These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1001 - 2015-08-02 14:00:53 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
My opinion, get rid of exp velocity and flight time.

Exp velocity is a bit of a weird aspect and I believe is a lingering aspect of when missiles were AoE.
It is likely too difficult for CCP to work with, as they likely don't understand it anymore than we do.

As far as flight time, removing this and instead going to a simple max range not only makes makes balancing missile velocity easier, but also relieves the range loss issues caused by acceleration time.

Then, all you have to worry about is a script for exp radius and a max range script.
As far as missile velocity, well... I'm not sure where to go on this, but if you change the others you could likely make it 100km/s and it wouldn't effect range or application, apart from catching frigs.
I'm not suggesting that speed, I'm just using it as an example.
I would imagine that any missile could go 10km/s and it wouldn't effect application, as damage would be solely based on radius.
Sig is essentially the missile version of tracking.
You might always be able to apply damage with my suggestion, but since you now only have 1 application factor to balance, it becomes much easier to establish pros and cons.


My apologies for quoting. I would like to ask you and everyone else that we get a consensus on how to proceed and I strongly believe that removing that second part of the missile formular we have something solid.

About the missile velocity and flight time I wouldn't want to change much since this was an inbuild weakness even when they had 100% application.
And even if we finally get that back citadel torpedos and cruise missiles speed could be changed to flight time so a Megathron and a Raven can outrun them with an mwd on.

A that unlucky frigate pilot that runs into them is responsible for not paying attention, not a mechanics fault. It never was.

I remember back in the day when the Manticore had that cruise missile bonus but they were so slow that you could have launched them from 200km away to a battleship and the battleship pilot could see them approaching him, go to out with his friends and eat a pizza and come back hours later and warp away (quoted from the old forums).

Most pilots from that area don't want it back because they remember it differently than I and none of the mechanics that played into that 'overpoered' perception went away many ages ago.
So no, you cannot fit 5 mwds anymore and you should not fit 8 heat sinks on an Apocolypse because of stacking penalties.

What they may percieve as menace to interceptors and the like CCP can always slow heavy missiles and hams down enough to not be a real thread to them and links already make yolo-overpowered things possible that even we vets say they should be nerfed.


Well, we can still remove exp velocity and remove flight time in exchange for a max range.
You wouldn't need to boost missile velocity at all for this change, but with it, you would be able to hit your intended range (minus target movement of course) without being hindered by missile acceleration.

So, you'd have a Fury cruise missile with Say 150km range, flying say 1750km/s.
With this, then regardless of missile velocity or acceleration, you would be guaranteed to hit your intended target at 150kms as long as they were stationary.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1002 - 2015-08-02 15:29:35 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
So, you'd have a Fury cruise missile with Say 150km range, flying say 1750km/s.

I assume there's a typo in there somewhere.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1003 - 2015-08-02 15:44:37 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
So, you'd have a Fury cruise missile with Say 150km range, flying say 1750km/s.

I assume there's a typo in there somewhere.


I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, so I just gave it as a general example to say that you can leave missile velocity alone, then kill flight time and instead just go with a max range, which alleviates the issue of missile acceleration.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1004 - 2015-08-02 16:50:31 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, so I just gave it as a general example to say that you can leave missile velocity alone, then kill flight time and instead just go with a max range, which alleviates the issue of missile acceleration.

Sure, I'd love 1750km/s. Insta-volley! Twisted
Or did you mean 1750m/s (which would be a tad on the slow side, even for torpedoes) or 17500m/s (which would be a bit faster than your typical cruise missile)?

But back to your idea... Rather than scrapping explosion velocity and nixing flight time, I'd rather see increased missile velocity have an effect on target inertia or velocity.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1005 - 2015-08-02 18:08:24 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, so I just gave it as a general example to say that you can leave missile velocity alone, then kill flight time and instead just go with a max range, which alleviates the issue of missile acceleration.

Sure, I'd love 1750km/s. Insta-volley! Twisted
Or did you mean 1750m/s (which would be a tad on the slow side, even for torpedoes) or 17500m/s (which would be a bit faster than your typical cruise missile)?

