These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#521 - 2013-04-30 05:38:00 UTC
Enya Sparhawk wrote:
Applying the dynamics of fluid space to missles... same as ships, to determine speed (time) at which damage gets applied to long ranges due to acceleration...

Yeah I got it, I was disagreeing with...

I just don't like the idea of missles accelerating and decelerating...


But you like the idea of ships accelerating right? Missiles are essentially no different in terms of physics. If CCP made use of that fact it could/would help a lot in the balancing of weapon systems.

That said, if I really want to be an ******* and technically so, bullets also are affected by acceleration. However, that would make things far more complicated than necassary. FYI the positive acceleration would be due to the propelling charge. The negative acceleration would be due to friction in the barrel.

As I mentioned, missile mechanics are still broken. Not nearly as bad as say Beam Lasers or drone mechanics. However, neither is the way missiles work presently balanced or optimal. Having missiles accelerate would have in-game missiles behave far more realistically. In addition, if done well it would alleviate the double-penalty of flight-time and ROF on applied dps.

With missile dps better on par with turret, base-damage values could be adjusted for parity. In all it would make missiles a viable pvp weapon. Wouldn't overshadow the use of turrets or drones based systems. Lastly, it would make the use of missiles a lot more fun and less frustrating.
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#522 - 2013-04-30 06:00:49 UTC
MrDiao wrote:
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:

running out of characters: I will finish here, any questions?


There is no doubt that you just roll into a "solution" before prove "systematically changing the missile damage formula is the only(or the best) way to improve the current system".

If you don't prove the latter, why should people bother to go for the simpler solutions which may achieve better result at the same time?

What I'm actually asking is: why should the missile damage reduction curve be smoother? It changes all missiles. Why should ccp changes all missiles just because the cruise and/or torpedo has problem?


All missiles have a problem. Not just the cruise, torps etc.

First, speed of the target and signature radius affect missile damage immensely. If it is high enough it can completely reduce it to 0 (zero) damage. It doesn't matter if you "hit" if there is no/negligble damage.

Missile mechanics for flight and range are screwed up. Presently missiles operate on a constant and instant max-velocity system. As far as any of us that actually use missiles can tell. Now, beyond the fact that is retardly unrealistic, it is also a problem. The problem is the insanely long flight time attributes. The main reason why nobody in their right mind snipes with missiles.

Though part of that is also the ROF rate of the launchers. Since for missiles DPS = damage/(flight-time + ROF). In other words, missiles are penalized twice in the DPS equation: once for the launcher rate-of-fire and once for the flight time of the missile to the target. In-game this nullifies or marganlizes the higher-base damage of missiles as range is increased.

Again that dps reduction due to the 'double-penalty' doesn't even count the reductions due to target velocity/signature. So in the end you might only be dealing 20% or less of the damage-potential. Turrets will always deal full damage within optimal range as long as tracking. Furthermore, turrets only have a 50% reduction of base-damage within their falloff+optimal.

In translation, even on your worse "day" as a turret user you will always deal more damage than a missile user. As long as both targets are not sitting on top of each other and in motion. Hagika explains that better...
_________________________________________________________________________
The solution to that would be to use an acceleration mechanic like that for ships. Then have it set up so that there is 'consistent' flight time to target within the engagement range of that missile. In other words it should take the same amount of time to hit whether you are close or just in range. The only way to do that is via an equation based on acceleration.

The result of that change would be to reduce/minimize the double-penalty to applied dps. In addition, it would allow for viable and reasonable ability to use missiles for long-range engagements (for that missile). With that in place then the damage of the missiles (base-damage) could be adjusted to bring them into parity with turrets.
MrDiao
Fuxi Legion
Fraternity.
#523 - 2013-04-30 06:05:47 UTC
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:


All missiles have a problem. Not just the cruise, torps etc.



I'm totally agree that rocket, light missile, heavy missile and heavy assault missile are absolutely fine at the moment.

If you think the missiles need an overall change, then it should be in a separate topic.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#524 - 2013-04-30 06:51:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
I'm an avid missile user....and even I'm tired of the "but I need a target painter"

Deal with it.

Turrets need TE etc and furthermore, find me a turret that can do over 900 DPS from 0-three figure lock range. Good luck with that.


They are different systems, stop comparing them. If there is an issue with missiles in the new incarnation, address it directly and not "waaaa but this other completely different system is different!!!!"


