These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#81 - 2014-09-03 14:36:56 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?


lol...

FYI: Sentry drones are also Battleship class weapons.

Can you please explain how your example of a lol-fit, lol-flown drake dying to a gate camp is even remotely relevant to the thread?
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#82 - 2014-09-03 14:48:30 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

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!



I mostly agree - but in order to have a single module missile DPS needs to be brought into line with their size class. So for example a 10% hike in heavy missile DPS wouldn't kill much - but a 10% hike to lights? Ouch time.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#83 - 2014-09-03 15:06:52 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

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!



I mostly agree - but in order to have a single module missile DPS needs to be brought into line with their size class. So for example a 10% hike in heavy missile DPS wouldn't kill much - but a 10% hike to lights? Ouch time.


The missile with already good application would not benefit as much from such module just like extra tracking is only useful to a certain point.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#84 - 2014-09-03 15:12:50 UTC
Depends what you're shooting. Something like that stuffed on a RLML caracal would dunk interceptors so hard they wouldn't even know what hit them and they already dont have a great time there. There's anti-tackle and there's "lolpwntgtfo".
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#85 - 2014-09-03 16:36:06 UTC
afkalt wrote:


I mostly agree - but in order to have a single module missile DPS needs to be brought into line with their size class. So for example a 10% hike in heavy missile DPS wouldn't kill much - but a 10% hike to lights? Ouch time.


Are heavy missiles really out of balance though?

Caracal: 5% R.o.F Bonus, 2 BCU, HM's do 253 dps out to 100 kms.
Stabber: 5% R.o.F Bonus, 2 Gyros, 720's do 253 dps out to 20 + 37 kms.

Cerberus: 5% Damage, 5% R.o.F. Bonus, 3 BCU's, Hams do 426 dps out to 140 km's.
Muninn: 5% Damage, 5% R.o.F Bonus, 3 Gyros, 720's do 444 dps out to 27 + 31 km's.

Drake: 10% Damage, 3x BCU. HM's do 464 dps out to 62 km's. (CN Scourge HM)
Drake: 10% Damage, 3x BCU. HM's do 531 dps out to 47 km's. (Scourge Fury HM)
Hurricane: 5% Damage, 5% R.o.F 720's do 532 dps out to 18+31 kms.

I realize the Stabber and Muninn have 1 less weapon mount than the Caracal and Cerb, otherwise they'd deliver signficantly higher dps than their HM counterparts just like the Cane out damages the Drake in damage output. However, even the drake, without a range bonus, applies its consistent damage to a much farther range. Furthermore, when any of the Arty fit ships swap to long range ammo, their dps dramatically falls off. Likewise, when the Drake swaps to high damage ammo similar to RF EMP, it's dps matches that of the Cane. From this standpoint, the damage profiles of HM's are very much balanced with other long range damage platforms.

I'll admit there is a big discrepancy in damage application. By flying right, a cane can optimize their range and tracking to apply most of their dps even to frigates. Missile pilots do not enjoy similarly exploitable conditions. But that exploit goes both ways. I've solo killed Hurricanes, Ruptures, Stabbers, Thorax's, and many other turret ships in frigates hulls like the taranis by simply killing their drones and avoiding their turret dps with a close orbit. You can't do that to a drake or caracal, and have to be able to tank the damage they constantly deliver.

It is precisely this last scenario that we need to be careful of. While improving damage application creates a good fitting option, there is the danger of over-buffing this damage application to targets that should be difficult to kill. Optimizing your HM or HAMs to take down fellow cruisers is a great thing. If these modules result in easy-optimization so they blap frigates, too, and we have a problematic state from a balance perspective.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#86 - 2014-09-03 16:57:10 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
-snip-
It is precisely this last scenario that we need to be careful of. While improving damage application creates a good fitting option, there is the danger of over-buffing this damage application to targets that should be difficult to kill. Optimizing your HM or HAMs to take down fellow cruisers is a great thing. If these modules result in easy-optimization so they blap frigates, too, and we have a problematic state from a balance perspective.


So its only okay to 'blap' frigate size hulls with blasters and autocannons?

You are aware that most interceptors can outrun heavy missiles by burning in one direction until the flight time is over right?

