These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

Missile Damage Lock Discussion
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ransu Asanari
Perkone
Caldari State
#41 - 2015-09-14 23:13:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Ransu Asanari
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
The Caldari ships do receive larger damage bonuses on their kinetic damage type than their corresponding ships of other races, if they were to remove that type lock then the competing missile ships in those classification would be totally outclassed by their Caldari counterparts.

Is this true? Can you provide an example? Even from looking at the damage bonuses the other Battlecruisers are getting, they are all consistently 10% Damage/Level (Prophecy, Harbinger, Drake, Brutix, Myrmidon). Just read the OP of the Vanguard BC rebalance. Some of the other Battlecruiesrs are getting a 5% Damage or ROF bonus, but the Minmatar ships usually do less overall damage but have more speed/agility, so it still seems consistent.


The Cerberus gets 5% Kinetic damage/Level plus a range bonus via max velicity/flight time. It also gets 5% ROF bonus.
The Sacrilege gets 5% Damage/Level plus a 5% ROF bonus. Instead of the flight time, it gets armor resists.

So the damage output for HACs seems about the same, except that the Cerberus is only bonused for Kinetic.

A lot of the other racial missile ships are bonused via a rate of fire, rather than the straight damage bonus. CCP Fozzie has pointed out in the past that a ROF bonus rather than a straight damage bonus is actuall an increase in overall DPS even if you account for more reloads.

Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
He is actually correct sir. Missiles actually do more damage to the approaching target by a small margin, this is due to the face that the missiles actually spend less time approaching their target, which theoretically translates to a marginal damage per second increase the volley damage remains the same, but the target is hit at steadily decreasing intervals as he continues to approach which inversely increases the damage done over time.


This doesn't have anything to do with the actual Tranversal Velocity, which plays no part in the missile damage equation. But I rather than splitting hairs, I'll agree that approaching the target has some value in PVP with missiles, since you can have multiple volleys in the air, and that may result in a small increase in damage frequency. The DPS won't really change because the launchers still cycle at the same rate, but the volleys hitting the target will increase in frequency as you get closer.

It's also beneficial for missile ships to have the targets chase you, as you basically extend your missile range since they're flying towards your missiles, so you get more out of your missile flight time. This was a common tactic with Talwar fleets. As Mario pointed out, there may be some problems with the edge of this flight time due to server ticks.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2015-09-15 00:00:53 UTC
Ransu Asanari wrote:
Omnathious Deninard - I made that comment strictly to respond to the argument that other races are locked into damage types, to debunk the argument that leaving some missile ships with only one damage type is equivalent.

For drones, the 2014 rebalance helped make Amarr and Caldari drones more viable, where the choice previously was basically Gallente for damage, and Minmatar for tracking/speed. I was pretty happy with that rebalance and it seems to be successful considering how many people carry Acolytes instead of Warriors now.

This is one of the things I like about some of the different weapon systems. Where they are not equivalent, but have distinctive advantages and disadvantages, and you have to make a lot of choices to maximize their use.
While drone viability may be in some ways addressed, drones do not still have uniform range, speed, tracking and damage output across those damage types adding secondary decisions to their use.

Further many drone ships have to limit the number of damage types and sizes they can even have available at a given time without needing to dock or use a fitting service to swap. Missile damage swapping does not have this limitation so long as the additional missiles fit in cargo.

Unless missile damage types have application and range variance across the same missile type and suffer more restrictive switching they can't be appreciably compared to drones.
Ransu Asanari
Perkone
Caldari State
#43 - 2015-09-15 08:23:51 UTC
Quote:
Unless missile damage types have application and range variance across the same missile type and suffer more restrictive switching they can't be appreciably compared to drones.


Missiles used to work that way actually sort of, where T2 missiles gave ship penalties that affected ship velocity and signature radius. I'm glad they got rid of those.

And at the risk of repeating myself, I am not comparing missiles to drones. In fact you quoted me saying I *VALUE* the distinctive differences between the weapon systems, and I'm not trying to make things equivalent. I only made the remark to point out that there IS another weapon system that is capable of doing all damage types.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2015-09-15 21:11:16 UTC
Ransu Asanari wrote:
Quote:
Unless missile damage types have application and range variance across the same missile type and suffer more restrictive switching they can't be appreciably compared to drones.


Missiles used to work that way actually sort of, where T2 missiles gave ship penalties that affected ship velocity and signature radius. I'm glad they got rid of those.

And at the risk of repeating myself, I am not comparing missiles to drones. In fact you quoted me saying I *VALUE* the distinctive differences between the weapon systems, and I'm not trying to make things equivalent. I only made the remark to point out that there IS another weapon system that is capable of doing all damage types.
Yet you seem to gloss over the limitations of that system, which makes it a less than apt comparison point.

And really, no, the T2 limits are not of the same nature. They applied equally to all damage types, thus didn't make one damage type situationally better than another due to other factors. They may have made Navy more advantageous than Fury, but since Fury Nova and Fury Scourge worked the same there was no preference there. Meanwhile Gardes and Wardens for instance have distinct range and damage profiles even within the same versions.

