Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I guess you didn't read my comment where I quoted myself from another thread about defendor missiles. It's Easy, either make them turrets so they engage the missiles instantly, or make them flares so they bend the missiles away from their target. However, I don't see why you're complaining about defendor missiles anyway. You're talking like everyone and their brother uses defendors, but I have yet to see a player controlled ship use defendors. So your consideration for faster missiles breaking defendors is already null without even commenting.


No, actually being able to pick different damage types in pvp is mute. See, you have a turret that does two different damage types. I have a missile that does one damage type. Your turrets hit and it doesn't matter how much damage you're doing, just keep firing. Me on the other hand, I must fire a volley, then reload another ammo, fire, reload, fire, reload, and fire again. Then I must decide which ammo type is best to use. Wait? What did you say??? No one ever does that in pvp because it's idiotic? Oh, well I guess they just use the kinetic missiles since the only pvp viable missile boats have kinetic bonuses...Wait, wouldn't that mean that missiles really only have one damage type in pvp? Well, I guess you're correct, but if you think you can pull off 4 reloads in pvp in order to pick your damage type, You're gutsy.
Oh, and to get into a pvp fight knowing which race of ships you're going to be fighting(which is a ******** statement unless you're in an alliance tournament) isn't going to help you to know what damage type to use. Just because I'm Caldari and I'll be fighting minmatar ships, so i'm fitting explosive doesn't mean I'll fair well. You seem to forget there's a little something called tank that is entirely dependent on the pilot. So I'll fit exp so I can kill him, and coincidently, he has 95% exp resistance.
So see, there's no point is swapping damage types because the type of ship you're fighting isn't the only variable, there's bonuses from your ship, and tank on his ship. So in pvp, missiles are pretty much limited to one damage type per battle.

.

WRONG!!!!! This right here allows me to know that you are NOT a missile pilot and have less understanding and/or knowledge on missiles than myself.
I will 100% guarantee you that torps are more effective against approaching frigs and cruisers than they are against orbitting frigs and cruisers. I fly a t2 torp fitted golem in lvl 4 missions almost every day. I do it constantly. Oddly though, it's the opposite with bs's. It's better if they're orbitting you than approaching you.
The reason why torps are more effective against approaching cruisers and frigs is because the torp will explode slightly before it reaches the ship, but since the ship is flying towards you, it flys directly through the explosion causing it to take more damage than if it were orbitting your ship.

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.[/quote]

Again, the drake is only effective due to its tank. the fact that it uses missiles has nothing to do with pvp. Prime example, take away it's tank and give it more damage. Guess what. The drake is not longer one of the most commonly used ships because the missiles aren't what make the drake effective.

Part of your problem is you seem to think that missiles being effective in pve means they should be less effective in pvp. this is not balance. Anything directly oriented towards pve does not require balance because it does not effect other players. There is one ship in Eve that is a prime example of this. The Noctis. While it does require skills to be highly effective with it, the noctis' ability to do it's job would be like having a ship with the tank of a rattlesnake, and the dps of a nightmare all in one fit. that's how powerful the noctis is at it's job, but can only be that way because it does not effect other players. Now, saying that missiles should be weaker in pvp because they are more effective in pve is ignorant. It is a weapon system, and a primary weapon system at that, so it should be balanced the same as any other primary weapon system in Eve which means it should be just as effective and viable in pvp as any other weapon system. Missiles have enough draw backs in pvp without including their slow velocity. Even if you increased velocity from 5km/s to 30km/s, they would still not hit instantly, thus turrets would still have a slight advantage in pvp, but not the overwelming advantage that they have now. In a game revolving around pvp, anything that effects another player should be balanced in a way that give each player a fair chance based off skill and knowledge. What you're attempting to stop is the fair shake missile pilots should be given that turret pilots have. Of course, your'e a turret pilot, so I'm willing to assume you just don't wanna see missile boats on the battlefield since you already have enough to deal with.

Aren't missiles balanced against turrets because they don't require any maneuvering on the aggressors part to have high damage? (leaving out the range issue)

I just want area of effect on the explosion for all missiles and torps. (have them explode when ship leaves grid)

At least now you have the chance of a face off between fleets, missile guys come in let off a group of missiles turret guys need to lock and fire then spread apart to avoid group damage.

Didn't torps used to have AoE damage?

Actually, while it may not require maneuvering on your part to sustain better dps, you still require maneuvering to negate some incoming dps from your target, so the point is generally mute.(no offense)




I think the removal of AoE from missiles may fall partly in line with why aoe was removed from super weapons. Supers cause massive lag on the server(even if that isn't all the reasons why it was removed), but if you've seen the lag from an aoe super weapon, then just imagine the lag from several different missiles performing aoe all at once, plus, I think they might have had tendancy to destroy each other, which would have been yet another flaw of missiles.



The way balancing should work is that any type of weapon has it's own aspects that effect its target, but have the same outcome against the target. Now, you can argue that missiles are having the same outcome as turrets, which is true, but the outcome takes more time to achieve the greater away the target gets. While missiles aren't limited to a minimal range, they are supposed to be just as effective against a target reguardless of range(other than max), however, like I said, they are less and less effective the further away the target gets. Even though turrets are limited to optimal range, anything within that optimal range is effected instantly with the same outcome. I'm not suggesting that missiles should be instant, because then they really would be OP, however, if they engage a target at 60km in 2 seconds as compaired to engaging a target at 60km in 12 seconds(example), they will not contain any more dps since dps is determined rate of fire, exp radius, and exp velocity. However, they will have a much faster time in order to engage the target, yet turrets would still engage faster, and still have a stronger alpha.