Maybe one cannot outrun cruise missiles from a Raven but you were never supposed to kill one in a motorcycle and a sidearm anyways.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#87 - 2014-09-03 17:40:09 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
jiujitsutou wrote:
While i think the BE shouldnt give speed (it could very easy make things a little op i imagine 120 km ham cerbs etc), i like the idea in general .



I say instead of speed increase flight time...

flight time is a trade off. yes it increases max distance but it also reinforces the negative of missiles of not having insta damage.

The way it would work is the mod decreases target acquisition time and thus allowing more time for the missile to fly to its target

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#88 - 2014-09-03 17:58:26 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
-snip-
It is precisely this last scenario that we need to be careful of. While improving damage application creates a good fitting option, there is the danger of over-buffing this damage application to targets that should be difficult to kill. Optimizing your HM or HAMs to take down fellow cruisers is a great thing. If these modules result in easy-optimization so they blap frigates, too, and we have a problematic state from a balance perspective.


So its only okay to 'blap' frigate size hulls with blasters and autocannons?

You are aware that most interceptors can outrun heavy missiles by burning in one direction until the flight time is over right?

Maybe one cannot outrun cruise missiles from a Raven but you were never supposed to kill one in a motorcycle and a sidearm anyways.


1.) I call bullshit on your "outrunning missiles" line. The typical interceptor travels at 5 km/s. The typical non-hull bonused Heavy Missile travels about 6.5 km/s, and almost 10 km/s with a bonused hull. Sure, there are special cases where an inty may outrun the missile, but so what. What matters is the standard application. An inty will be orbiting your drake at 28 km's holding it down for his friends to show up, and you'll hit him but not do enough damage to get him off of you. Likewise, a hurricane in the same position will be stuck because they too cannot hit the inty for any significant damage.

2.) Heavy Missiles are LONG RANGE weapons. You shouldn't be comparing them to autocannons and blasters, but to Arties and Railguns. And even in the case of autocannons and blasters, and inty can avoid all the damage they output by orbiting close or by orbiting beyond their range. Missiles damage is mitigated by being small first and foremost, and by moving fast as a secondary option.

By the way, that is the point you seemed to miss. You cannot mitigate missile damage like you can turret damage. This is one reason why it is balanced that their damage to small targets is much less effective. Improving that effectiveness a little is alright, but too much and we will break balance. This is especially true when considering Rapid launchers, which are already extremely effective at "blapping interceptors".

Also, what are you talking about: "you were never supposed to kill [a Raven] in a motorcycle and a sidearm anyways"?
-- You might think of your ship as some tank that's supposed to be immune to small arms fire, but that's not how this game is designed. I've solo'd a raven in a rifter. I've solo'd Maelstrom's too. Your big cruise launchers are for shooting other big ships, not for killing small stuff (that's what your drones are for). Getting in a bigger ship gives you more tank, more raw firepower, but simultaneously limits your damage application, thereby making you weaker to smaller ships. That is how EvE is balanced, and it is a good thing!



scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#89 - 2014-09-03 18:01:26 UTC  |  Edited by: scorchlikeshiswhiskey
If we're quoting raw DPS numbers, I've got a Torp Raven that is probably "OP" with *gasp* over 1k missile DPS. Now, as we all know, it's only ok to get high DPS numbers if you're using turrets, otherwise it's not fair because you're blapping frigs with Torps.
Sarcasm aside, look at the application stats for that same Drake and compare them to stats from comparable ships/fits against reasonable targets. I would say start with only 3 or 4 damage mods in the lows, BCS for the Drake and then Gyro's/Mag stabs/Heat sinks for the other ships, and then try and improve your damage. With the Drake, last I checked, the best you can do is a T1/T2 Rigor combo with a Flare. That's it, that's all you can do. Any other weapon system in the game can fit passive TE's in the lows along with the damage mods, or in place of them, and then take advantage of scripted TC's in the mids. That doesn't even bring ReTC's into the picture at all. Now, imagine you were in a 'Cane and your options were limited to rigs and passive damage mods.
The point of this post is that missile fits are not in line with any other weapon type, even drones now have tracking links to improve their application while missiles are still stuck with sacrificing tank rigs for Rigors and fitting 3/4 BCS in the lows. And yes, I deliberately left out TP's and webs because those affect all weapons and I was attempting to highlight the disparity in weapon specific modules.
Before anyone decides to completely ignore my point and hide behind the wall of "Light missiles OP", let's look BS size, short-range weapons. Unless you're shooting a small moon, there's not much point in fitting Torps to a BS for PvP whereas AC's/Blasters/Pulse are all able to achieve damage application against smaller-than-moon size targets with an ammo/script swap, even without refitting TE's or getting logi links. I fully understand that missiles are a different weapon system, and they have different strengths, but they have been pigeon holed into having those "strengths" because there are 5 total things you can do to improve your application: Rigor/Flare rigs, fit Javelin/Navy and then the universal Webs/TPs.