Ironically the idea of drones and their limited but possible damage selection somewhat mirrors a damage lock for missiles. Want max DPS? You are therm locked, either range limited or suffering the greatest damage delay, and, depending on the hull and it's drone bay limits, very constrained on alternative damage types. If sacrifice for damage selection is fine there, why not here?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#45 - 2015-09-15 22:41:28 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Ransu Asanari wrote:
Quote:
Unless missile damage types have application and range variance across the same missile type and suffer more restrictive switching they can't be appreciably compared to drones.


Missiles used to work that way actually sort of, where T2 missiles gave ship penalties that affected ship velocity and signature radius. I'm glad they got rid of those.

And at the risk of repeating myself, I am not comparing missiles to drones. In fact you quoted me saying I *VALUE* the distinctive differences between the weapon systems, and I'm not trying to make things equivalent. I only made the remark to point out that there IS another weapon system that is capable of doing all damage types.
Yet you seem to gloss over the limitations of that system, which makes it a less than apt comparison point.

And really, no, the T2 limits are not of the same nature. They applied equally to all damage types, thus didn't make one damage type situationally better than another due to other factors. They may have made Navy more advantageous than Fury, but since Fury Nova and Fury Scourge worked the same there was no preference there. Meanwhile Gardes and Wardens for instance have distinct range and damage profiles even within the same versions.

Ironically the idea of drones and their limited but possible damage selection somewhat mirrors a damage lock for missiles. Want max DPS? You are therm locked, either range limited or suffering the greatest damage delay, and, depending on the hull and it's drone bay limits, very constrained on alternative damage types. If sacrifice for damage selection is fine there, why not here?


The selling point of the weapon system is supposed to be selectable damage but somehow only a quarter of the possible ammo load have optimal damage. How good would it be to have a ship bonused only for radio, standard and gamma or maybe only for phased plasma, proton and tremor?

Missile : normal reload, pure selectable damage, capless and delayed damage

Projectile : normal reload, soft damage selectability, capless, no damage delay

Hybrid : fast reload, damage locked, cap use, no delay

Lasers : No reload, damage locked, cap use, no delay

The odd ball drones : no reload, damage type, amount and application packages, delayed application unless sentry, e-war resistant.

Beside drones being on a completely different chart, the 4 turret ususally ahve 2 better and 2 lesser stats. Why do missile sometime can't use all their ammo type as efficiently as others also do?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2015-09-15 23:14:00 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

The selling point of the weapon system is supposed to be selectable damage but somehow only a quarter of the possible ammo load have optimal damage. How good would it be to have a ship bonused only for radio, standard and gamma or maybe only for phased plasma, proton and tremor?

Missile : normal reload, pure selectable damage, capless and delayed damage

Projectile : normal reload, soft damage selectability, capless, no damage delay

Hybrid : fast reload, damage locked, cap use, no delay

Lasers : No reload, damage locked, cap use, no delay

The odd ball drones : no reload, damage type, amount and application packages, delayed application unless sentry, e-war resistant.

Beside drones being on a completely different chart, the 4 turret ususally ahve 2 better and 2 lesser stats. Why do missile sometime can't use all their ammo type as efficiently as others also do?
So the argument now is that damage selectability is equivalent to range/damage profile ammo? I mean, sure, that works if Fury/Rage and/or Percision/Javelin lose their bonuses as well.

That would bring parity to the scenario you propose while still leaving missiles with superior damage selection.

Projectiles are in a somewhat special case, though what your list lacks is the lackluster nature of their base DPS combined with their damage loss to falloff. While that is somewhat countered by the lackluster application of most missiles, that's a separate issue which isn't damage type dependent and as such won't be resolved by bonusing other damage types.

Fact is no other weapon offers prefect damage selection in each range and application profile without some other consideration save projectiles which don't do it perfectly and have their own concerns to work around.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#47 - 2015-09-16 00:00:35 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

The selling point of the weapon system is supposed to be selectable damage but somehow only a quarter of the possible ammo load have optimal damage. How good would it be to have a ship bonused only for radio, standard and gamma or maybe only for phased plasma, proton and tremor?

Missile : normal reload, pure selectable damage, capless and delayed damage

Projectile : normal reload, soft damage selectability, capless, no damage delay

Hybrid : fast reload, damage locked, cap use, no delay

Lasers : No reload, damage locked, cap use, no delay

The odd ball drones : no reload, damage type, amount and application packages, delayed application unless sentry, e-war resistant.

Beside drones being on a completely different chart, the 4 turret ususally ahve 2 better and 2 lesser stats. Why do missile sometime can't use all their ammo type as efficiently as others also do?
So the argument now is that damage selectability is equivalent to range/damage profile ammo? I mean, sure, that works if Fury/Rage and/or Percision/Javelin lose their bonuses as well.

That would bring parity to the scenario you propose while still leaving missiles with superior damage selection.

Projectiles are in a somewhat special case, though what your list lacks is the lackluster nature of their base DPS combined with their damage loss to falloff. While that is somewhat countered by the lackluster application of most missiles, that's a separate issue which isn't damage type dependent and as such won't be resolved by bonusing other damage types.

