These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey] Cruise Missiles

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#481 - 2013-04-26 19:55:40 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:
Ancient history now, but this is what they were trying to do with missiles a long time ago....

http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=79439

Basically - takes time to accelerate, so the bigger missiles would have poor agility straight out of the tubes, and therefore difficulty hitting smaller stuff up close.

Never was too sure why it didn't work, they just pulled the plug on it and eventually went with the explosion radius/velocity approach. Shame really, could have been a cool system, with scope for adding things like minimum 'arming' distance.


Thats weird page too look at cruisers fired cruise missiles?..... ships with thermal damage instead of kinetic....
raptor with missile and hybrid bonuses..

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#482 - 2013-04-26 19:56:07 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:
Ancient history now, but this is what they were trying to do with missiles a long time ago....

http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=79439

Basically - takes time to accelerate, so the bigger missiles would have poor agility straight out of the tubes, and therefore difficulty hitting smaller stuff up close.

Never was too sure why it didn't work, they just pulled the plug on it and eventually went with the explosion radius/velocity approach. Shame really, could have been a cool system, with scope for adding things like minimum 'arming' distance.


There is no formula there, cant tell you what went wrong.
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#483 - 2013-04-26 19:59:50 UTC
Apart from the formula for locking time (aeons ago), I've never seen CCP release any of fundamental physics engine formulas; everyone that you see, from tracking, to missiles, is 'player derived' - make of that what you will.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Enya Sparhawk
Black Tea and Talons
#484 - 2013-04-26 20:24:33 UTC
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
So this task is not a Task for aeronautical engineering, its a task for the computer science or mathematics. This formula doesnt depends on the location from you or your target, thats good and bad at the same time. You can deal always 100%, it doesnt matter where your enemy is, but the enemy can really easy speed tank your missiles. An Afterburner is enough and your missiles will deal 50%-75% less dmg.

I mearly mention the aeronautical engineer as an example of outsourcing... we're not looking for a programming solution but a formula calculation based off of a certain set of factors.... This group of people generally get paid for thinking in those regards... it would be a minor thing for them when presented with the task of putting "these set factors" in a relationship that best demonstrates mathematically what it is suppose to do... Plus they would readily have "tools" to test out their hypothesis on hand (programs and the like) Yeah someone in computer science or mathematician would definitely work too...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that anyone at CCP or EVE are not up for the task, merely that they are already busy with so many other applications that they might not have the resources or brainpower to spare for this task...

And it is an issue...

Fíorghrá: Grá na fírinne

Maireann croí éadrom i bhfad.

Bíonn súil le muir ach ní bhíonn súil le tír.

Is maith an scéalaí an aimsir.

When the lost ships of Greece finally return home...
Enya Sparhawk
Black Tea and Talons
#485 - 2013-04-26 21:16:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Enya Sparhawk
Gabriel Karade wrote:
Ancient history now, but this is what they were trying to do with missiles a long time ago....

http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=79439

Basically - takes time to accelerate, so the bigger missiles would have poor agility straight out of the tubes, and therefore difficulty hitting smaller stuff up close.

Never was too sure why it didn't work, they just pulled the plug on it and eventually went with the explosion radius/velocity approach. Shame really, could have been a cool system, with scope for adding things like minimum 'arming' distance.


Quote:
BIG END NOTE: This is step one in missile changes in progress, mentioned before and currently in tuning on the development server is physics changes to missile agility and how they keep track of targets at close and long range, making it so that the bigger missiles guide better at long range but not as well at close range (similar to how long range battleship turrets track frigates at long range).
This is interesting...

Personally, If I were to make changes to the missle system as a whole (assuming they find a better damage calculator) I'd make the unguided missles faster (while cutting back their flight time) than their guided counterparts for two reasons: 1. bring the damage more in line with the turrets ie. being closer to applied near instantaneous (but not near exactly), and 2. institute a damage reduction dependant on "hitting" for longer ranges (it is a short range weapon) meaning that at the extent of their range or flight time they may or maynot lose some damage due to not hitting exactly on target (but they still hit because of the size of explosion radius). Make it a scale similar to turret accuracy falloff but to a way, way lesser extent ... The advantage being that they always hit (if in range) but the damage is then further defined the farther away they get from your ship.

