These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Missiles getting nerfed?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Danny John-Peter
Blue Canary
Watch This
#21 - 2012-05-17 11:58:07 UTC
TheButcherPete wrote:
awww, you're just upset that your missiles were e-war proof, because a. Smartbombs were rarely timed good enough to kill one, and b. defenders are useless.


Then you complain when CCP brings your weapon to scale with all other weapons, thus leveling the playing field.

HTFU, hardly anyone fits tracking disrupts anyway


Dont listen to this man, he self destructs his bad fit carriers.
Nnamuachs
Kiith Paktu
Reeloaded.
#22 - 2012-05-17 12:00:28 UTC
TheButcherPete wrote:
awww, you're just upset that your missiles were e-war proof, because a. Smartbombs were rarely timed good enough to kill one, and b. defenders are useless.


Then you complain when CCP brings your weapon to scale with all other weapons, thus leveling the playing field.

HTFU, hardly anyone fits tracking disrupts anyway


I wouldn't say defenders are entirely useless (just mostly).

Anyways, this isnt really leveling the playing field as missile users receive no counters to these modules. There are no modules to reduce the explosion radius of missiles. Additionally, as i mentioned in the other thread, one of the overlooked problems is this issue in relation to the Guided Missile Precision skill which only bonuses standards, heavies and cruise missiles. Rockets, Assaults and Torps are considered dumb missiles. For this fact alone they should make the tracking disruptors "not" effect the dumb missiles (can't tracking disrupt a weapon that doesn't track you.) Or correct some other underlying issues to make these changes more balanced.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#23 - 2012-05-17 12:02:55 UTC
Orlacc wrote:
Wow next thing they will make missiles miss!


Actually this would have more sense than increase explo radius = less dmg

brb
Arec Bardwin
#24 - 2012-05-17 13:15:58 UTC
No dev response to these changes yet?
MadMuppet
Critical Mass Inc
#25 - 2012-05-17 14:25:35 UTC
Arec Bardwin wrote:
No dev response to these changes yet?


All complaints that used to go to different people in at CCP are now being put in to a unifited collection bucket (UCB)where they can use filters to find out what the issues are and report back to you. However, every time they move a finished complaint to the 'done' pile they have to reopen the original folder again. They also need to reopen the UCB when they:

Read an email
Walk away from their computer
Log in to their time tracking system
Try to log in to D3

But don't worry. This is much better than the current system of people being able to sort their work out on their computer in a useful fashion.

(sorry for the hijack attempt)

This message brought to you by Experience(tm). When common sense fails you, experience will come to the rescue. Experience(tm) from the makers of CONCORD.

"If you are part of the problem, you will be nerfed." -MadMuppet
cBOLTSON
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#26 - 2012-05-17 14:25:37 UTC
Because CCP dont have a ******* clue how to balance units.

They only occasionally look at balance, mabye once every 2 or 3 years. They dont for the most part even understand thier own game so most balance changes are superficial.

You will notice they tend to change and **** things up then leave them that way for years.

(Yes rant over)

The good old days of Unreal Tournament, fragging and sniping on Facing Worlds, listening to Foregone Destruction.......
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#27 - 2012-05-17 14:29:20 UTC
Orlacc wrote:
Wow next thing they will make missiles miss!


I see what you did there.Cool

Adapt or Die
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#28 - 2012-05-17 14:37:43 UTC
Can anyone give a quick run-down on why missiles are so bad in the game? Is it simply time-to-target?

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
cBOLTSON
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#29 - 2012-05-17 14:44:47 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Can anyone give a quick run-down on why missiles are so bad in the game? Is it simply time-to-target?


Briefly - Yes.
At long ranges missile flight time is an issue.
Also the speed and sig radius of a target greatly affects how much damage you can do. (Or if your missile will do anything substantial at all)

This is true for turrets also, however as range increases with turret based weapons it gets easier and easier to track a target. For instance medium arty on a hurricane can still instapop small stuff or at least cause mass damage if the target is not point blank.

Missile however will continue to do very little damage regardless of the range.
Battleship class missiles (Also citadel missiles) are even worse when it comes to this.

Turrets have midslot tracking computers , as well as lowslot tracking enhancers to boost range and tracking.
Missiles however only have rigs to boost thier percieved 'tracking ability'. (Explosion radius and velocity)

However only half of the missiles can use half of these rigs. (Dumb fired torps and hams for example)

Overall this leaves missiles somewhat lacking for pvp.
Im sure there is someone who can explain this even better than I.