Fact is no other weapon offers prefect damage selection in each range and application profile without some other consideration save projectiles which don't do it perfectly and have their own concerns to work around.


Missile totally don't have consideration when shoooting nah... It's not like you can destroy the ammo in flight, outrun it or mitigate it by just flying around in any direction. Hell at sniper range, a lot of ship can align and warp before a volley land but those are not enough for a weapon system supposed to give damage type flexibility to have all it's damage type benfit from a bonus. Only 25% of it should...
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2015-09-16 00:56:53 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Missile totally don't have consideration when shoooting nah... It's not like you can destroy the ammo in flight, outrun it or mitigate it by just flying around in any direction. Hell at sniper range, a lot of ship can align and warp before a volley land but those are not enough for a weapon system supposed to give damage type flexibility to have all it's damage type benfit from a bonus. Only 25% of it should...
So the solution to having 4 damage types that apply horrible is... to have 4 damage types that apply horribly. Great argument. The issue is clearly damage locking and not missile application being terrible in the current small ship dominant speed meta. Yeah, lets go with that.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#49 - 2015-09-16 01:22:44 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Missile totally don't have consideration when shoooting nah... It's not like you can destroy the ammo in flight, outrun it or mitigate it by just flying around in any direction. Hell at sniper range, a lot of ship can align and warp before a volley land but those are not enough for a weapon system supposed to give damage type flexibility to have all it's damage type benfit from a bonus. Only 25% of it should...
So the solution to having 4 damage types that apply horrible is... to have 4 damage types that apply horribly. Great argument. The issue is clearly damage locking and not missile application being terrible in the current small ship dominant speed meta. Yeah, lets go with that.


Even if they applied much ebtter, you could still destroy them, outrun them or flat out warp out before they hit.
Mario Putzo
#50 - 2015-09-16 01:51:12 UTC
"Damage lock" is dumb give application bonus in place of a damage bonus instead. Less peak DPS compared to other missile users, but more applied DPS. Win win.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2015-09-16 02:03:25 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Missile totally don't have consideration when shoooting nah... It's not like you can destroy the ammo in flight, outrun it or mitigate it by just flying around in any direction. Hell at sniper range, a lot of ship can align and warp before a volley land but those are not enough for a weapon system supposed to give damage type flexibility to have all it's damage type benfit from a bonus. Only 25% of it should...
So the solution to having 4 damage types that apply horrible is... to have 4 damage types that apply horribly. Great argument. The issue is clearly damage locking and not missile application being terrible in the current small ship dominant speed meta. Yeah, lets go with that.


Even if they applied much ebtter, you could still destroy them, outrun them or flat out warp out before they hit.
None of which are resolved by removing damage "locks", also those are the intended counters to a degree for the ability to hit anything within it's effective range (movement adjusted of course) and immunity from TDs.

It's very much as stated a case of comparative give and take, but this isn't a give that is specifically needed in the face of the issues the system faces.
Stephan Weidner
boehse-28-onkelz
#52 - 2015-09-19 21:28:31 UTC
Here my Idea to solve the complete Problem:

Make Changeable Damagetype for every Weapon System with no Damage Lock, and then clear the Basic Resistences of every Ship to Zero.
Then we need higher Resistence % on Modules like Invuls, Nano Membranes...... and T2 Ships recieves a Bonus on Resistence Modules, so they are able to create theyr T2 Tank
Witch this Changes every Pilot is able to select his own Kind of Damage and his own Kind of resists on his Ship.
Ransu Asanari
Perkone
Caldari State
#53 - 2015-09-20 00:22:22 UTC
Stephan Weidner wrote:
Here my Idea to solve the complete Problem:

Make Changeable Damagetype for every Weapon System with no Damage Lock, and then clear the Basic Resistences of every Ship to Zero.
Then we need higher Resistence % on Modules like Invuls, Nano Membranes...... and T2 Ships recieves a Bonus on Resistence Modules, so they are able to create theyr T2 Tank
Witch this Changes every Pilot is able to select his own Kind of Damage and his own Kind of resists on his Ship.


There's a lot of tactical assessment we can do right now from knowing what to expect (somewhat) from the resist profile of the ship the enemy is flying, and what kind of weapon system they are using. Even looking at the ship model to tell if they're using long or short range guns is useful information. By making everything generic you lose a lot of the differences we have now between ship hulls and weapon systems.

Right now there are ships that you can fit unconventionally to surprise your enemy - like shield tanking a typically armor tanked/bonused ship, or putting small guns on a ship usually used for Logistics and sig tanking. I wouldn't want to get rid of the unique innovative ideas some of the pilots come up with.
Ben Ishikela
#54 - 2015-09-20 01:22:34 UTC
What about "10% bonus to auto-targeting and defender missiles rate of fire"? P

Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#55 - 2015-09-20 08:11:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Sobaan Tali
Ben Ishikela wrote:
What about "10% bonus to auto-targeting and defender missiles rate of fire"? P


For one rate of fire is governed by the launchers, not the missiles. And...defenders? Really? In their current state or after CCP just replaces them with an EWAR mod? Not to mention, you're thinking about half of the launchers, the other don't care for FoF's and Defenders.

"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."
Previous page123