These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Short and sweet Missile revamp Thread
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Goose99
#21 - 2011-12-16 20:46:16 UTC
Emperor Salazar wrote:
You seriously think missiles are useless in pvp. I honestly don't know how you can be so ignorant.


Perhaps he wanted to fly something other than drake, which does well despite missiles.Lol
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#22 - 2011-12-16 20:58:53 UTC
Emperor Salazar wrote:
You seriously think missiles are useless in pvp. I honestly don't know how you can be so ignorant.


Please tell me a missile ship that is effective in pvp based on missiles alone. Remember though, I have already stated that ships such as the drake, tengu, scorpion, stealth bomber, etc. etc. all have other factors that determine their effectiveness in pvp, and unlike the new tier 3 bc's, that factor is not dps.
Like I said before, take the raven and Megathron as good examples of this. Both are teir 2 bs's that are geared primarily towards dps even though not that high of dps. All intelligent Eve players would take a well balanced mega for pvp over a raven every time. Taking a raven into pvp is a death wish unless you have several other ships there to compensate for it. hence why missile boat pilots are pretty much never caught fighting without and entire balanced fleet

Goose99 wrote:
Perhaps he wanted to fly something other than drake, which does well despite missiles.Lol


yeah, the drake does well, but not because of missiles. The tengu, for me, it way too risky and expensive to apply in pvp. I hate using the drake in pvp because it doesn't fit well into mixed fleets, so instead I pretty much always fly my stealth bomber. Which again, isn't for it's missiles even in low sec. It's because I can drop some slow dps at a decent range, then cloak up if things start going south. You live to fight another day imo.

however, it would be nice to have the same options as turret boat pilots and be able to take a t1 ship that is purely capable of pvp.
Again, raven vs megathron.
Spork Witch
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2011-12-16 21:02:05 UTC
Emperor Salazar wrote:
You seriously think missiles are useless in pvp. I honestly don't know how you can be so ignorant.

Depends on the scale. He seriously has no clue _why_ or _when_ missiles are useless in PvP, though.

Why: When the ship that launches a missile leaves grid for any reason (i.e., gets instapopped by a blob of artybaddons), all missiles still in flight cease to exist. They deal no damage.

When: When the engagement is of sufficient size that a single volley can instapop an opposing target, missiles become ineffective, as it is now a war of attrition. Turrets dealing damage instantly, missiles having _any_ travel time, will result in more missile ships going pop than turret ships, and they'll be doing so faster. This ceases to be the case when the engagement becomes so large as to lag the server enough that you can't effectively coordinate your alpha strikes to systematically instapop the ships in the opposing fleet. Don't worry, missiles will return to uselessness in fleet fights once they turn on time dilation.

As to his complaints about "whaaa, the targets are too fast," or "whaaaa, the targets are too small," match your weapon to your target, noob. Go figure, if I try to hit an interceptor with a large blaster, i'm going to bloody miss, and if I do hit, it's going to do buggerall for damage. When you launch that big, slow missile designed for shooting big, slow battleships, at an interceptor, it does crap damage.

There are ways to address these issues: target painters, stasis webifiers, and manually piloting to keep close to the enemy and minimize your flight time. Precision missiles exist for the express purpose of minimizing the damage reduction from shooting at small, fast targets. As you said, yes, those modules I mentioned affect turrets too, but they affect them in different ways and different amounts. There's also a lot more that goes into accuracy and damage calculations for turrets, than the comparatively simple mechanics of missiles.