And finally, for the love of GOD stop using the phrases/words "DPS" and "delayed damage" in the same sentence, you look ridiculous. It's delayed alpha, nothing more. The clue is kind of in the name....damage per second.


end rant.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#525 - 2013-04-30 07:07:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Lloyd Roses
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:
MrDiao wrote:
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:

running out of characters: I will finish here, any questions?


There is no doubt that you just roll into a "solution" before prove "systematically changing the missile damage formula is the only(or the best) way to improve the current system".

If you don't prove the latter, why should people bother to go for the simpler solutions which may achieve better result at the same time?

What I'm actually asking is: why should the missile damage reduction curve be smoother? It changes all missiles. Why should ccp changes all missiles just because the cruise and/or torpedo has problem?


All missiles have a problem. Not just the cruise, torps etc.

First, speed of the target and signature radius affect missile damage immensely. If it is high enough it can completely reduce it to 0 (zero) damage. It doesn't matter if you "hit" if there is no/negligble damage.

Missile mechanics for flight and range are screwed up. Presently missiles operate on a constant and instant max-velocity system. As far as any of us that actually use missiles can tell. Now, beyond the fact that is retardly unrealistic, it is also a problem. The problem is the insanely long flight time attributes. The main reason why nobody in their right mind snipes with missiles.

Though part of that is also the ROF rate of the launchers. Since for missiles DPS = damage/(flight-time + ROF). In other words, missiles are penalized twice in the DPS equation: once for the launcher rate-of-fire and once for the flight time of the missile to the target. In-game this nullifies or marganlizes the higher-base damage of missiles as range is increased.

Again that dps reduction due to the 'double-penalty' doesn't even count the reductions due to target velocity/signature. So in the end you might only be dealing 20% or less of the damage-potential. Turrets will always deal full damage within optimal range as long as tracking. Furthermore, turrets only have a 50% reduction of base-damage within their falloff+optimal.

In translation, even on your worse "day" as a turret user you will always deal more damage than a missile user. As long as both targets are not sitting on top of each other and in motion. Hagika explains that better...
_________________________________________________________________________
The solution to that would be to use an acceleration mechanic like that for ships. Then have it set up so that there is 'consistent' flight time to target within the engagement range of that missile. In other words it should take the same amount of time to hit whether you are close or just in range. The only way to do that is via an equation based on acceleration.

The result of that change would be to reduce/minimize the double-penalty to applied dps. In addition, it would allow for viable and reasonable ability to use missiles for long-range engagements (for that missile). With that in place then the damage of the missiles (base-damage) could be adjusted to bring them into parity with turrets.



Ye, Cruise Missiles and missiles in general are far to weak, that's why we see no drake/caracal fleets out there. Does it appeal that with much less application issues missiles would be a little bit op? Right now, tacklefrigs can undergo the tracking of nearly any turret based ship, however, they still die within couple volleys from a tengu.

Regarding Cruise Missiles in special: The damage delay doesn't even compare to the benefit of being able to apply damage to all lockable targets without even the tiniest bit of modulee/rigs to fit still appears to be an enormous one to me - lots of engagements on our side were eased up due to our scorpion shooting cruise missiles against a falcon somewhere on grid, forcing him off. That though have been the unbuffed cruises.

I think it is true that cruise missiles with their damage delay when sniping at 180km aren't that great for massive fleet warfare, for everything smaller though they look really great. Missile dps is usually great selectable dps, if you can't apply your damage, your whole preparation is just bad. As much as battleship guns need webs for their support (edit: putting ABCs aside as the are fast enough to nullify most tracking issues), missiles should at least need a tp.
Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#526 - 2013-04-30 09:27:56 UTC
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:

If the missiles aways accelerate, until they hit the target, then you could at lest explain it in a proper manner.
It also means that from a long range they'll be harder to sunwall because they'll move through a smartbomb's envelope very quickly.

Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#527 - 2013-04-30 13:40:46 UTC
MrDiao wrote:


There is no doubt that you just roll into a "solution" before prove "systematically changing the missile damage formula is the only(or the best) way to improve the current system".

If you don't prove the latter, why should people bother to go for the simpler solutions which may achieve better result at the same time?

What I'm actually asking is: why should the missile damage reduction curve be smoother? It changes all missiles. Why should ccp changes all missiles just because the cruise and/or torpedo has problem?


You cant prove, that my solution is better then the current mechanics and vice verse. Usually you dont want to prove that or its just impossible, because you cant never be really sure outside of a mathematical environment. The only way to compare both solutions is to see the results and decide which one is the best suited for the job. There is no magic or prove needed for that, just pick something that will work best.

I already provided a possible solution and showed some results, now you should pick whatever you feel is the best solution.

