These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[AEGIS] Missile Hitpoints

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Atomeon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2015-07-01 00:40:13 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Atomeon wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:
CCP. You really need to fix defenders. Defenders ARE the missile disruption system. Not some funky EWAR in the form of a tracking disruptor.



IF defenders are missile ewar then each ship must have at least 1 or 2 missile slots, the ones having 7 or 8 turret slots then they cant have a missile defence.


Pretty stupid.


No, those ships just have to make "meaningful choices."


Make TDs high slot, then i have no problem with "meaningful choices." P

Still everyone can use them. P
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#102 - 2015-07-01 03:17:38 UTC
Atomeon wrote:
Make TDs high slot, then i have no problem with "meaningful choices." P

Still everyone can use them. P

That would solve nothing. Disruption EWAR goes in mid slots. It makes more sense to make a mid-slot defender launcher.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#103 - 2015-07-01 22:20:55 UTC
Atomeon wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Atomeon wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:
CCP. You really need to fix defenders. Defenders ARE the missile disruption system. Not some funky EWAR in the form of a tracking disruptor.



IF defenders are missile ewar then each ship must have at least 1 or 2 missile slots, the ones having 7 or 8 turret slots then they cant have a missile defence.


Pretty stupid.


No, those ships just have to make "meaningful choices."


Make TDs high slot, then i have no problem with "meaningful choices." P

Still everyone can use them. P


Sure, as long as jams, damps and painters also go into high slots.

Enjoy all the brick tanked falcons you just created.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#104 - 2015-07-02 08:12:32 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Atomeon wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Atomeon wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:
CCP. You really need to fix defenders. Defenders ARE the missile disruption system. Not some funky EWAR in the form of a tracking disruptor.



IF defenders are missile ewar then each ship must have at least 1 or 2 missile slots, the ones having 7 or 8 turret slots then they cant have a missile defence.


Pretty stupid.


No, those ships just have to make "meaningful choices."


Make TDs high slot, then i have no problem with "meaningful choices." P

Still everyone can use them. P


Sure, as long as jams, damps and painters also go into high slots.

Enjoy all the brick tanked falcons you just created.



To be totally honest, moving all EWAR (except tackle) into high slots would probably make sense anyway. It would stop us having stupid number of mid slots on armour tanked ships. It would also allow shield focused ships to actually fit a tank and also their EWAR. However this is a subject for another topic.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#105 - 2015-07-03 23:23:58 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
To be totally honest, moving all EWAR (except tackle) into high slots would probably make sense anyway. It would stop us having stupid number of mid slots on armour tanked ships. It would also allow shield focused ships to actually fit a tank and also their EWAR. However this is a subject for another topic.

You can fit a shield tank plus EWAR, you just have to not be dazzled by all the mid slots. If you choose to fit 7 ECM jammers to your Rook, that's on you. You could fit a prop mod, shield extender, 2 shield hardeners, and 3 jammers and have very strong jams along with decent tank. Or you can fit 5 tank modules and 1 jammer. Caldari EWAR ships have the best fitting flexibility out of all of them, and if you can't fit them properly that's your own failing, not anything on the part of the ship's design.

It's not like industrials for which there is no stacking penalty on cargo expansion and those last 2 low slots make a world of difference.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Tappits
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#106 - 2015-07-04 08:12:54 UTC
Give all T2 missiles more HP and T2 resists (like hacs) so people have an option of all-round good damage range and application with lower HP (FACTION/pure T1) Deeps/Application (Rage/Precession) And Massive HP tanks but with there limited ranges (T2)

You also need to buff Capital missiles because dam, they die in a fire in any real fight. #SHIELDFLEET
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#107 - 2015-07-06 15:32:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Capqu
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Tarsas Phage wrote:
Please clarify the case of missiles being launched from grouped launchers.

If I had, for example, eight launchers grouped, will the singular "missile" that is spawned when they fire be HP*8, or is there a stacking penalty involved? Or is it just the same HP as 1 missile?