Fact of the matter is, they do what they're designed for quite well: they're fire-and-forget, they require virtually no skill as a player to figure out how to use them (warp in, target, turn on launcher, go make lunch), and their damage and accuracy are unaffected by range: they either reach the target or not. They even let you switch out damage types! They're one of the most popular PvE weapons in the game for these reasons: you don't have to think, they are equally effective regardless of range, they can change out damage types. Now for PvP, as I see pretty much all the whining coming from Caldari, you've got the best EWAR ships in the game! Do what you're good at! Turrets are the go-to PvP weapon for a reason: there's more you can do as a player to change how effective they are against your target, and how effective the enemy's are against you (shifting "win conditions" to player skill as opposed to stats and formulas is always a good thing, unless you suck). Changing missiles isn't needed, what needs to change is you, and learn to use the right tool for the right job. Not every problem is a nail, a hammer isn't going to solve them all.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#24 - 2011-12-16 21:38:03 UTC
Spork Witch wrote:
stuff


I can generally agree with what you're saying however, telling me that I have to use turrets to be effective in pvp is like telling a turret pilot they have to use missiles in pve.

They would not go for it. As a matter of fact, turrets are quite capable of pve, and even more so capable of pve than missiles are for pvp.
Like I said, take the megathron and the raven as a prime example. Both are quite capable of pve. However, the mega is also quite capable of pvp, where as most players wouldn't be cought dead pvp'ing in a raven if the fleet wasn't built to fit the raven into it, which would mean that the fleet would have to be designed specifically as a missile fleet, which requires a LOT more consideration than a turret fleet.

Now, as far as your comment towards small sig radius and speed in relation to my suggested changes on the OP. You are correct. My changes would not effect the damage you apply to these ships. Which is part of the reason why I suggest that this change wouldn't effect anything but the engagement time of missiles, thus making them more effective in pvp but still in the same relation as far as dps.
Now, when it comes to turrets and missiles in relation to moving targets. if the target is within range, and the turret is capable of tracking the target, for instance, we'll say a bs at 60 km. That 60km we'll say is the max optimal range of your ship. Then you will nail that ship quite well. Now, we'll say you're in a missile boat and factoring your missile velocity, flight time, and acceleration time, you have a flight range of 60 km. Well, the target is orbitting you at 60km, the same as it was with the turret boat, with the same range. Your missiles will not hit the target...Why? Because they missiles to not have a max range, but instead have a max flight range, so as the target orbits you, it is actually gaining distance, thus reducing the chance of your missile being able to engage the target. This again, is quite an unfair advantage the same as engagement time for the missile pilot in pvp. Now, if we greatly increased the Velocity of missile in exchange for flight time, then missiles will have a shorter engagement time, and more chance of hitting the target if it is within that 60km range, because it will not have as much time to escape. This literally is a huge difference. With current missile mechanics, you will most likely have to be within 52-55 km in order for your 60km missile flight range to be effective. Where as with my suggested change, you may simply have to close the distance less than a km, if even half a km. It's a bit unfair that even though the turret and the missile boats have the same relative range, the turrets will be able to bound their target, where as the missiles won't hit at all, and in the even that the target is even less than half of 1m/s faster, then the missile boat will never be able to close that 5 km gap, where as less than a 1km gap would be possible before the target would get up speed to get back out of range.

Like I said before. Put a missile boat and a turret boat with equal dps, equal range, equal tank, and equal rate of fire against each other, then have the both commence firing at the same time, and with current mechanics, the turret boat will win Every time because it will be able to down the target before the last missile volley hits the turret boat, and like you said, once you missil boat is gone, the volleys cease to exist.

IMO, I shouldn't have to cross train turrets in order to do something besides pve, the same as turrets pilots don't have to cross train missiles for pve. An equal turret and missile boat should both destroy each other unless other factors are implemented such as ewar, more dps, more tank, greater ranges, SP, etc. etc..

All I want is for missiles to be just as pvp capable as turrets. If that means that training for missiles needs to done in the same manner as turrets in that you have to train a smaller system in order to get a larger system? Then I'm all for that, but only if missiles become more pvp capable.
Spork Witch
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2011-12-16 21:45:56 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Spork Witch wrote:
stuff


I can generally agree with what you're saying however, telling me that I have to use turrets to be effective in pvp is like telling a turret pilot they have to use missiles in pve.