If you are worried about the other missiles then i can tell you thats not the issue, you can always adjust some values.
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#528 - 2013-04-30 13:49:33 UTC
Josilin du Guesclin wrote:
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:

If the missiles aways accelerate, until they hit the target, then you could at lest explain it in a proper manner.
It also means that from a long range they'll be harder to sunwall because they'll move through a smartbomb's envelope very quickly.



Is that a bad thing? Smartbombs are currently to powerfully against missiles. How can a missiles fleet compete if all of the missiles can be smartbomb with just a single ship, which you cant even shoot down?

Plan to destroy missiles in large PvP.
- Let them have a long flight time
- Let them suck at applying dmg
- Let them be vulnerable against smartbombs
- Give them a kinetic-bonus, so we know which type of missiles the hostiles will use
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#529 - 2013-04-30 13:59:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Bucca Zerodyme
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I'm an avid missile user....and even I'm tired of the "but I need a target painter"

Deal with it.

Turrets need TE etc and furthermore, find me a turret that can do over 900 DPS from 0-three figure lock range. Good luck with that.


They are different systems, stop comparing them. If there is an issue with missiles in the new incarnation, address it directly and not "waaaa but this other completely different system is different!!!!"


And finally, for the love of GOD stop using the phrases/words "DPS" and "delayed damage" in the same sentence, you look ridiculous. It's delayed alpha, nothing more. The clue is kind of in the name....damage per second.


end rant.


http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=17512043
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=17511940

Both only 1 tracking enhancer. Fleet ships arent suppose to be good at solo you know. Would be really happy if missiles got a low-slot module, but we dont have any.

Edit: If i dont compare any weapon system to each other, then it doesnt matter if they perform good or bad, because you will never never see the difference.
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#530 - 2013-04-30 14:15:13 UTC
MrDiao wrote:
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:


All missiles have a problem. Not just the cruise, torps etc.



I'm totally agree that rocket, light missile, heavy missile and heavy assault missile are absolutely fine at the moment.

If you think the missiles need an overall change, then it should be in a separate topic.


Plz post 1-3 situations where missiles perform good. Would really like to know that, maybe i can fit an proper ship then.
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#531 - 2013-04-30 14:36:02 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:


Ye, Cruise Missiles and missiles in general are far to weak, that's why we see no drake/caracal fleets out there. Does it appeal that with much less application issues missiles would be a little bit op? Right now, tacklefrigs can undergo the tracking of nearly any turret based ship, however, they still die within couple volleys from a tengu.

Regarding Cruise Missiles in special: The damage delay doesn't even compare to the benefit of being able to apply damage to all lockable targets without even the tiniest bit of modulee/rigs to fit still appears to be an enormous one to me - lots of engagements on our side were eased up due to our scorpion shooting cruise missiles against a falcon somewhere on grid, forcing him off. That though have been the unbuffed cruises.

I think it is true that cruise missiles with their damage delay when sniping at 180km aren't that great for massive fleet warfare, for everything smaller though they look really great. Missile dps is usually great selectable dps, if you can't apply your damage, your whole preparation is just bad. As much as battleship guns need webs for their support (edit: putting ABCs aside as the are fast enough to nullify most tracking issues), missiles should at least need a tp.


Plz dont sell me this, i know missiles sucks, dont try to sell something bad as good. Dont post rare cases where missiles work.

Whats your usually encounter with a drake or caracal fleet?
ECM is ****, if you still using it, then you do something wrong. If just one ship is messing with your tactics, then just kill the Scorpion or jam it.
What do you mean with preparation? What do you fit for you missiles boats and which ships do you want to fight?
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#532 - 2013-04-30 14:46:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I'm an avid missile user....and even I'm tired of the "but I need a target painter"

Deal with it.

Turrets need TE etc and furthermore, find me a turret that can do over 900 DPS from 0-three figure lock range. Good luck with that.


They are different systems, stop comparing them. If there is an issue with missiles in the new incarnation, address it directly and not "waaaa but this other completely different system is different!!!!"


And finally, for the love of GOD stop using the phrases/words "DPS" and "delayed damage" in the same sentence, you look ridiculous. It's delayed alpha, nothing more. The clue is kind of in the name....damage per second.


end rant.


http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=17512043
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=17511940

Both only 1 tracking enhancer. Fleet ships arent suppose to be good at solo you know. Would be really happy if missiles got a low-slot module, but we dont have any.

Edit: If i dont compare any weapon system to each other, then it doesnt matter if they perform good or bad, because you will never never see the difference.