The good old days of Unreal Tournament, fragging and sniping on Facing Worlds, listening to Foregone Destruction.......
leich
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#30 - 2012-05-17 14:57:57 UTC
Drake + Tengu nerf in one swing of the bat.

AWSOME.

BEST THING CCP HAS DONE IN 5 YEARS.
MadMuppet
Critical Mass Inc
#31 - 2012-05-17 15:02:10 UTC
The up side of missiles is that:

They do not take in to account the actions of the launching ship when calculating damage effects. Unlike a projectile ship which has to counter its own movement when firing, a missile is self-guiding. A very fast missile boat doesn't lose damage when firing from 1000m/s+ which is why the 100mn Tengu is popular.

They do not have an optimal or falloff stat that matters when calculating damage effects. So long as the weapon is in range it will do the same damage if the target is at max range or point blank.

They have ammo types that allow them to work even when completely jammed (FOF).

They do not require cap (only a half argument since projectiles don't either).

This message brought to you by Experience(tm). When common sense fails you, experience will come to the rescue. Experience(tm) from the makers of CONCORD.

"If you are part of the problem, you will be nerfed." -MadMuppet
Super Chair
Project Cerberus
Templis CALSF
#32 - 2012-05-17 15:08:45 UTC
cBOLTSON wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
Can anyone give a quick run-down on why missiles are so bad in the game? Is it simply time-to-target?


Briefly - Yes.
At long ranges missile flight time is an issue.
Also the speed and sig radius of a target greatly affects how much damage you can do. (Or if your missile will do anything substantial at all)

This is true for turrets also, however as range increases with turret based weapons it gets easier and easier to track a target. For instance medium arty on a hurricane can still instapop small stuff or at least cause mass damage if the target is not point blank.

Missile however will continue to do very little damage regardless of the range.
Battleship class missiles (Also citadel missiles) are even worse when it comes to this.

Turrets have midslot tracking computers , as well as lowslot tracking enhancers to boost range and tracking.
Missiles however only have rigs to boost thier percieved 'tracking ability'. (Explosion radius and velocity)

However only half of the missiles can use half of these rigs. (Dumb fired torps and hams for example)

Overall this leaves missiles somewhat lacking for pvp.
Im sure there is someone who can explain this even better than I.


It's pretty much this in a nutshell. Battleship sized missiles were pretty awful, in addition to the hulls that use them generally can't fit them/are also awful. I wouldn't mind this change so much if torps and cruise missiles got looked at in addition to adding some modules to the game to buff explosion velocity/reduce explosion radius. Also, due to the fitting issues on hulls that use missiles, generally its very difficult to rig them. On the subject of heavy missiles, it was possible for AB cruisers such as the SFI/Cynabal to speed tank cruiser sized missiles and now its just going to be ridiculous.
Zyress
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#33 - 2012-05-17 15:22:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Zyress
MadMuppet wrote:
The up side of missiles is that:

They do not take in to account the actions of the launching ship when calculating damage effects. Unlike a projectile ship which has to counter its own movement when firing, a missile is self-guiding. A very fast missile boat doesn't lose damage when firing from 1000m/s+ which is why the 100mn Tengu is popular.

On the otherhand a turret ship can travel in a straight line at or away from their target and fix their tracking issue, speed and sig radius will effect the missile no matter how you fly.

They do not have an optimal or falloff stat that matters when calculating damage effects. So long as the weapon is in range it will do the same damage if the target is at max range or point blank.

No missile I've ever fired could hit anything moving at all at its max range or even well inside its max range if they are moving rapidly, it cost flight time to do course corrections unlike turrets which can hit at their max range because apparently bullets have no flight time and their tracking actually gets better at longer ranges.

They have ammo types that allow them to work even when completely jammed (FOF).

This is true, though I've never seen anyone use them and they are totally undirected hitting whatever they happen to see first.

They do not require cap (only a half argument since projectiles don't either).

This is true, I'd add that both missiles and projectiles can select any damage type, though as things currently stand most missile ships will use kinetic because they are bonused for it.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#34 - 2012-05-17 15:54:06 UTC
Super Chair wrote:
On the subject of heavy missiles, it was possible for AB cruisers such as the SFI/Cynabal to speed tank cruiser sized missiles and now its just going to be ridiculous.