That mechanic isn't changing. The combined entity that flies through space has 8x the HP of one missile, but whenever it loses 1/8 of its HP it loses 1/8 of its damage. Missile grouping was implemented quite well back in the day.


what you're saying isn't wrong, but the implication that a lot of people are under (a 20 hp buff is actually a 160 hp buff for 8 missiles for example) is incorrect

although the entity that flies through space does indeed have 8* the hp of a single missile, it also takes 8* damage from everything so effectively it does not matter whether it is grouped or not (as intended)

for example, a Notos smartbomb's damage is 300

15:24:48 Combat 700 to Torpedo[WOMYN](Caldari Navy Nova Torpedo) - Large 'Notos' Explosive Charge I - Hits
15:24:48 Combat 700 to Torpedo[WOMYN](Caldari Navy Nova Torpedo) - Large 'Notos' Explosive Charge I - Hits
15:24:40 Combat 700 to Torpedo[WOMYN](Caldari Navy Nova Torpedo) - Large 'Notos' Explosive Charge I - Hits
15:24:31 Combat 700 to Torpedo[WOMYN](Caldari Navy Nova Torpedo) - Large 'Notos' Explosive Charge I - Hits
15:24:23 Combat 700 to Torpedo[WOMYN](Caldari Navy Nova Torpedo) - Large 'Notos' Explosive Charge I - Hits

as you can see it hits a group of 3 torpedos for 700 [and destroys them]
if they were launched individually it would not hit as hard but have 3 entries in the log and destroy them as well


mechanically whether a stack of launchers is grouped or not has 0 effect on how hard they are to bomb/smartbomb
obviously this is a good thing but i think missile hp should be much higher than even the buffed versions suggested, a single smartbomb will still destroy infinite heavy missiles for example which makes them very unrealistic for fleet warfare

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#108 - 2015-07-06 19:02:36 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
That would solve nothing. Disruption EWAR goes in mid slots. It makes more sense to make a mid-slot defender launcher.

Another idea is to make sure you can mount defender launchers on ships that are valuable for their mids rather than damage dealing. Maybe make defender launchers into dedicated module and allow them to be installed without using up launcher hardpoint.
Some issues may arise with modelling such a ship though.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Vailen Sere
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#109 - 2015-07-06 22:51:42 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Atomeon wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Atomeon wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:
CCP. You really need to fix defenders. Defenders ARE the missile disruption system. Not some funky EWAR in the form of a tracking disruptor.



IF defenders are missile ewar then each ship must have at least 1 or 2 missile slots, the ones having 7 or 8 turret slots then they cant have a missile defence.


Pretty stupid.


No, those ships just have to make "meaningful choices."


Make TDs high slot, then i have no problem with "meaningful choices." P

Still everyone can use them. P


Sure, as long as jams, damps and painters also go into high slots.

Enjoy all the brick tanked falcons you just created.

I fully support this idea!
davet517
Raata Invicti
#110 - 2015-07-07 12:39:50 UTC  |  Edited by: davet517
Jesus. I can see that the stupidity is coming to a middle. Missiles should sig tank a smart bomb. Smart bombs shouldn't be effective against them. Take a look at my skill sheet. There's a skill there that I trained in, I dunno, 2004? called "defender missiles", and it's languished there on my skill sheet for years. Defender missiles should defend against, you guessed it, missiles. Make them work a little better than they do. Problem solved.

The problem with "firewalling" is its ability to intercept an UNLIMITED amount of incoming missile damage. Give missiles more HP, and all you've done is require a few more smart bombers to continue to intercept an UNLIMITED amount of incoming missile damage. Defender missiles don't have that problem. In order to stop more, you have to use more.
Crynsos Cealion
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#111 - 2015-07-07 14:06:05 UTC
As a small cosmetic improvement, it would be nice to display the new missile resistances in the same way as already done with ship resists in their show info window for more compactness.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#112 - 2015-07-08 21:26:23 UTC
Capqu wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
That mechanic isn't changing. The combined entity that flies through space has 8x the HP of one missile, but whenever it loses 1/8 of its HP it loses 1/8 of its damage. Missile grouping was implemented quite well back in the day.
as you can see it hits a group of 3 torpedos for 700 [and destroys them]
if they were launched individually it would not hit as hard but have 3 entries in the log and destroy them as well


mechanically whether a stack of launchers is grouped or not has 0 effect on how hard they are to bomb/smartbomb

Tested and confirmed.


I believe it would be great for 1 smartbomb to destroy 1 missile out of the whole volley, were that the case. But it is not the case.