Essentially, treat unguided missles like giant bullets, fast but able to be outrun and affected by transverse (to a way lesser extent; I can't stress that enough)... something that will hit (once fired) even if you warp or lose target lock...

Then the guided, keep as is (again assuming they find a better damage calculator) because of their long range capacity, trading off the ability to apply instant damage for 1. always hitting, with no accuracy falloff 2. a way better scale of damage application on smaller targets (to large) over their unguided counterparts (it is guided afterall)

So essentially, just redefine the unguided missle role to better create a distinction between the two types of missles...


One is the erratic, unpredictable damage type (capable of great pain or minor scratches), the other is the ol' standby, steadfast and sure...

Fíorghrá: Grá na fírinne

Maireann croí éadrom i bhfad.

Bíonn súil le muir ach ní bhíonn súil le tír.

Is maith an scéalaí an aimsir.

When the lost ships of Greece finally return home...
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#486 - 2013-04-26 23:31:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Bucca Zerodyme
I did some adjustments for my formula to get the curve nicer and set the minimal dmg output to 10% now.

Real DMG = DMG * max(min(Y-vel,1),cos(min((vel-Y)/(Y*DRF),3.1415))/2.222+0.55)

Y = Sig * Ev / Er
vel = ship's velocity
sig = ship's signature
Er = Explosion Radius of missile
Ev = Explosion Velocity of missile
DRF = Damage reducing Factor

i wont post the plot, because im lazy now, if you want to know how i would look like quote this post then i will post it.

Edit: I messed up the Formula for sooting at small targets, will do some fixes later
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#487 - 2013-04-27 17:05:17 UTC
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
I did some adjustments for my formula to get the curve nicer and set the minimal dmg output to 10% now.

Real DMG = DMG * max(min(Y-vel,1),cos(min((vel-Y)/(Y*DRF),3.1415))/2.222+0.55)

Y = Sig * Ev / Er
vel = ship's velocity
sig = ship's signature
Er = Explosion Radius of missile
Ev = Explosion Velocity of missile
DRF = Damage reducing Factor

i wont post the plot, because im lazy now, if you want to know how i would look like quote this post then i will post it.

Edit: I messed up the Formula for sooting at small targets, will do some fixes later

graph please
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#488 - 2013-04-27 18:54:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Bucca Zerodyme
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:

graph please


My formula is:
Real DMG = DMG * min(Sig/Er,max(min(Y-vel,1),cos(min((vel-Y)/(Y*DRF),3.1415))/2.222+0.55))

Y = Sig * Ev / Er
vel = ship's velocity
sig = ship's signature
Er = Explosion Radius of missile
Ev = Explosion Velocity of missile
DRF = Damage reducing factor

I put some values in for Cruise, all 5 Skills and the target ship is 400 sig.

Y = 167.27
sig = 400
Er = 247.5
Ev = 103.5
DRF = 1 and 1.5
vel = see the graph

See the graph for the dmg application, which depends on the speed of the target. The green curve is the current formula from CCP.
DRF= 1
http://s14.directupload.net/file/d/3238/4pcuvslr_png.htm
DRF= 1.5
http://s1.directupload.net/file/d/3238/on6vik8r_png.htm

I fixed the problem for soothing at small targets now.

Edit:
used this site:
http://www.walterzorn.de/grapher/grapher.htm

Formulas:
min(400/247.5,max(min(167.27-x,1),cos(min((x-167.27)/(167.27*1.5),3.1415))/2.222+0.55));
min(400/247.5, min(1, (103.5/247.5 * 400/x)^(log(4.5)/log(5.5))))
ORCACommander
Obsidian Firelance Technologies
#489 - 2013-04-28 00:44:57 UTC
right now imo the biggest problem with all missile wepaons is the fact that missiles are delayed dps. increase all missile velocities to the point where they reach their targets in under 2 seconds
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#490 - 2013-04-28 01:18:01 UTC
ORCACommander wrote:
right now imo the biggest problem with all missile wepaons is the fact that missiles are delayed dps. increase all missile velocities to the point where they reach their targets in under 2 seconds


Delayed dmg is sure a problem, but if you CCP did as you suggest, then missiles arent missiles anymore.
You cant just make missiles super fast, the dmg application is a bigger problem.