No one is telling you that you have to use turrets to PvP, just like no one is telling the turret pilot to use missiles in PvE. What we _are_ telling you is that you need to use the right tool for the job, hence my parting comment. I can use turrets just fine in PvE, it just takes more work, and they don't "just work" the way missiles do. You can take your missiles to PvP, but it's going to take different tactics to outweigh the downsides. That's the nature of the game: everything has its ups and downs, it's situations where it works better, and those where it doesn't.

You make a common noob mistake in thinking that "ballanced" means everything is the same, or everything is fair. Such is not the case. Balanced just means that everything interacts together in such a way that you can compensate for deficiencies or counter advantages. These are present in EVE, especially since the speed nerf. It used to be cake to simply outrun the flight speed itself of missiles (the only time you'd hit an inty is if the noob hit "orbit" and his orbit lapped the missile and passed close enough for it to go off).

Your inability to find suitable tools and tactics is no a balance issue, it's _your_ issue. Either use the tools that are readily available to help offset the _fact_ that you're simply trying to do something that isn't _supposed_ to be as effective, or cross-train to use the more effective tool for the job. This is not WoW, it is EVE, HTFU. Adapt or die.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#26 - 2011-12-16 21:58:56 UTC
Spork Witch wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Spork Witch wrote:
stuff


I can generally agree with what you're saying however, telling me that I have to use turrets to be effective in pvp is like telling a turret pilot they have to use missiles in pve.

No one is telling you that you have to use turrets to PvP, just like no one is telling the turret pilot to use missiles in PvE. What we _are_ telling you is that you need to use the right tool for the job, hence my parting comment. I can use turrets just fine in PvE, it just takes more work, and they don't "just work" the way missiles do. You can take your missiles to PvP, but it's going to take different tactics to outweigh the downsides. That's the nature of the game: everything has its ups and downs, it's situations where it works better, and those where it doesn't.

You make a common noob mistake in thinking that "ballanced" means everything is the same, or everything is fair. Such is not the case. Balanced just means that everything interacts together in such a way that you can compensate for deficiencies or counter advantages. These are present in EVE, especially since the speed nerf. It used to be cake to simply outrun the flight speed itself of missiles (the only time you'd hit an inty is if the noob hit "orbit" and his orbit lapped the missile and passed close enough for it to go off).

Your inability to find suitable tools and tactics is no a balance issue, it's _your_ issue. Either use the tools that are readily available to help offset the _fact_ that you're simply trying to do something that isn't _supposed_ to be as effective, or cross-train to use the more effective tool for the job. This is not WoW, it is EVE, HTFU. Adapt or die.


You're missing a key momment that I stated, and instead, commented ont he part that could be more contradicted without factoring in the rest of the statement, so I'll quote if for you.

me wrote:
They would not go for it. As a matter of fact, turrets are quite capable of pve, and even more so capable of pve than missiles are for pvp.


Missiles are capable of pvp. However, turrets are much more effective. Now, missiles are more effective in pve than turrets, but not to the extent of the effectiveness of turrets over missiles in pvp.

So what I'm essentially saying is that turrets are a more viable option for cross use in pvp and pve than missiles are.
I am not saying to make missiles more pvp effective so that missiles can be more effective, I am saying that in order to balance the effectiveness of turrets and missiles a change needs to be made to missiles to make them just as effective as turrets in all situations.

Now, when you throw in my suggested change, then missiles will still maintain their superiority in pve, and turrets will still maintain their superiority in pvp. However, missile won't be anymore effective in pve than they are now, but will become more effective in pvp but still not quite as effective as turrets. Missiles in pve are currently only slightly better than turrets. However, turrets are MUCH more effective in pvp than missiles. So I'm simply suggesting to close that gap so that missiles are still slightly better in pve, and turrets are slightly better in pvp instead of significantly better.