But back to your idea... Rather than scrapping explosion velocity and nixing flight time, I'd rather see increased missile velocity have an effect on target inertia or velocity.


My bad on the typo...

Well, if you nixed exp velocity then you wouldn't have to worry about velocity vs velocity, but instead focus on radius.

That said, that change would really hurt slow moving missiles, especially torps.
stoicfaux
#1006 - 2015-08-02 19:12:11 UTC  |  Edited by: stoicfaux
Joe Risalo wrote:

At a stationary or slow moving target, it's all about exp radius.

For a target moving at a moderate speed, both are equally important.

Against a fast moving target, the system favors exp velocity, though a smaller target will sway how important radius is, but it is still less important than velocity.

Correct. The first part of the missile damage formula is dominant.

Incorrect. Neither one is more "important" than the other. See next line.

Incorrect. Since everything is multiplied together in the "speed" portion of the missile damage formula, it doesn't matter what bonuses you have, be it TP, Flare, Rigor, MGC, MGE, Web, use Precision missiles, etc. because it's all just:
TP_Bonus * 1/RigorBonus * FlareBonus * 1/(1-WebBonus) * etc. * TargetSig * 1/ExplosionRadius * ExplosionVelocity * 1/TargetVelocity.

Although to be pedantic, a point of Explosion Radius or Target Velocity is worth 1.01 points of Explosion Velocity or Target Painting. Which is one reason why Rigor rigs are better than, and require more calibration, than Flare rigs

Quote:
You then have the situations where you come across an immobile or webbed to hell target, to which exp velocity is basically meaningless. This causes the exp velocity bonus of MGEs and MGCs to be virtually useless.

True, but it *is* an intentional damage cap, otherwise large missiles could potentially do full damage to frigates. Capital missiles doing full damage to webbed frigates would probably be considered a problem to some people, especially since CCP did consider that gun Titans blapping sub-caps to be a problem.

Point is, the damage cap is a balance thing and balance tends to complicate change proposals.


Quote:
As far as the varying importance of exp radius vs exp velocity... Well, this could possibly be addressed by having a exp velocity script, exp radius script, and a combined script.

That could be interesting in that it would grant better control over minimizing stacking penalties assuming the single-attribute scripts were boosted to match their current effects, (i.e. a 26% bonus expl radius only script and 35% expl velocity only script,) instead of the current 15% bonus to two attributes.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#1007 - 2015-08-02 20:19:07 UTC
I already gave a solution. Joe and I just couldn't agree on the missile speed vs flight time thing but our consensus was that the damage application formular need to go- errm I mean altered to be only signature radius reliant.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
stoicfaux
#1008 - 2015-08-02 21:45:10 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
I already gave a solution. Joe and I just couldn't agree on the missile speed vs flight time thing but our consensus was that the damage application formular need to go- errm I mean altered to be only signature radius reliant.

Eh, Joe's lack of understanding of how the damage formula works doesn't inspire confidence and thus support.

Going to a single attribute is a big change. It would require the removal of existing rigs, changing hull bonuses, changing attributes on all missiles at once, etc. Changing *everything* at once is simply not a good idea. The level of effort required, and the level of risk is extreme.

The easier alternative is to simply tweak the attributes of select missiles (e.g. HMLs) and/or module stats (e.g. MGE.) The existing damage formula is well known and understood, so the analysis of such small quick changes is easier to perform and to understand.

More importantly, it will be easier to convince CCP to make a series of small changes rather than implement a complete overhaul. A complete overhaul is a "bell the cat" scenario. There's no point if CCP can't/won't implement a proposed solution.


tl;dr - We're nowhere near the "scrap it all and start over" point.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
stoicfaux
#1009 - 2015-08-02 23:02:39 UTC
TBH, tweaking the Explosion Velocity attribute on problematic missiles is probably the easiest way to fix individual missiles. The sig radius formula (S/Er) acts as a backstop (limit) on the damage that large missiles can do to small ships, which reduces the impact of any unintended consequences of Expl Velocity tweaks.


Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#1010 - 2015-08-03 00:11:11 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
TBH, tweaking the Explosion Velocity attribute on problematic missiles is probably the easiest way to fix individual missiles. The sig radius formula (S/Er) acts as a backstop (limit) on the damage that large missiles can do to small ships, which reduces the impact of any unintended consequences of Expl Velocity tweaks.




Well there are just a few tiny things that would make medium and large missiles better, give them rage rocket explosion radius and explosion velocity values and they are close to okay-ish.

Oh btw, I like you signature, dear. Maybe a tiny change, if I may? Reduce the time to seven days and include all market bots with a 60 minute redocking timer just because.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1011 - 2015-08-03 01:00:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
stoicfaux wrote:
Eh, Joe's lack of understanding of how the damage formula works doesn't inspire confidence and thus support.

I'm inclined to agree. Nothing against Joe, but stoicfaux has a very comprehensive understanding of how the missile formula works, and he's right that simply eliminating a few variables will not only ignore the problem - but cause numerous new ones. A while back I played around with the missile DRF values and a slight increase (~10%) to missile explosion velocity and it solved (at least on paper) the majority of the problems with missiles applying damage to stationary or slow-moving targets, so I think stoicfaux is on the right track with his assessment and suggestion.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1012 - 2015-08-03 03:57:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
I found an alternative use for the MGC in a Golem configuration, but it requires a bit of abstract thinking to make it work. First and foremost, this is a PvE configuration for optimizing L4s. Second, to get the most out of this setup you need to run Ascendancy and +5 missile implants. Third, missile V skills are key. Bear in-mind that you can probably get away with some +3 implants and IV skills, but your mileage will really vary depending on mission.

Golem
4x Faction* Cruise Launchers (Caldari Navy or Dread Guristas)
Mjolnir/Inferno/Scourge/Nova Auto-targeting Cruise Missiles
Bastion Module I
3x Small Tractor Beam II
Mobile Tractor Unit

1x Gist C-Type 500MN Microwarpdrive
2x Gistum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
1x Gistum C-Type Medium Shield Booster (I prefer the Gistum A-Type, but $$)
3x Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script

2x Faction Ballistic Control Unit (Caldary Navy or Dread Guristas)
2x Ballistic Control Unit II**

2x Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst II
15x Salvage Drone I

*Faction launchers are key as they have a higher ROF and hold more ammunition
**Upgrading to Faction BCUs will yield another ~1-2% DPS)

With my skills, implants and setup my Golem puts out just over 800 DPS utilizing FoF ammunition (just over 1000 DPS with Faction). The FoF cruise missiles have an explosion radius of 132m and explosion velocity of just over 193m/sec, which will single-volley most cruisers and frigates. I have them grouped in banks of 2 and stagger to ensure minimal ammunition wastage. Even though FoF missiles do about 20% less actual DPS, there is no delay in either locking targets or waiting for launcher cycles to finish - so the actual damage application is fairly close. Plus, not having to use target painters means I don't have to manually lock targets and can instead use the Golem's 11-target capacity to focus solely on salvage. Ascendancy implants yield a 2.94 AU/s warp speed which makes a noticeable difference.

For missile-based L4 ships, it's really Golem, Golem and then Golem. You have over twice the cargo capacity with half the ammunition usage, higher warp speed and as good if not better damage application than a Navy Raven (due to changes to stacking penalties for rigors). The ability to tank and AFK most missions speaks for itself, and this is before we even touch base on the salvage capabilities.

Gistum gear is the most effective in terms of power consumption and ensures you can pretty much run cap stable, although it is a bit pricier (Golem hulls are over $1.2-billion so make your own determination what you're comfortable spending). I rarely need to use Bastion but it's always there as a last recourse. The only thing you need to watch with FoF missiles is that they will only go after the closest target. So you'll often see groups of NPCs clustered together at the same range alternating by a few meters to shift damage around. When this happens, just switch to Faction missiles and blast 'em. I never use Fury ammunition because what you gain in raw DPS you lose to significantly less damage application, lower ammunition capacity with T2 launchers and a slower ROF.

Comments welcome.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1013 - 2015-08-03 06:01:34 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:
Eh, Joe's lack of understanding of how the damage formula works doesn't inspire confidence and thus support.