Flight time should be adjust like this (without ship bonus):
- Less then 5 sec for mid range
- 5-7.5 sec for long range.

Im not sure about the numbers never sniped with missiles in PvP.
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#491 - 2013-04-28 19:01:51 UTC
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:

graph please


My formula is:
Real DMG = DMG * min(Sig/Er,max(min(Y-vel,1),cos(min((vel-Y)/(Y*DRF),3.1415))/2.222+0.55))

Y = Sig * Ev / Er
vel = ship's velocity
sig = ship's signature
Er = Explosion Radius of missile
Ev = Explosion Velocity of missile
DRF = Damage reducing factor

I put some values in for Cruise, all 5 Skills and the target ship is 400 sig.

Y = 167.27
sig = 400
Er = 247.5
Ev = 103.5
DRF = 1 and 1.5
vel = see the graph

See the graph for the dmg application, which depends on the speed of the target. The green curve is the current formula from CCP.
DRF= 1
http://s14.directupload.net/file/d/3238/4pcuvslr_png.htm
DRF= 1.5
http://s1.directupload.net/file/d/3238/on6vik8r_png.htm

I fixed the problem for soothing at small targets now.

Edit:
used this site:
http://www.walterzorn.de/grapher/grapher.htm

Formulas:
min(400/247.5,max(min(167.27-x,1),cos(min((x-167.27)/(167.27*1.5),3.1415))/2.222+0.55));
min(400/247.5, min(1, (103.5/247.5 * 400/x)^(log(4.5)/log(5.5))))


No Feedback for my Hard work?

property's of my Formula:
- You can set a minimum
- You can adjust the dmg application with DRF
- The dmg application depends on the speed of the target, but the dmg curve is a cosine function, so the dmg dont get much worse if the break-even is passed.
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#492 - 2013-04-28 20:05:42 UTC
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:

graph please


My formula is:
Real DMG = DMG * min(Sig/Er,max(min(Y-vel,1),cos(min((vel-Y)/(Y*DRF),3.1415))/2.222+0.55))

Y = Sig * Ev / Er
vel = ship's velocity
sig = ship's signature
Er = Explosion Radius of missile
Ev = Explosion Velocity of missile
DRF = Damage reducing factor

I put some values in for Cruise, all 5 Skills and the target ship is 400 sig.

Y = 167.27
sig = 400
Er = 247.5
Ev = 103.5
DRF = 1 and 1.5
vel = see the graph

See the graph for the dmg application, which depends on the speed of the target. The green curve is the current formula from CCP.
DRF= 1
http://s14.directupload.net/file/d/3238/4pcuvslr_png.htm
DRF= 1.5
http://s1.directupload.net/file/d/3238/on6vik8r_png.htm

I fixed the problem for soothing at small targets now.

Edit:
used this site:
http://www.walterzorn.de/grapher/grapher.htm

Formulas:
min(400/247.5,max(min(167.27-x,1),cos(min((x-167.27)/(167.27*1.5),3.1415))/2.222+0.55));
min(400/247.5, min(1, (103.5/247.5 * 400/x)^(log(4.5)/log(5.5))))


No Feedback for my Hard work?

property's of my Formula:
- You can set a minimum
- You can adjust the dmg application with DRF
- The dmg application depends on the speed of the target, but the dmg curve is a cosine function, so the dmg dont get much worse if the break-even is passed.


Sorry busy weekend! Finals week for me.

Yes, your work looks great. Thanks for the reply! Smile
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#493 - 2013-04-28 20:22:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenshi Hanshin
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
ORCACommander wrote:
right now imo the biggest problem with all missile wepaons is the fact that missiles are delayed dps. increase all missile velocities to the point where they reach their targets in under 2 seconds


Delayed dmg is sure a problem, but if you CCP did as you suggest, then missiles arent missiles anymore.
You cant just make missiles super fast, the dmg application is a bigger problem.

Flight time should be adjust like this (without ship bonus):
- Less then 5 sec for mid range
- 5-7.5 sec for long range.

Im not sure about the numbers never sniped with missiles in PvP.


I have attempted to use missiles in PvP. The longer range flight times make missiles inexcusably inferior to any turret system. Even lasers with their draconian cap-usage and fitting requirements are superior to CML over those ranges in terms of applied damage.