this change would truly only effect pvp and it would only effect engagement time. it would not change dps, range, or anyother factors that determine missiles pvp effectiveness, thus not giving them any advantage.
Spork Witch
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2011-12-16 22:25:39 UTC
Actually, it would have significant impacts: it almost completely eliminates the primary downside to missiles: they take time to hit. You're not taking into account that a missile's advantage isn't a straightforward stats thing, it's in their ease of use in general, that there are fewer things to worry about with them, their ability to change out damage types, and their ability to completely ignore range as a factor of whether you can hit or how hard. The only thing that matters to a missile is matching the missile to the target. Turrets are far more complex, and yes, in the end, are much more effective in PvP, but that doesn't change the tradeoffs. Missiles are a more simplistic weapon, and like anything "easy," they don't work as well. Turrets are more complex, but potentially more effective in PvP. Missiles benefits are wonderful for PvE, whereas turrets' are most effective in PvP.

Further, by increasing flight speed, you actually _are_ increasing their potential damage output, since you can now get more hits before you blow up. Again, it's also a guaranteed hit, and if you chose the right missile, guaranteed decent, consistent damage. Turrets miss, damage can vary widely due simply to the relative motion of the two ships from one moment to the next. If you decrease this downside to missiles, you make them _more_ appealing than turrets, for both PvP, and where they're already more appealing, PvE.

Get Defender missiles to actually work and we can talk about potentially reducing the drawbacks of missiles, but as it stands, Defenders can't counter more than a single launcher worth of missiles, thanks to the way they work, and that it would be nearly impossible to code them in such a way as to behave in an effective manner. I'd sooner fit a big smartbomb than Defenders, because they can take out missiles too, but they can also take out drones, and nearby enemy ships. And as I've said elsewhere, balance doesn't mean everything being equal, balance just means that everything has its place, drawbacks to its advantages, and a counter to it.

Also, as to turrets in PvE, you have two main choices: melee or sniping. If you choose sniping, you're entirely dependent on drones to handle anything that gets too close, and most long-range weapons tend not to have spectacular damage performance. If you go close, you're stuck approaching, or waiting for the enemy to approach, and being entirely dependent on drones to fly to and attack anything that you can't get into range on. That's a pretty significant drawback in terms of suitability, when you consider that missions need to be run quickly to be profitable. A missile doesn't care about any of this: you hit just as often and just as hard from 0m as you do from 100km, and you can still use drones to add to your damage output.

Also, though I can't remember who mentioned them, sentries are not a suitable counter to the "drones have to fly too" argument. Sentries can't move, and have horrid tracking. This means they won't always be doing effective damage, and at the end of the fight you have to go back and pick them up manually, or abandon them. With normal drones, even if you have to bug out, there's a chance of getting some of your drones back before you warp.

Again, missiles work as intended (though they still bog down the server more than anyone would like except the missile users themselves, for reasons I already mentioned), and they work just fine. Because they don't work in a particular situation the way you'd like them to does not indicate that they're broken, it simply indicates your unwillingness to adapt and use the right tool for the job. And just think, at least that heavy missile can hit the frigate at all; you'll have no such luck with a large turret in most scenarios.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#28 - 2011-12-16 22:49:38 UTC
Spork Witch wrote:
Actually, it would have significant impacts: it almost completely eliminates the primary downside to missiles: they take time to hit. You're not taking into account that a missile's advantage isn't a straightforward stats thing, it's in their ease of use in general, that there are fewer things to worry about with them, their ability to change out damage types, and their ability to completely ignore range as a factor of whether you can hit or how hard. The only thing that matters to a missile is matching the missile to the target. Turrets are far more complex, and yes, in the end, are much more effective in PvP, but that doesn't change the tradeoffs. Missiles are a more simplistic weapon, and like anything "easy," they don't work as well. Turrets are more complex, but potentially more effective in PvP. Missiles benefits are wonderful for PvE, whereas turrets' are most effective in PvP.

