-09-02 23:14:20 UTC
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
-snip-
It is very simple, if explosion velocity and explosaion radius would get removed, it would make missiles so overpowered, other weapon system could not compete with it, which is even the minor issue here°°. It would make them counter-less (and don't play dump, you know what is meant).

The problem you have is not with either of the stats, it is with balancing them.

-before I snap-



Let's do a little experiment.

Assume for a minute or so that heavy missiles have no 'tracking'. For this experiment to work let us also assume that you and maybe three or four of your buddies are camping a gate somewhere in nullsec, let it be Syndicate.

So you have your cbuddies and I am flying a Drake fit with heavy missiles. And because you said I am stupid let us assume I have Mjolnir missiles loaded, the tech one ones.
My launchers are grouped so they will launch 6 missiles at the same time. Maximum range is like 60km if nobody involved in the upcoming 'fight' is moving at all.

You and your buddies will be sitting at 50km of the gate in four or five tornados.

Now I will jump into the system you are sitting at at that perfect spot to shoot down everything that jumps in.

Aaan because I am so stupid I decloak and lock all the tornados and press fire.

You and your buddies on the other hand, smart as you are start moving away from be because I landed on the other side of the gate and my current distance is now 60km.
You and your buddies lock me up and press F1 and 50.000 hp of damage hit my Drake and goes boom but not before my totally out of line-super-dooper-mega overpowered missiles lands a zero % hit of 1000 hp EM damage to a buffer tanked tornado.

Your buddy is wetting his panties now because he 'only' has 45% EM resist on his shields as that one volley is in the sky and... ooops out of range.

Okay, sound silly right?

I know gatecamps have way more ships than the five of you and let's say I managed land one hit with my Drake here but the sad thing is those now even more super overpowered missiles only did 650hp damage.

By Jupiter, what haz happened?

One tiny thing people are not taking into consideration here is that when CCP finally ditches 'tracking' from missies a 1000hp volley of damage will not even be a 1000hp damage hit on the target because the first this missiles hit will be shields or if we would be in a different situation they would hit armor.

Or imagine that I would have hams fit on my Drake and my super-omg-bbq-wtf-pwn-mobile missile launchers are our of range at 20km - 30km on my Sacrilege, assuming you are not moving.

Another thing that you are not considering is that if you had a buddy in a Carcal with an assault launcher fit with you and he had loaded Defender Missiles, only one or two missiles would have reached a target at all.

So you can not only keep out of missile range, you can stay out of range to begin with and you can shoot them down with the very weapon system you believe will be out of hand.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#76 - 2014-09-03 00:00:17 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
-snip-
It is very simple, if explosion velocity and explosaion radius would get removed, it would make missiles so overpowered, other weapon system could not compete with it, which is even the minor issue here°°. It would make them counter-less (and don't play dump, you know what is meant).

The problem you have is not with either of the stats, it is with balancing them.

-before I snap-



Let's do a little experiment.

Assume for a minute or so that heavy missiles have no 'tracking'. For this experiment to work let us also assume that you and maybe three or four of your buddies are camping a gate somewhere in nullsec, let it be Syndicate.

So you have your cbuddies and I am flying a Drake fit with heavy missiles. And because you said I am stupid let us assume I have Mjolnir missiles loaded, the tech one ones.
My launchers are grouped so they will launch 6 missiles at the same time. Maximum range is like 60km if nobody involved in the upcoming 'fight' is moving at all.

You and your buddies will be sitting at 50km of the gate in four or five tornados.


Cause it makes total sense to compare Large guns to medium missiles...


elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#77 - 2014-09-03 01:50:17 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


Cause it makes total sense to compare Large guns to medium missiles...



Would you feel better if I used Sleipnir x2 @10km and Ishtar x50 @80km for that example?

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#78 - 2014-09-03 02:22:45 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
elitatwo wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:

First off I resent your comment about me being an idiot.
I use missiles and I use guns and I have no clue what you are talking about. -snip-


This is offtopic on purpose but important to this case.

Let me start with a little background from my highschool days.

We had one language teacher that was a littler older than his collegues and due to his long years of experience and education he tought us well in the history of languages.

The word 'idiot' comes from a very, very old greek word that sounds similar and with time 'morphed' to the word 'idiot' which we all know today.
Now the fact is that back in Greece around 3000 years ago that word meant 'someone who doesn't know' or 'someone who does not have a clue'.

Nowdays that is taken as an insult but really it is just an observation as you can see. It is not even meant as an insult but people that do not know a lot might take it as such.

Now back to topic after my free of charge education for you, you seem to contradict yourself.

And in response to the poeple that are trying to be cute, you really are not cute at all.

Again,
when I joined New Eden no missile had an explosion radius or explosion velocity attribute and they were not really dominant that much in pvp except for small scale skirmishes.

You can argue whatever you want with your turrets being blabla balanced and whatnot, what you all seem to forget are recent changes to all of the turrets doing way more damage than they did back in 2006.

No missile recieved any kind of a damage buff, except for cruise missiles and despite the feeling of some noobs that get hurt in the process, I hate to brake it to you but I have what is called 'perfect recall memory' and I know exactly what I am talking about, wether you like it or not.

I do not have to proove any of my claimes and I do not have to make any spreadsheets because the data is already there.

Ask CCP 'X-plosion radius' what he has to say.


funny you say that .. because rockets, light missiles and HAMS all got damage buffs in the last missile rebalance (when they nerfed heavies)..


OK a few pages late cause of R/L issues but here goes.

I don't care what your teachers "tought" (you misspelled that one by the way) you, and I sure don't care about what it meant 3,000 years ago or the meaning of the root word it is based on in today's English the word idiot is derogatory in meaning. Portions from the Oxford dictionary of the English language.
Unlearned, ignorant or simple of mind.
Destitute of ordinary intellect.
A fool or simpleton.
I could copy and paste the entire definition if you want but I think my point is made.
If you are going to use a word based on the meaning from 3,000 years ago or the meaning of the root word from another language then I suggest that you post that meaning so others can distinguish it from a more common and more current definition.

To get back to the discussion at hand like the rest of you I will deal with whatever changes CCP makes to this game but the only part of missiles, rockets and torpedoes that really needs any work is the stupidly low values assigned to explosion velocity.
Humang
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#79 - 2014-09-03 02:35:48 UTC
I'm still inclined to just add the relative bonuses for missiles (exp vel/exp rad) to Tracking Enhancers / Tracking Computers and the same de-buffs to Tracking Disruptors.

That's my 2 isk.

AFK cloaking thread Summary - Provided by Paikis Good Post Etiquette - Provided by CCP Grayscale

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#80 - 2014-09-03 02:50:21 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


Cause it makes total sense to compare Large guns to medium missiles...



Would you feel better if I used Sleipnir x2 @10km and Ishtar x50 @80km for that example?


Hey guys, if the enemy outnumber me 5+ to 1 , I won't be able to blap them all even with no racking weapon system...