Bucca is on to something. As missiles are by definition a warhead mounted on an engine. There is no logical in-universe reason that engine couldn't be upgraded. For example, light combat drones which are 7 m long have a MWD. The longer ranged versions of missiles could be retconned to have it too: Light missiles, Heavy Missiles and Cruise Missiles (variants included).

Doing that CCP could easily write up an in-game development to increase those missile velocities to allow for a 2-3 second time-to-impact. Four seconds would be the outer limit of allowable time-to-impact. As any longer than that and the target can warp away when you lock/fire and before missile reach them. The flight time could then be adjusted to keep the missile ranges within reason. So basically the new missile states for range would look something like this:

Standard Heavy Missile (w/ lvl4 Missile Projection + Bombardment)

Max Velocity: 18 km/s*
Flight time 3 secs
Range = 54 km
Time-to-impact: 3 sec

To offset the nearly instant application of damage the damage could be reduced *some* to put missiles back into proper par with turrets. The main balancing attribrute would be the longer base ROF of missile launchers to turrets. Thereby reducing the dps that is actually felt.

In addition, I would suggest that the anti-missile system be changed to a mid-slot or utility-high not launcher/turret based system. Game-mechanic would be a directed or pulsed energy projector that targets missiles like smartbombs. The difference from smart bombs being that it harms only missiles not drones or enemy ships. Using that kind of anti-missile system idea would allow any pilot or raced ship to fit it. Thus not restricting people as the present and worthless defender missiles do.

Thoughts?

*Idea: Make the missile accelerate using an X^2 curve. That would mean that it should be more 'balanced' at closer ranges as well.
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#494 - 2013-04-28 22:32:05 UTC
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:


I have attempted to use missiles in PvP. The longer range flight times make missiles inexcusably inferior to any turret system. Even lasers with their draconian cap-usage and fitting requirements are superior to CML over those ranges in terms of applied damage.

Bucca is on to something. As missiles are by definition a warhead mounted on an engine. There is no logical in-universe reason that engine couldn't be upgraded. For example, light combat drones which are 7 m long have a MWD. The longer ranged versions of missiles could be retconned to have it too: Light missiles, Heavy Missiles and Cruise Missiles (variants included).

Doing that CCP could easily write up an in-game development to increase those missile velocities to allow for a 2-3 second time-to-impact. Four seconds would be the outer limit of allowable time-to-impact. As any longer than that and the target can warp away when you lock/fire and before missile reach them. The flight time could then be adjusted to keep the missile ranges within reason. So basically the new missile states for range would look something like this:

Standard Heavy Missile (w/ lvl4 Missile Projection + Bombardment)

Max Velocity: 18 km/s*
Flight time 3 secs
Range = 54 km
Time-to-impact: 3 sec

To offset the nearly instant application of damage the damage could be reduced *some* to put missiles back into proper par with turrets. The main balancing attribrute would be the longer base ROF of missile launchers to turrets. Thereby reducing the dps that is actually felt.

*Idea: Make the missile accelerate using an X^2 curve. That would mean that it should be more 'balanced' at closer ranges as well.


see the link for acceleration in EvE:
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Acceleration

So the missiles will start and accelerate, but when they get faster it will decrease the acceleration.
So you cant use a x^2 curve for the missiles. you would need to change the formula for missiles acceleration into:

s = 1/2 * a * t^2
s = distance
a = acceleration
t = time of flight

Missiles property's would be changed into:
- Flight time
- Acceleration (No velocity needed anymore)

Would be a cool change.

Kenshi Hanshin wrote:


In addition, I would suggest that the anti-missile system be changed to a mid-slot or utility-high not launcher/turret based system. Game-mechanic would be a directed or pulsed energy projector that targets missiles like smartbombs. The difference from smart bombs being that it harms only missiles not drones or enemy ships. Using that kind of anti-missile system idea would allow any pilot or raced ship to fit it. Thus not restricting people as the present and worthless defender missiles do.



yeah really sad, the best AMS (Anti-Missiles-System) are smartbombs. Agree antimissiles need to change, but i wont discuss it here in this thread.
Akiyo Mayaki
Perkone
Caldari State
#495 - 2013-04-28 23:24:24 UTC
I'm pretty happy with these changes.