Actually, in my mind the down side of missiles is actually that it's limited to only one damage type at a time, so you have to pick and choose the more effective ammo in combat, explosion velocity can be negated by speed (missiles hitting for 0 damage isn't exactly a hit), a hit can be negated in general by simple movement while at range, so your target doesn't even have to be outside of max range, and explosion radius which can't even be fully compensated for with 2 target painters on a bs alone, even heavy missiles need at least one target painter to get full potential against a large bs. So I would say there are several factors to make missiles have a down side, plus i'm not suggesting the complete removal of flight time, so the turret boat would still have a second or so more to down a missile boat thus negating the incoming damage from the last volley, it would just be a much smaller window.

Quote:
Further, by increasing flight speed, you actually _are_ increasing their potential damage output, since you can now get more hits before you blow up. Again, it's also a guaranteed hit, and if you chose the right missile, guaranteed decent, consistent damage. Turrets miss, damage can vary widely due simply to the relative motion of the two ships from one moment to the next. If you decrease this downside to missiles, you make them _more_ appealing than turrets, for both PvP, and where they're already more appealing, PvE.

Yes, but again, the turret pilot will still get more hits, and unlike a missile pilot it's last volley will still count since it would hit before you were blown up, unlike a missile volley.

Quote:
Get Defender missiles to actually work and we can talk about potentially reducing the drawbacks of missiles, but as it stands, Defenders can't counter more than a single launcher worth of missiles, thanks to the way they work, and that it would be nearly impossible to code them in such a way as to behave in an effective manner. I'd sooner fit a big smartbomb than Defenders, because they can take out missiles too, but they can also take out drones, and nearby enemy ships. And as I've said elsewhere, balance doesn't mean everything being equal, balance just means that everything has its place, drawbacks to its advantages, and a counter to it.


Actually, I made a comment in relation to this in another thread, because I too saw this as an issue, so let me quote it. I think you might like it.
me wrote:
The only other aspect of Eve that would need to be changed to react to this is defender missiles. They will need to be much much faster and engage the missiles on point instead of chasing missiles like they do now. A simple way to cure this would be simply to remove defendors as a missile platform and instead make them a turret. However, I don't think they should rely on any other skills in order to be effective, such as tracking or what not. This is so that both turret and missile boat pilots can train and use them without having to cross train several other support skills as well. This would mean that instead of defendors having an engagement time on target and having to chase their target, they will be turrets and be able to engage and destroy instantly, or perhaps they can just make them flares or something.


Quote:
Also, as to turrets in PvE, you have two main choices: melee or sniping.
This part of your comment actually falls in line with an issue I see amongst missiles all the time. This is that once a target begins to orbit you, instead of approaching, then you actually have less effective dps against the target. So even though you can one shot a frig with torps while it's approaching you, once it's orbitting, you have a better chance or ramming it than you do shooting it down with torps, so drones become a must in this situation as well, and I've experienced this same issue with both heavies and cruise missiles as well.

Quoting your sentries comment. Agreed on this aspect. However, if the target is at range the sentries will engage the target instantly and will also not have to reload, where as missiles still have to travel for some time, and still require reloading. That was what I understood as far as the comparison to sentry drones.

Quoting your missiles as intended comment. I'll agree that missiles are working as intended, but again, that intention makes them much more inneffective in pvp in comparison to turrets effectiveness in pve.
My overall, again, isn't to make missiles better than turrets in pvp, but to at least make the a viable option even when not in a drake, tengu, bomber, or missile fleet. I would like to see missile dps become a viable option even in mixed fleets.
Bearilian
Man Eating Bears
#29 - 2011-12-16 23:13:12 UTC
you guys are bickering...