I feel that giving missiles this boost would not only make pvp more viable with missiles, but would also make pvp more abundant because missile pilots will be able to get into the fight and be more effective without as much risk, because they'll be able to use t1 missile boats besides the drake to effectively engage in pvp, and we all know that risk vs reward is a huge factor. Also, if would add more to pvp and fleets would have to adapt or die.

Adding missile effectiveness to pvp would make things more challenging and entertaining, while also bringing in more pilots that don't wish to cross train turrets. So I'd say it's a win win across the board.

lol TP for furies against a BS? if that's true for your PvE, tough; game is balanced around Pvp

Otherwise, lol get better skills and actually put this theorycrafting to practice. Furies do need a TP against BS.

PVE is not the subject of this thread. The fastest T1 BS with the smallest sig is the Typhoon, at 163 m/s and 320 m unfitted. Fury HMs will do full damage to a flat-out Typhoon with GMP and TNP at I-II ish. MWD actication will raise this slightly, but with any respectable level of skills you do not have any difficulty applying HM damage to PVP BS.

Good. Now, I've tried to follow this thread but the proposals being put forward are somewhat incoherent. At the start you just want faster missiles. Why? What do you think this will achieve?

For unguided missiles, it won't really change anything. Rockets, HAMs and torps do not suffer from significant speed problems. Rockets are basically fine; HAMs are rather unpopular these days because everyone prefers HMs, but HAMs still compare well against close-range counterparts such as blasters - 677 DPS HAM Drake is a very competitive close-range BC, the problem is that people don't want to go to close range, so they choose HMs instead. The other main HAM platform, the Sacrilege, suffers not because of HAMs but because of Deimos Syndrome. Torps are an odd one - they're a very powerful weapon but suffer from the host platform and the metagame. The main torp BS, the Raven, lacks surviviability (lowslot to medslot would be nice), small-scale BS combat is rare and large-scale BS combat is dominated by artillery and Scorch. Still, in the small-scale combat that does exist (e.g. WHs), torps are very effective against other BS and hardly bad against BCs.

For guided missiles, LMs have 7.5 s ToF max, that's not a big issue. Neither is it for HMs, as the popularity of HMs and Drakes indicates. It only is a real problem with Cruise - 30 s max. But the problem of Cruise is really one of role, not strictly one of flight time. Traditionally, in a small gang, a long-range missile boat such as a Cerb or HBT-rigged Drake can be used to apply DPS to range-tanking hostile ewar or logistics boats, to remove them from the field. But this role does not scale up to the BS size - the only BS-scale ewar/logi is the Scorpion, and you can hit that perfectly well with HMs, you don't need a Cruise boat.

Skimming your posts, and away from nonsense such as a Proteus beating two Tengus - it's more likely the other way round, in fact I think in an Alliance Tournament it was - you just seem to be using missiles in the wrong ways in the wrong environments because you don't understand PVP and your FC isn't interested in teaching you. Well, we were all newbies once, but not all of us were smart enough to recognise our ignorance and ask for help, instead of complaining. Someone was once told "Always with you it cannot be done!", but he later got the hang of missiles.

I have no idea who made the comment of proteus beating two tengus but it surely wasn't me.

Now, In a perfect world, sure missiles are just fine in pvp. I guess that perfect world would generally be the alliance tournament where a missile fleet can either attempt to turtle tank their opponent or ewar and kite. However, we all know that what happens in the alliance tournaments is a fluke and rarely turns out that way in server.

Now, I am not trying to give missiles a range boost at all. Missile ranges are perfectly fine for pretty much all missile types. However, i'm simply wanting to exchange higher velocity for flight time. (example) Instead of a missile having a 5km/s velocity and 10 second flight time, it would have a 25km/s and a 2 second flight.
NOTHING would be different on the target including dps. The only thing that would change is the amount of time it takes to initiate dps.

Youre essentially trying to make missiles more like turrets, in that their alpha would matter a bit more (faster damage to target). However, the fact that they are different currently forces FCs to prepare differently and use different tactics. Diversity in combat is good. This is working as intended.

You're correct. It is forcing FCs to use different tactics. However, those tactics are either bring a solid missile fleet, or don't bring missile boats.
You are correct though that I am trying to make missiles a little more like turrets in that they'll have more effective alpha, but also that they'll fit better into mixed fleets.
I think we can both agree that missiles are effective in some slight situations, and that a solid missile fleet is also quite effect. However, we both also know that finding a corp/alliance that is pure missiles is quite unlikely, so finding a solid missile fleet is also quite difficult. So instead of keeping missiles behind the curve in mixed fleets, I would like to see them have a fast alpha (though still not instant) so that they'll better fit into both mixed pve and pvp fleets.

The way missiles are now, they're only effective when solo or when in a solid missile fleet.
So again, it's a matter of making them more effective in mixed fleets.