Could said SFI/Cynabal also speed tank cruiser-sized guns?

I guess my counterpoint to the tracking disruptor is that there is no way to alter the sig radius of my ship. In fact, I can only worsen it, and my opponent has a module that can do the same. I've seen it posted in a feedback thread that even two well-bonused TDs can't reduce missile damage to 0, whereas it is entirely possible for a single unbonused TD to completely negate turret damage with a decent orbit to help.

The only time I've used missiles in PvP was being violenced by a Rifter while ratting in a Drake. TBH I was kind of amazed that I did enough damage to drive him off because he settled into a comfortable orbit that would have ****** with any medium turret ship.

I'm not experienced enough with missiles to offer anything else than this to the argument but IMO the TD changes aren't game breaking. I'm not saying missiles don't need a buff, but TDs seem underused to begin with.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Skydell
Bad Girl Posse
#35 - 2012-05-17 16:07:16 UTC
evereplicant wrote:
CCP have now nailed the final coffin in missiles... All those nice missile graphic updates you did? waste of time seeing no one will use missiles anymore


You should look at the new Missile graphics.

Compare a launcher to one on a modern naval vessel or plane. Then compare it to modern ground based launchers. They all look alot like ground based missile launchers. From the ground silo to the box launchers on the backs of trucks. It's almost like they were meant for planetary use or something.

In ground based warfare, you need a remote unit to paint a target in order for a cruise missile to hit but electronics equipment can scramble the guidance system, sending it off course or disrupt it you might say. Granted if you really think about it we have a cube battlefield of 250km. Not very big really looking at the supposed distances our ships travel in seconds.
George Whitebread
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#36 - 2012-05-17 16:26:26 UTC
I haven't bothered to read any of the posts in this thread, but I assume I would win it if I participated.

"I say what I like, and I like what I bloody well say" - George Whitebread
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#37 - 2012-05-17 17:06:50 UTC
On a slightly related note, I wish that CCP would quit screwing around and make missiles (especially Cruise and Torps) the ultimate alpha weapons of EVE.

Very slow rate of fire, absolutely hideous levels of damage if you stick around (voluntarily or not) long enough for them to hit you.

If you think about it, and take a look at the graphics for the damage effects between guns and missiles as well, it would be completely logical... not to mention encourage their use.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#38 - 2012-05-17 17:53:24 UTC
is true missiles almost always do damage... however it so happens sometimes they do Such low damage, the passive recharge from the shields of an armor tanked destroyer is enough to stop them. which is the same as they totally missing, the problem is... this happens with basically all the missiles against afterburning targets.
Easthir Ravin
Easy Co.
#39 - 2012-05-17 18:45:47 UTC
Greetings

Correct me if I am wrong, but a tracking disruptor hinders the ability of a ships turret to turn fast enough to hit its target? If this is so then how could this affect missiles that do not rely on a turrets ability to spin in order to hit the intended target. If this is true then this nerf makes no sense.

Please don't nerf my drake even more CCP

vr
East

IN THE IMORTAL WORDS OF SOCRATES:  " I drank WHAT?!"
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#40 - 2012-05-17 20:42:52 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Super Chair wrote:
On the subject of heavy missiles, it was possible for AB cruisers such as the SFI/Cynabal to speed tank cruiser sized missiles and now its just going to be ridiculous.

Could said SFI/Cynabal also speed tank cruiser-sized guns?

I guess my counterpoint to the tracking disruptor is that there is no way to alter the sig radius of my ship. In fact, I can only worsen it, and my opponent has a module that can do the same. I've seen it posted in a feedback thread that even two well-bonused TDs can't reduce missile damage to 0, whereas it is entirely possible for a single unbonused TD to completely negate turret damage with a decent orbit to help.

The only time I've used missiles in PvP was being violenced by a Rifter while ratting in a Drake. TBH I was kind of amazed that I did enough damage to drive him off because he settled into a comfortable orbit that would have ****** with any medium turret ship.

I'm not experienced enough with missiles to offer anything else than this to the argument but IMO the TD changes aren't game breaking. I'm not saying missiles don't need a buff, but TDs seem underused to begin with.



my halo set begs to differ with you.