Then let's compare missile to turrets. Show me a turret capable of applying uniform, selectable damage from 0km to over 100km. Show me a turret capable of blowing up an ECM bird when jammed out. They're just different.


You need to understand that if missiles could apply full damage without rigs and painters then they would be unholy monsters because of what those free slots would allow. It may not be nice in terms of the lack of choice, but it's the only way to keep it sane.

Edit: A humble raven without the need for rigs/painters becomes at >110k ehp, 645 DPS from 0-weapon range (faction ammo so that's out to 250km) with fully selectable damage. I dont think that's remotely reasonable and thats BEFORE you consider torps, those are the cruise numbers. Furthermore I was in hurry, that'll be sub-optimal. Blink
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#533 - 2013-04-30 15:08:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Debora Tsung
Morrigan LeSante wrote:

Edit: A humble raven without the need for rigs/painters becomes at >110k ehp, 645 DPS from 0-weapon range (faction ammo so that's out to 250km) with fully selectable damage. I dont think that's remotely reasonable and thats BEFORE you consider torps, those are the cruise numbers. Furthermore I was in hurry, that'll be sub-optimal. Blink


Do T2 Sentries in a Dominix count for that?

EDIT: Ok, due to their tracking they basically have a minimum range but meh...

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.

Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#534 - 2013-04-30 15:26:01 UTC
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
Quote:
It also means that from a long range they'll be harder to sunwall because they'll move through a smartbomb's envelope very quickly.


Is that a bad thing?

Not at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#535 - 2013-04-30 15:31:00 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:

Then let's compare missile to turrets. Show me a turret capable of applying uniform, selectable damage from 0km to over 100km. Show me a turret capable of blowing up an ECM bird when jammed out. They're just different.

A turret ship can kill ECM ships just as well as a missile ship, and the damage lands much sooner. The only ships that can continue to put damage onto a ship when jammed are drone boats.
Quote:

Edit: A humble raven without the need for rigs/painters becomes at >110k ehp, 645 DPS from 0-weapon range (faction ammo so that's out to 250km) with fully selectable damage. I dont think that's remotely reasonable and thats BEFORE you consider torps, those are the cruise numbers. Furthermore I was in hurry, that'll be sub-optimal. Blink

And how much of that will actually land? How many painters and rigs does it take to get that DPS to land? What can you do with that same number of mods for other weapon systems? Oh, and remember that Painters have optimals and falloff - once they're into falloff missile damage becomes less reliable.
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#536 - 2013-04-30 16:23:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenshi Hanshin
MrDiao wrote:
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:


All missiles have a problem. Not just the cruise, torps etc.



I'm totally agree that rocket, light missile, heavy missile and heavy assault missile are absolutely fine at the moment.

If you think the missiles need an overall change, then it should be in a separate topic.


You need to improve your reading and comprehension skills...

I said, "All missiles have problems". Thus the sentence that you agree and then state certain missiles are fine, doesn't work.

This is a missile thread and I am perfectly founded to post critics of CMLs and every other missile here. Since i know the devs actually might read the criticisms.

Regardless, missiles have inherent damage application issues. Not even counting the insanely long flight times for engagements at our outer limit of effective range. Missiles need to be viable in PvP and on par with turrets. Oh, one more thing FOF missiles are crap. If an ECM boat jams a missile boat, it is just like a turret boat. We can't fire either. FOF missiles could be loaded and fired. However, the mechanics for FOFs are unreliable and do pathetic damage.

A drone boat with drones out would be more effective against a jamming ECM ship.

I personally think that changing missile mechanics to be acceleration based with a consistent/fixed flight time to target would make it easier to balance missiles. Then the explosion radius, explosion velocity and damage values could be adjusted to bring missiles into balance with turrets and in parity.

Remember your turrets do instant damage and don't need a TP. Missiles need multiple TP and Webs (hams and torps) in order to deal full-damage.

So that gives me a great idea! Turrets need to be nerfed in a way that requires them to have to use TC, TE etc to deal full-damage. (*sarcasm*) In seriousness, what is the problem some of you people have in letting other players have a fair ability to engage with their racial weapon-system?

(I could remember this and scream and rant against and drone mechanic improvements. But I am not as childish and vindictive as some of you that like seeing Caldari ships elminated from PvP viability.)
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#537 - 2013-04-30 16:49:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Josilin du Guesclin wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:

Then let's compare missile to turrets. Show me a turret capable of applying uniform, selectable damage from 0km to over 100km. Show me a turret capable of blowing up an ECM bird when jammed out. They're just different.