One small smartbomb (damage: 60) dealt, in one cycle, 300 damage to a group of 5 light missiles with 60 HP each. Every time I successfully hit the volley (which was particularly difficult to time), the entire volley was destroyed.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#113 - 2015-07-09 05:27:14 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Capqu wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
That mechanic isn't changing. The combined entity that flies through space has 8x the HP of one missile, but whenever it loses 1/8 of its HP it loses 1/8 of its damage. Missile grouping was implemented quite well back in the day.
as you can see it hits a group of 3 torpedos for 700 [and destroys them]
if they were launched individually it would not hit as hard but have 3 entries in the log and destroy them as well


mechanically whether a stack of launchers is grouped or not has 0 effect on how hard they are to bomb/smartbomb

Tested and confirmed.


I believe it would be great for 1 smartbomb to destroy 1 missile out of the whole volley, were that the case. But it is not the case.


One small smartbomb (damage: 60) dealt, in one cycle, 300 damage to a group of 5 light missiles with 60 HP each. Every time I successfully hit the volley (which was particularly difficult to time), the entire volley was destroyed.

Quoted entire conversation for importance. Apparently mech doesn't work the way it's supposed to work.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
13kr1d1
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#114 - 2015-07-13 00:39:14 UTC
Or how about you do the intelligent thing, and remove hitpoints from missiles entirely, and only allow them to be shot down by defenders.

Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#115 - 2015-07-13 04:22:23 UTC
13kr1d1 wrote:
Or how about you do the intelligent thing, and remove hitpoints from missiles entirely, and only allow them to be shot down by defenders.

Maybe after defenders are fixed, but I don't see what's wrong with having two ways of shooting them down. If defender missiles are to be the primary method (and I think it should be), then not only do they need a huge buff to be on par with tracking disruption, but firewalling missiles will need to be nerfed just far enough to make it less preferred in the majority of situations. Also, defender missiles should shoot drones.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#116 - 2015-07-13 04:49:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
someone told me recently that if you group your launchers the resulting missile will have the EHP of all missiles together.

I believe this is a very unusual way to implement it. Just think what would happen when you ungroup the launchers but fire all at once. This would spawn individual low EHP missiles flying in a group. There is no reason why the first should behave differently to the other. Firewalls and missile hp should be balanced for individual missiles - doesn't matter if grouped to a super missile or not. Why should a 7 launcher ship have an easier time to shoot through a firewall than a 3 launcher ship?

It would make a little more sense if for example a 8 missile group would reduced to 4 missiles if 50% of the ehp of the super missile is destroyed. But as it looks like its a binary decision if the super missile makes it through the firewall or not.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2015-07-13 05:55:57 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
It would make a little more sense if for example a 8 missile group would reduced to 4 missiles if 50% of the ehp of the super missile is destroyed. But as it looks like its a binary decision if the super missile makes it through the firewall or not.

It isn't supposed to be, it's supposed to work as you described, however as the HP get lumped together, the damage gets lumped together also and a super missile containing 7 missiles will always take 7 hits from any single area attack.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#118 - 2015-07-17 04:41:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
It would make a little more sense if for example a 8 missile group would reduced to 4 missiles if 50% of the ehp of the super missile is destroyed. But as it looks like its a binary decision if the super missile makes it through the firewall or not.

It isn't supposed to be, it's supposed to work as you described, however as the HP get lumped together, the damage gets lumped together also and a super missile containing 7 missiles will always take 7 hits from any single area attack.


ah. this detail was missing. So a super missile has the EHP of all missiles combined but it also takes N times more damage from AOE weapons if you have a group of N launchers. All good then, this makes sense now.

this would mean that fireing a launcher group would behave just like fireing a single missile. If the single missile would have been destroyed by a smartbomb hits the same would happen to the grouped missile under the same conditions.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2015-07-17 08:17:14 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
this would mean that fireing a launcher group would behave just like fireing a single missile. If the single missile would have been destroyed by a smartbomb hits the same would happen to the grouped missile under the same conditions.

Correct.

I and others think this is a bad thing because it allows a single smartbomb to destroy all missiles within its radius. Sure, if a weaker smartbomb is used, a group of missiles may lose some warheads while ungrouped missiles will not, but when there is enough smartbomb power, the missiles are all destroyed. In most cases it will be a binary function: either all missiles are destroyed or no missiles are destroyed (usually because of failure to time the smartbomb just right).

If the grouped missiles took a single smartbomb hit, it would take more smartbombs to destroy a large group of missiles, making it more difficult for a firewall to have 100% effectiveness. This would also allow ships with more launcher hardpoints to break through a firewall more easily. I don't see any issue with that. It basically means that more missiles = harder to firewall.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#120 - 2015-07-18 19:51:06 UTC
No CCP response yet if the hitpoint increase helped or not yet... :/