I'm inclined to agree. Nothing against Joe, but stoicfaux has a very comprehensive understanding of how the missile formula works, and he's right that simply eliminating a few variables will not only ignore the problem - but cause numerous new ones. A while back I played around with the missile DRF values and a slight increase (~10%) to missile explosion velocity and it solved (at least on paper) the majority of the problems with missiles applying damage to stationary or slow-moving targets, so I think stoicfaux is on the right track with his assessment and suggestion.


I suppose I'm having problems understanding exp velocity.
I get radius, as well as missile velocity and flight time, including acceleration.

It seems that exp velocity doesn't actually represent what someone with common sense would think exp velocity means.
If you can modify exp velocity and it actually have an effect on an immobile target;

Then yes, you are correct in saying that I do not understand the formula, as it would appear the exp velocity factor in the formula is gibberish.

It appears that y'all are basically explaining that exp velocity is not actually exp velocity, but instead some random damage modifier that is dictated by Unicorns, dwarfs, elves, and other forms of make believe....

Just saying..
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1014 - 2015-08-03 06:12:18 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
I found an alternative use for the MGC in a Golem configuration, but it requires a bit of abstract thinking to make it work. First and foremost, this is a PvE configuration for optimizing L4s. Second, to get the most out of this setup you need to run Ascendancy and +5 missile implants. Third, missile V skills are key. Bear in-mind that you can probably get away with some +3 implants and IV skills, but your mileage will really vary depending on mission.

Golem
4x Faction* Cruise Launchers (Caldari Navy or Dread Guristas)
Mjolnir/Inferno/Scourge/Nova Auto-targeting Cruise Missiles
Bastion Module I
3x Small Tractor Beam II
Mobile Tractor Unit

1x Gist C-Type 500MN Microwarpdrive
2x Gistum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
1x Gistum C-Type Medium Shield Booster (I prefer the Gistum A-Type, but $$)
3x Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script

2x Faction Ballistic Control Unit (Caldary Navy or Dread Guristas)
2x Ballistic Control Unit II**

2x Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst II
15x Salvage Drone I

*Faction launchers are key as they have a higher ROF and hold more ammunition
**Upgrading to Faction BCUs will yield another ~1-2% DPS)

With my skills, implants and setup my Golem puts out just over 800 DPS utilizing FoF ammunition (just over 1000 DPS with Faction). The FoF cruise missiles have an explosion radius of 132m and explosion velocity of just over 193m/sec, which will single-volley most cruisers and frigates. I have them grouped in banks of 2 and stagger to ensure minimal ammunition wastage. Even though FoF missiles do about 20% less actual DPS, there is no delay in either locking targets or waiting for launcher cycles to finish - so the actual damage application is fairly close. Plus, not having to use target painters means I don't have to manually lock targets and can instead use the Golem's 11-target capacity to focus solely on salvage. Ascendancy implants yield a 2.94 AU/s warp speed which makes a noticeable difference.

For missile-based L4 ships, it's really Golem, Golem and then Golem. You have over twice the cargo capacity with half the ammunition usage, higher warp speed and as good if not better damage application than a Navy Raven (due to changes to stacking penalties for rigors). The ability to tank and AFK most missions speaks for itself, and this is before we even touch base on the salvage capabilities.

Gistum gear is the most effective in terms of power consumption and ensures you can pretty much run cap stable, although it is a bit pricier (Golem hulls are over $1.2-billion so make your own determination what you're comfortable spending). I rarely need to use Bastion but it's always there as a last recourse. The only thing you need to watch with FoF missiles is that they will only go after the closest target. So you'll often see groups of NPCs clustered together at the same range alternating by a few meters to shift damage around. When this happens, just switch to Faction missiles and blast 'em. I never use Fury ammunition because what you gain in raw DPS you lose to significantly less damage application, lower ammunition capacity with T2 launchers and a slower ROF.

Comments welcome.