A turret ship can kill ECM ships just as well as a missile ship, and the damage lands much sooner. The only ships that can continue to put damage onto a ship when jammed are drone boats.
Quote:

Edit: A humble raven without the need for rigs/painters becomes at >110k ehp, 645 DPS from 0-weapon range (faction ammo so that's out to 250km) with fully selectable damage. I dont think that's remotely reasonable and thats BEFORE you consider torps, those are the cruise numbers. Furthermore I was in hurry, that'll be sub-optimal. Blink

And how much of that will actually land? How many painters and rigs does it take to get that DPS to land? What can you do with that same number of mods for other weapon systems? Oh, and remember that Painters have optimals and falloff - once they're into falloff missile damage becomes less reliable.



I said when jammed out. How are you shooting an unlocked target...I don't recall FoF rounds for anything but missiles. They might suck compared to regular rounds but they're a VERY rude shock for an ECM tanked falcon/rook.

My example was /IF/ it didn't need the painter rigs, it would be unbalanced. If you're going to argue, rtfp. 900+ DPS (which is what I should have written) in those circumstances would be crazy.

My only error was forgetting to increase the DPS by 30% to account for the change.



Edit: I do understand the frustrations people have - but you need to remember the missiles have no minimal range, there is no getting under the guns. They're the only long range weapon system just as effective point blank as they are at huge ranges. If they had no drawbacks compensating for this flexibility, why fit anything else? I dont believe they can be properly tunes whilst the existing feature set persists.
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#538 - 2013-04-30 17:27:59 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:


I said when jammed out. How are you shooting an unlocked target...I don't recall FoF rounds for anything but missiles

My example was /IF/ it didn't need the painter rigs. If you're going to argue, rtfp.

My only error was forgetting to increase the DPS by 30% to account for the change.


i really dont want to do math, to show you how missiles sucks compare to turrets. Lets just say, if missiles are that great, why nobody uses them?
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#539 - 2013-04-30 17:32:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:


I said when jammed out. How are you shooting an unlocked target...I don't recall FoF rounds for anything but missiles

My example was /IF/ it didn't need the painter rigs. If you're going to argue, rtfp.

My only error was forgetting to increase the DPS by 30% to account for the change.


i really dont want to do math, to show you how missiles sucks compare to turrets. Lets just say, if missiles are that great, why nobody uses them?



....

/sigh

What part of "needing rigs and painters is part of the balance" is it you're stuggling with?

Do you think a 110k+ ehp raven dealing 900+ applied DPS, of selectable damage type ANYWHERE on grid would be /remotely/ balanced? Because if you do....I'll be honest, I've got nothing. There'd be no reasoning with you.

One last time, let's see if it sticks: needing rigs and painters is part of the balance.



Yes, no-one uses missiles, that's why HML were recently nerf after topping the charts for AGES. Yes, all those kills were because missiles sucked. And god knows, the caldari frigs are terribad too. NO-ONE flies those.


Finally, yes, missiles have some issues. These issues are unresolvable in the current metagame due to features of said bleedin' missiles. The second missiles compete with turrets at optimal there is NO REASON to EVER use a turret.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#540 - 2013-04-30 17:47:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:


I said when jammed out. How are you shooting an unlocked target...I don't recall FoF rounds for anything but missiles

My example was /IF/ it didn't need the painter rigs. If you're going to argue, rtfp.

My only error was forgetting to increase the DPS by 30% to account for the change.


i really dont want to do math, to show you how missiles sucks compare to turrets. Lets just say, if missiles are that great, why nobody uses them?



....

/sigh

What part of "needing rigs and painters is part of the balance" is it you're stuggling with?

Do you think a 110k+ ehp raven dealing 900+ applied DPS, of selectable damage type ANYWHERE on grid would be /remotely/ balanced? Because if you do....I'll be honest, I've got nothing. There'd be no reasoning with you.


Unfortunately there are far too many people who truly believe that they should be doing 100% of their EFT DPS to their targets in pretty much all situations. I don't understand whether it's an absurd form of entitlement syndrome, or whether they just can't understand how to use the correct combination of weapons and modules in the appropriate circumstances.

I mean, look at Bucca's post on the previous page. It's just a series of statements about whether or not full damage is applied in a series of artificial situations. There's no mention of the actual % damage or the actual damage numbers, no discussion of the realism of the situations, no discussion of the synergy with the launch platform and combat environments and no comparisons to other ships in the class. It's just so lazy, so stupid.