I like the suggestion and vote for making missiles travel faster but not farther. to the people who say that missiles should have a disadvantage i have two things to say to you; first, your a turret pilot so your opinion doesnt count on the matter, and two, if the travel time was decreased by half, they would still have a disadvantage. and no, missiles are not a secondary weapon system (at least not for caldari)

also from reading the argument, I would like to offer my perspective that if your ship is destroyed, or you warp away, your missiles should still hit their target and explode at what you told them to. (surely the missiles of eve's day and age could have the intelegent to follow through with its target. does it really depend on the ships targeting that much? (they could at least switch to heat seeking mode or something))

The only people who dont want change are those that have been killing with certain methods strategies and exploits for years, and want to cry an ocean over having to think again... seriously, ive seen more insults in this thread than usual, and its not a bad or unbalancing idea, its just an inconvenience for those that like taking advantage of the missile boats in pvp. i learned alot by reading peoples strategies though so thnx Bear.
tankus2
HeartVenom Inc.
#30 - 2011-12-17 00:29:01 UTC
Given that missiles will hit targets that remain on grid, even if they run out of your locking range, should mean that you don't have to remain on grid in order to have your missiles hit. I'm sure it would be a boon for cerb pilots :D

Where the science gets done
Spork Witch
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2011-12-17 00:48:15 UTC
Again, we can talk about speeding missiles up, when they make Defenders work at all. As it stands, for all intents and purposes, they don't, and speeding missiles up will make them go from "nearly worthless" to "completely nonfunctional."

if missiles were good in PvP, I would use them. I don't, because their benefits are better suited to PvE, whereas turrets are better suited to PvP.

As to the whole " if it hits for zero, it's a miss" thing, why are you shooting BS missiles at a frigate? And if you're shooting BS missiles at a BS moving fast enough to be taking 0's, then he's so heavy on the speed mods, that he's got no tank to speak of, and certainly no gank. Huzzah for trade-offs. And again, you have precisions as an option.

The fact that you can switch to whatever damage type you want is a disadvantage? Really? Last I checked, the ability to pick the ammo that works the best is a pretty big advantage over than firing hybrids or lasers at a target with 90% kin/therm or em/therm resistances, respectively. Sure, they're doing two types, but if someone knows they're fighting against gallente, they know to tank kin/therm. If I'm fighting against caldari, I can't do that (and I probably want an extra ECCM, since they have the best EWAR ships in the game).

That torp will do the same damage to that frigate whether it's approaching or orbiting. Absolute velocity of the target, compared to the missile's explosion velocity, is the only thing that matters here. We're not talking about tracking, where radial velocity affects damage, and angular velocity affects accuracy. In the case of a turret, while yes, I have a better chance to hit while it's approaching than while orbiting, I'm still stuck comparing the weapon's scan resolution to the target's signature radius, which further affects accuracy and damage. Again, a lot more goes into turrets than missiles. It's both an advantage and a disadvantage, on both sides.

People still seem to be having difficulty with the simple concept that balance != just as good at everything. In spite of their disadvantages in PvP, the Drake is still one of the most-flown (and most lost) ships in the game, including in PvP. Why? Because it takes virtually no skill as a player to make use of it (thanks to the advantages of missiles), it's dirt cheap, and it has ridiculously low SP needs to make effective use of it. The fact of the matter is that missiles _are_ balanced, they're just not how you want them. Fortunately, CCP cares more about actual balance, than making everything homogenous and stripping out all aspects of finding counters and strategies. Just because you started your character Caldari doesn't mean you're limited to their stuff. Nothing is stopping you from adapting yourself to use the right tools for the job. Use all the tools at your disposal, get creative, or stop trying to turn every problem into a nail so you don't have to try something other than your hammer.
tankus2
HeartVenom Inc.
#32 - 2011-12-17 01:14:42 UTC
how is a sped-up missile 'non-functional'? I think you forget that cruise and light missiles both are far better at hitting small targets (like heavies). Giving them a speed boost will only enhance this ability while allowing them to still slap targets at greater ranges than torps or rockets.

However, rockets and torps get more show in pvp due to dealing more damage, even though webbing or target-painting does them no good when it comes to increasing damage.

Where the science gets done
Spork Witch
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2011-12-17 01:27:14 UTC
tankus2 wrote:
how is a sped-up missile 'non-functional'? I think you forget that cruise and light missiles both are far better at hitting small targets (like heavies). Giving them a speed boost will only enhance this ability while allowing them to still slap targets at greater ranges than torps or rockets.