Just a thought.....

Edit: If big weapons are for shooting big things, then I think the Mega hulls in particular are probably a little out of line (2k DPS Blaster Vindi anyone?) - I realilze that the DPS of a Vindi doesn't directly mean that it's out of line, but those same blaster Vindi's can do a splendid job of sweeping the field of most things in their range and they don't stop at "big things".

As for increasing flight time over flight speed, what is the appeal in increasing the delay in damage even further? Unless you want Cerbs and Caracals to get seriously nerfed to compensate.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#90 - 2014-09-03 18:57:56 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
afkalt wrote:


I mostly agree - but in order to have a single module missile DPS needs to be brought into line with their size class. So for example a 10% hike in heavy missile DPS wouldn't kill much - but a 10% hike to lights? Ouch time.


Are heavy missiles really out of balance though?


[snipped]




Unfortunately, imo, yes.

I did some analysis previously - I'll repaste below. You're right we should be very careful about smaller targets but there are horrible issues with the application.

recap: MWD shield tanked cruiser is speed tanking these(!)



Repaste from https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4884869#post4884869


Example:

[Caracal, HML]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Reactor Control Unit II
Damage Control II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Faint Warp Disruptor I

Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile

Medium Bay Loading Accelerator I
Medium Polycarbon Engine Housing I
Medium Polycarbon Engine Housing I

Warrior II x2

PAPER DPS: 300

Just spotted I had a rogue RCU in there, should have been overdrive but I'm not changing it now


[Thorax, Thorax Rails]
Damage Control II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Tracking Enhancer II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Faint Warp Disruptor I
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

200mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
200mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
200mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
200mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
200mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

Warrior II x5

PAPER DPS: 488/284 [Am/Tu]

Here is the thorax shooting the caracal:

http://i.imgur.com/c5PfO5m.png


And here is the caracal shooting the thorax:

http://i.imgur.com/Im9yibr.png

Combined chart for visible break points:

http://i.imgur.com/WcVXXiJ.png


So whilst, yes the HML has a greater range, at a useful engagement range i.e. point range, the rails absolutely smoke it, even at extremely high transversal.

You can see yourself it's not even close. Not remotely. And that's HML vs a MWD cruiser. Sure, you may point out that it is antimatter and short range, so lets slap some tunsten in there and see what happens:

http://i.imgur.com/aQEb8s3.png


It's really pretty damning.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#91 - 2014-09-03 19:15:50 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

1.) I call bullshit on your "outrunning missiles" line. The typical interceptor travels at 5 km/s. The typical non-hull bonused Heavy Missile travels about 6.5 km/s, and almost 10 km/s with a bonused hull. Sure, there are special cases where an inty may outrun the missile, but so what. What matters is the standard application. An inty will be orbiting your drake at 28 km's holding it down for his friends to show up, and you'll hit him but not do enough damage to get him off of you. Likewise, a hurricane in the same position will be stuck because they too cannot hit the inty for any significant damage.

2.) Heavy Missiles are LONG RANGE weapons. You shouldn't be comparing them to autocannons and blasters, but to Arties and Railguns. And even in the case of autocannons and blasters, and inty can avoid all the damage they output by orbiting close or by orbiting beyond their range. Missiles damage is mitigated by being small first and foremost, and by moving fast as a secondary option.

- And everyone is at any given time always fit perfectly to what she or he encounters in space -

Also, what are you talking about: "you were never supposed to kill [a Raven] in a motorcycle and a sidearm anyways"?
-- You might think of your ship as some tank that's supposed to be immune to small arms fire, but that's not how this game is designed. I've solo'd a raven in a rifter. I've solo'd Maelstrom's too. Your big cruise launchers are for shooting other big ships, not for killing small stuff (that's what your drones are for). Getting in a bigger ship gives you more tank, more raw firepower, but simultaneously limits your damage application, thereby making you weaker to smaller ships. That is how EvE is balanced, and it is a good thing!



