These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Excessive missile ranges
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lykouleon
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#21 - 2013-05-01 15:10:24 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Well there has too be drawbacks on all weapon systems for balance

-lasers-
drawbacks
massive cap usage/neutable/..poor tracking/excessive fitting ... conflag needs buff aswell as T1 ammo
pros
scorch gives great projection

-projectiles-
drawbacks
poor damage
pros
easy fittings.. no cap usage ... good projection.. selectable damage

-blasters-
drawbacks
cap usage/neutable...short ranged
pros
high damage... best tracking

-missiles-
drawbacks
poor damage application on moving targets / lack of misslie mods to buff attributes
pros
great range somewhat OP.... no cap usage/ good damage on tackled ships ... selectable damage

thus if you remove missiles drawback you have to give it another to replace it

You had some decent words that I liked. Then I read this and realized you actually have no clue about weapons systems.

Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#22 - 2013-05-10 23:55:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Theia Matova
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
They need to nerf the range of rockets and HAMS then torp range looks good ... and in line with battleship weapons
I suspect the TD change is the main thought of CCP on buffing missile tracking but they will have to nerf their range to implement them anyway

You see each size of weapons is doubled so rough figures
-rockets 8km
-HAMS 16km
-Torps 16km
so therefore its unbalanced and out of sequence so in order to address torps range you have to address the sequence.
blasters have 6km optimal with void/T1 antimatter infact all guns short range ammo is under 20km... lasers are supposed to be the longest range weapon and its optimal is 15km granted it has 10km falloff but thats guns advantage and you don't really use falloff on most turrets besides projectiles.

I would also suggest that missiles should trade places with arties in terms of alpha to ROF ratio.


@Jonas, I do not fly caldari but I do have flown HAM legion. And the range they have do not seems too long to be honest. In comparison to heavy missiles HAMs are crappy. But missile legion then again is crappy :p Torps already suffer from explosive radius and velocity. And their range feels short already to be honest. Lasers have other issues that are more severe than this. Also the weapon systems should not be compared as straight you do.

Anyway I am up for the TD change. Its ridiculous that there as full immunities for the EWARs. Full immunities should not exist!

I brought up the TD imbalance in my thread Racial systems balancing and homogenization. Please give it a look too.
Jeanne-Luise Argenau
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2013-05-11 10:50:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Jeanne-Luise Argenau
I too think torpedos need a buff in range, or if not there in applied damage. But i think u guys missing a real problem with all missiles. Their Range is fixed so to reach the maximum range both ships have to be stationary, if the targeted ship moves
away the range will melt down, so basically u should take max range -10 to 25% as safety margin to get the actual range. Which would translate for torps if they have a theoretical range of 16km to a practical 14km maybe even lower. Now compare blasters u apply some damage at optimal + 2 times the falloff.

Theia Matova wrote:

Anyway I am up for the TD change. Its ridiculous that there as full immunities for the EWARs. Full immunities should not exist!


Im totally against TD affecting missile hitting probabilities, but i want a working variant of Defender missiles (posted something to that here (13th post on that site). And maybe add something like decoys to the system which reduce the hit probability on the main hull but thats just a thought i had right now.
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#24 - 2013-05-11 14:31:34 UTC
Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote:
I too think torpedos need a buff in range, or if not there in applied damage. But i think u guys missing a real problem with all missiles. Their Range is fixed so to reach the maximum range both ships have to be stationary, if the targeted ship moves
away the range will melt down, so basically u should take max range -10 to 25% as safety margin to get the actual range. Which would translate for torps if they have a theoretical range of 16km to a practical 14km maybe even lower. Now compare blasters u apply some damage at optimal + 2 times the falloff.

Theia Matova wrote:

Anyway I am up for the TD change. Its ridiculous that there as full immunities for the EWARs. Full immunities should not exist!


Im totally against TD affecting missile hitting probabilities, but i want a working variant of Defender missiles (posted something to that here (13th post on that site). And maybe add something like decoys to the system which reduce the hit probability on the main hull but thats just a thought i had right now.


Hi Jeanne,


As you probably know CCP is removing launchers from most of BS hulls and smaller hulls mostly don't ahve any missile slots except some Minny hulls. Defenders is there for not viable way nor it should not be compared to ewar. Because this is about EWAR balances. I explained this to you in my thread for Homogenization of the ships and systems.

For the EWARs truly be in balance no one should be completely immune to them. Yes, they should affect some ships / systems less but no one should be immune!

EWAR balancing requires that TD affects the missles.Simple as that.
Previous page12