However, rockets and torps get more show in pvp due to dealing more damage, even though webbing or target-painting does them no good when it comes to increasing damage.

Reread, the defenders are what speeding missiles up would make unusable, instead of just nearly-worthless.

As to the rest, anti-BS weapons are not _supposed_ to be good at hitting things that are smaller. Big weapons get damage / accuracy penalties to targets smaller than they're intended for. Smaller weapons deal less damage, but don't get penalized when shooting the bigger stuff. This is behaving how it's supposed to.

The fact that how visible it is, is different between turrets and missiles (misses and crappy hits, versus _really_ crappy hits), doesn't change this fact. They work as intended. Stop trying to force them into a role they're not designed for. Use the right tool for the job.

Also, webbing and target painting will absolutely help you when using torps, thanks to their slow speed, slow explosion, and large explosion radius. That's exactly what TPs and webs help the most with, more so even than turrets (the TP especially).
Velicitia
XS Tech
#34 - 2011-12-17 01:30:43 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
...even heavy missiles need at least one target painter to get full potential against a large bs.



Funny, looks like heavies have a smaller explosion radius than the sig radius of a BS

Scourge Heavy Missile
Explosion Radius -- 125 m

Dominix
Signature Radius -- 420 m


Thus, they hit for 100% damage no matter what (well, except if the BS is outrunning the explosion velocity, which is only 80 m/sec ... but we're not looking at that, now are we?).

tankus2 wrote:

how is a sped-up missile 'non-functional'?


Spork Witch was referring to defenders being made completely worthless.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Bearilian
Man Eating Bears
#35 - 2011-12-17 01:45:10 UTC
you just wrote three full paragraphs without giving one single effective argument. your afraid that defender missiles would become less usefull?? really? thats why you want to keep missiles at their current velocity? truth be told, you are scared. you are afraid that if missiles were increased in speed people would use them far more frequently than they had before.

every other sentence you wrote was just a justification on how you are used to the way things are currently, and you dont like change. I am sorry you dont like change, but this world is defined by it.

I am by no means trying to get missiles to compare with bullets as far as travel time. but at the current rate, I feel if they were to fly faster and for a shorter duration eves ballance and use of missiles would be more interesting.

I want to tell you to think about the propulsion systems available in eve, and how you can warp your ship at 3 AU/s as a comparison to how simple it should be to increase the speed of missiles by a little. but I dont know all of the reasons that they make warp at that speed possible and if it would work on something missile size. (thats just me pondering aimlessly though)

What if an advanced missile skill were introduced?
(+10% max velocity and -10% flight time of missiles per level.)
tankus2
HeartVenom Inc.
#36 - 2011-12-17 01:51:50 UTC
thanks Velicitia for that clarifacation, though I still don't understand how increasing the defender's velocity would make it 'non-functional'. Not like anyone is using them.

Bear, I'd think it would be better to have that +50% max velocity/ -50% fight time already strapped onto the missile than having some skill that nullifies the missile bombardment skill.

Where the science gets done
Spork Witch
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2011-12-17 02:06:15 UTC
Bearilian wrote:
you just wrote three full paragraphs without giving one single effective argument. your afraid that defender missiles would become less usefull?? really? thats why you want to keep missiles at their current velocity? truth be told, you are scared. you are afraid that if missiles were increased in speed people would use them far more frequently than they had before.

every other sentence you wrote was just a justification on how you are used to the way things are currently, and you dont like change. I am sorry you dont like change, but this world is defined by it.

I am by no means trying to get missiles to compare with bullets as far as travel time. but at the current rate, I feel if they were to fly faster and for a shorter duration eves ballance and use of missiles would be more interesting.

I want to tell you to think about the propulsion systems available in eve, and how you can warp your ship at 3 AU/s as a comparison to how simple it should be to increase the speed of missiles by a little. but I dont know all of the reasons that they make warp at that speed possible and if it would work on something missile size. (thats just me pondering aimlessly though)

What if an advanced missile skill were introduced?
(+10% max velocity and -10% flight time of missiles per level.)