1.) Yeah most of the time nobody uses links because they don't do much to ships anyway..

2.) I did compare heavy missiles to long range turrets many times in the past and stated that you can compare heavy missiles with artillery guns with roughly 60% - let's call it 'beta-damage' - of artillery alpha of the same size that may hit the target at the end of the cycle (of the launchers)

3.) I didn't say that.
Fact is that the Raven (my favorite battleship hull) can do zero to small ships at any position, while turret boats can. Another tiny fact is that my cruise missile launchers with 3x tech2 ballistic controls have a rate of fire of 6.4 seconds. That is seven (7) server ticks if you wish.
The Raven wouldn't be 'immune' to small craft but could certainly have a word with them.
Unless it's like 40 Taranisses then is doesn't really matter how much my cruise launchers want to talk to them, they will just murder my boat ( Sad). No matter how much drones I'll send out.


scorchlikeshiswhiskey get's it.

I am not talking about increasing damage of missiles, I am telling you the roof will not drop on our heads when they ditch the two attributes that got us into that mess we have in the first place.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#92 - 2014-09-03 19:52:48 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
afkalt wrote:


I mostly agree - but in order to have a single module missile DPS needs to be brought into line with their size class. So for example a 10% hike in heavy missile DPS wouldn't kill much - but a 10% hike to lights? Ouch time.


Are heavy missiles really out of balance though?


[snipped]




Unfortunately, imo, yes.

I did some analysis previously - I'll repaste below. You're right we should be very careful about smaller targets but there are horrible issues with the application.

recap: MWD shield tanked cruiser is speed tanking these(!)



Repaste from https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4884869#post4884869

PAPER DPS: 488/284 [Am/Tu]

Here is the thorax shooting the caracal:

http://i.imgur.com/c5PfO5m.png


And here is the caracal shooting the thorax:

http://i.imgur.com/Im9yibr.png

Combined chart for visible break points:

http://i.imgur.com/WcVXXiJ.png


So whilst, yes the HML has a greater range, at a useful engagement range i.e. point range, the rails absolutely smoke it, even at extremely high transversal.

You can see yourself it's not even close. Not remotely. And that's HML vs a MWD cruiser. Sure, you may point out that it is antimatter and short range, so lets slap some tunsten in there and see what happens:

http://i.imgur.com/aQEb8s3.png


It's really pretty damning.


I don't see how that is so damning?

There is a window where the Railrax outshines the HM Caracal (pt range). But you've fit the wrong weapon system to the Caracal if that is your desired fighting range. Your same graphs show that the Railrax has much less applicable damage beyond the point range or within scram range.

This is where the big discrepancies come into play.

How do you accurately compare the two weapon systems?
HM's with Caldari Navy HM's are flat out better than Rails with Spike, yet at the same time, Rails with anti-matter are hands down better within point range. If you buff HM's so they compete well within this range, you make them INSANE at Spike ranges. Does anyone not understand this dilemma?

The only truly "balanced" means of evening the playing field is to ahve short range ammo that is tweaked to give excellent damage to similarly sized ships even if they are moving fast while being ineffective against lower class targets, and to have short range ammo that gives good damage to smaller, immobile vessels but pisspoor damage to a moving target.

I'm not opposed to rebalancing missiles, but I demand that they have limitations in how they apply their dps. My experience has been they are effective in the current environment, even if they aren't "the best".
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#93 - 2014-09-03 20:13:18 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
It's better from ~5 to (at least) 50km - with but an ammo swap. That is about the useful limit of (average) cruiser sized engagements. Also keep in mind that is a worst case transversal for the rails and a juicy high sig missile target.

I agree about the 'missile' problems/dilemma of range vs damage though - indeed I've posted about the problems before - anything which balances HML at less than extreme ranges instantly breaks them at extreme ranges. My suggestion was different launcher 'calibers' which modified the ammo properties - exp profile/flight ranges etc. This keeps ammo as is and allows fitting choices (akin to the different gun 'sizes' (dual 150/200/250mm rails) in their size class (small/medium/large)


Edit: found my link: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4858982

I think it would solve a lot of problems - but that's obvious else I'd not have suggested it Blink