No
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#496 - 2013-04-29 02:12:01 UTC
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:


I have attempted to use missiles in PvP. The longer range flight times make missiles inexcusably inferior to any turret system. Even lasers with their draconian cap-usage and fitting requirements are superior to CML over those ranges in terms of applied damage.

Bucca is on to something. As missiles are by definition a warhead mounted on an engine. There is no logical in-universe reason that engine couldn't be upgraded. For example, light combat drones which are 7 m long have a MWD. The longer ranged versions of missiles could be retconned to have it too: Light missiles, Heavy Missiles and Cruise Missiles (variants included).

Doing that CCP could easily write up an in-game development to increase those missile velocities to allow for a 2-3 second time-to-impact. Four seconds would be the outer limit of allowable time-to-impact. As any longer than that and the target can warp away when you lock/fire and before missile reach them. The flight time could then be adjusted to keep the missile ranges within reason. So basically the new missile states for range would look something like this:

Standard Heavy Missile (w/ lvl4 Missile Projection + Bombardment)

Max Velocity: 18 km/s*
Flight time 3 secs
Range = 54 km
Time-to-impact: 3 sec

To offset the nearly instant application of damage the damage could be reduced *some* to put missiles back into proper par with turrets. The main balancing attribrute would be the longer base ROF of missile launchers to turrets. Thereby reducing the dps that is actually felt.

*Idea: Make the missile accelerate using an X^2 curve. That would mean that it should be more 'balanced' at closer ranges as well.


see the link for acceleration in EvE:
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Acceleration

So the missiles will start and accelerate, but when they get faster it will decrease the acceleration.
So you cant use a x^2 curve for the missiles. you would need to change the formula for missiles acceleration into:

s = 1/2 * a * t^2
s = distance
a = acceleration
t = time of flight

Missiles property's would be changed into:
- Flight time
- Acceleration (No velocity needed anymore)

Would be a cool change.

Thanks for the link and that equation makes a lot more sense then whatever they are presently using. Basing it on acceleration and having a much higher top speed would greatly improve missiles par-ability to turrets at their intended ranges. CCP Fozzie could you please look at the idea?

Bucca Zerodyme wrote:

yeah really sad, the best AMS (Anti-Missiles-System) are smartbombs. Agree antimissiles need to change, but i wont discuss it here in this thread.


Yes, that is sad. But we as a community should and need to keep reminding CCP that there are better ways to go about that. I specifically remember that is not the only good idea for a universal (non-racially restrictive) anti-missile system. To be honest, I am surprised that they didn't think of that before and on their own.
Rachel Starchaser
Perkone
Caldari State
#497 - 2013-04-29 03:15:58 UTC
I already have power grid problems. :(
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#498 - 2013-04-29 10:48:37 UTC
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:

yeah really sad, the best AMS (Anti-Missiles-System) are smartbombs. Agree antimissiles need to change, but i wont discuss it here in this thread.


Missile based anti missile systems are stupid anyways.

There's no reason to waste ammo on a system that could achive better results when it used a laser. or a smart bomb in that case.

A point defense laser that shoots down missiles at range X would be cool.

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#499 - 2013-04-29 17:56:47 UTC
Rachel Starchaser wrote:
I already have power grid problems. :(


With what ship?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#500 - 2013-04-29 18:59:08 UTC
Josilin du Guesclin wrote:
Chessur wrote:

Raven, all level 5 skills, 2BCS, T2 launchers, CN scourge cruise missile

On paper: 460 DPS

MWD drake: 368

Raven, all level 5 skills, 2BCS, T2 launchers, Scourge Fury Cruise

On paper: 560 DPS

MWD drake: 232 DPS

That is with the old raven and old missiles. But you get the point. Even with the 30% damage increase (assuming that you could actually apply that with the 10% decrease in explosion velocity- CN cruise raven is only doing 368 X 30% = 478 DPS (which is not all going to be applied anyway thanks to the decreased explo velocity.)

Why in the heck are you using Fury for the Raven? I think you're setting it up to fail - on a BC target you should be using Precision or Faction. My estimates suggest Precision will almost always be the right choice with the new numbers if the target sub-cap and moving at all, unless you need range (in which case use Faction). Fury is for stationary targets and capitals, as always.


Except every other race can use their T2 Battleship ammo on battleship and even smaller ships without issue. So why would Caldari be the exception?