No, i want to not break balance in the name of "balancing" something that already is, especially when it will make things that _are_ broken, even worse. As to the propulsion systems available in EVE, I don't bloody care. You think ships fly faster than light, jump instantly between solar systems, and behave as if they're moving in a liquid, when they're in space? Of course they don't. So don't try to say "oh well it's the future and the propulsion..." blah blah blah. It has no bearing here. Lore comes after mechanics, to explain the mechanics that are in place for reasons of balance.

The existing mechanics are balanced, just not in a way you like. You don't like that the advantages and disadvantages provide an edge in PvE to missiles, and PvP to turrets. This is not mine or CCPs problem. This is not even a balance issue. It's a you don't want to use the right tool for the job issue. Stop trying to change the tire on your car with a jackhammer, go figure, the wrong tool isn't going to work so well.

tankus2 wrote:
thanks Velicitia for that clarifacation, though I still don't understand how increasing the defender's velocity would make it 'non-functional'. Not like anyone is using them.

Bear, I'd think it would be better to have that +50% max velocity/ -50% fight time already strapped onto the missile than having some skill that nullifies the missile bombardment skill.

You're still not understanding. If you speed up MISSILES, then DEFENDERS go from almost-worthless, to completely nonfunctional, thanks to the behavior and mechanics of defenders, and the fact that it would be virtually impossible to code them in such a way as to correct the issue.

And again, your proposed change is not only unnecessary, but would break balance throughout. Fortunately, this is CCP and not SOE or Actiblizzion, so we shouldn't have to worry about them breaking things because of some noobs that don't understand the game mechanics or balance.
Bearilian
Man Eating Bears
#38 - 2011-12-17 05:48:18 UTC
I dont really want to get into arguing mechanics with you, but you are wrong. increasing missile velocity would not disrupt the whole game. oh defenders you say? like I'd believe you actual use those? thats your only standing argument, for the walls and walls of points you are griefing this idea with. and as far as balancing goes; It is true that pvp battles would have a new stragetic implementation, but it shouldnt unballance anything. only that turret users will be more upset about getting hit sooner than they are used to. seriously isnt it obvious to you yet that only turret users are arguing against this idea. its not noobs vs vets here. its turrest users vs missile ones. I cross trained so i like both, and no, i wasnt unhappy with missiles at all (except the one point i made about a missile not finishing along its defined path of destruction on its own). Its just when i saw this thread, i thought about it and it would greatly benefit the use of missiles for pvp. Im not trying to argue that they arent used in pvp just to be clear.

once again i repeat, the only reason you are trying so hard to talk this point down is because it scares you. for two reasons. first you dont like the idea of more people bringing missile boats to pvp. second you dont trust ccp to agree with you by simply saying "not supported". from the OP's first post this was not meant to be a discussion, or argument, or grief spamming.
Obsidiana
Atrament Inc.
#39 - 2011-12-17 10:01:56 UTC
For the record, I'm a missile user. Drakes and Ravens serve just fine as damage dealers. Ye olde Navy Raven is a great mission ship. I resort to a Navy Scorpion whenever I screw up a mission. Heck, my first ship was a Kestrel.

The main change I think this would cause is wasting less ammo on destroyed targets at range. If you are close, it does nothing. I could get behind a tweak in speed, but a large boost mixed with velocity rigs (not to mention implants) could have undesired effects. Since there are no missile range modules, only rigs (which do have stacking penalties) are of concern. The point being that it would change more than benign impact times. You could hit faster targets more effectively, which missiles are supposed to have some trouble with. While this could be countered by tinkering with the formula used to apply damage, that is not as simple as it sounds.

There are side effects to this idea not addressed in the OP.
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#40 - 2011-12-17 12:36:29 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
even heavy missiles need at least one target painter to get full potential against a large bs.


I would advise that you learn about missile mechanics before proposing changes to them.