I was going to say that Bastion will increase your fof range, but holy crap, I didn't realize they could go so far.
They out-range everything else.. out of bastion they hit 233km with my stats/skills, and hit like 290km or so in bastion.

lol... it's funny that these modules have apparently given a somewhat fix to fofs, but makes other missile types show their flaws.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1015 - 2015-08-03 06:30:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Joe Risalo wrote:
I suppose I'm having problems understanding exp velocity.
I get radius, as well as missile velocity and flight time, including acceleration.

It seems that exp velocity doesn't actually represent what someone with common sense would think exp velocity means.
If you can modify exp velocity and it actually have an effect on an immobile target;

Then yes, you are correct in saying that I do not understand the formula, as it would appear the exp velocity factor in the formula is gibberish.

It appears that y'all are basically explaining that exp velocity is not actually exp velocity, but instead some random damage modifier that is dictated by Unicorns, dwarfs, elves, and other forms of make believe....Just saying..

It's Dark Elves, actually. Twisted
Here's the Wiki link that describes missile mechanics in greater detail.

Missile Forumla: Damage = D * min [1,S/E,(S/E*Ve/Vt)^(ln(drf)/ln(5.5)]
(where D = missile base damage, S = target signature, E = explosion radius, Ve = explosion velocity, Vt = target velocity and drf = damage reduction factor)

Basically what it boils down to is missile damage is multiplied by the minimum of one the following:
a) 1 (maximum 100% damage, which only comes into play if both "b" and "c" >1)
b) Target signature / Explosion radius (if this is >1, then Explosion velocity and drf come into play in "c")
c) Target signature / Explosion radius x Explosion velocity / Target velocity ^ ln(drf)/ln(5.5)

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#1016 - 2015-08-03 07:49:51 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
-just shortened because it get's too long to quote-
Comments welcome.


#1: Whom do I have to 'offer' myself to to get a blue tagged response here?

#2: Why does CCP hate Caldari so much?

#3: Now that one interceptor can disband all sov-sec and sov-sec is fixed, can we focus back to important things like missiles?

#4: Why do missile modules take so much cpu?

#5: Can I bring my Drake again?

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1017 - 2015-08-03 09:36:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Joe Risalo wrote:
I was going to say that Bastion will increase your fof range, but holy crap, I didn't realize they could go so far.
They out-range everything else.. out of bastion they hit 233km with my stats/skills, and hit like 290km or so in bastion.

lol... it's funny that these modules have apparently given a somewhat fix to fofs, but makes other missile types show their flaws

Yes, 233km sounds about right with a +5 missile projection implant. You can actually hit out to over 400km with the Barghest, although I'm honestly not sure the target would even be on grid...

elitatwo wrote:
#1: Whom do I have to 'offer' myself to to get a blue tagged response here?
#2: Why does CCP hate Caldari so much?
#3: Now that one interceptor can disband all sov-sec and sov-sec is fixed, can we focus back to important things like missiles?
#4: Why do missile modules take so much cpu?
#5: Can I bring my Drake again?

1. Good luck with that.
2. I believe it's missiles in general, with Caldari taking the unfortunate hit.
3. I suspect that the 'Gong Show' that is FozzieSov will drag on well into 2016...
4. Because they suck. Not that the majority of feedback was really given any consideration...
5. Since the heavy missile nerf all other weapon systems have been substantially buffed, so...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#1018 - 2015-08-03 12:53:54 UTC
Arthur, that was rethorical Sad

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#1019 - 2015-08-03 17:02:22 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Arthur, that was rethorical Sad


I'm beginning to think the "...what do you guys think?" part in CCP's usual feedback threads are rhetorical. I figure some PR guy has the rest of CCP on a tight leash, which would be normally understandable, but I'm starting to wonder what is the point then of these "Here's what we have planned for (insert future expansion name)" threads; simply to brace us for impending impact?

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1020 - 2015-08-03 18:56:00 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
I'm beginning to think the "...what do you guys think?" part in CCP's usual feedback threads are rhetorical. I figure some PR guy has the rest of CCP on a tight leash, which would be normally understandable, but I'm starting to wonder what is the point then of these "Here's what we have planned for (insert future expansion name)" threads; simply to brace us for impending impact?

Yes... But what do you think about that? Lol

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.