These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Can we expect a look at torpedoes and missiles battleships post odyssey?

First post
Author
Azriel X
#41 - 2013-08-29 21:59:16 UTC
OMG missiles getting mods? Like actual things to make them NOT crap? Did I miss the eve apocalypse or something? Is it my birthday soon?

P.S. It is not my birthday soon I asked for a guardian vexor for my birthday... ccp did not give me one V_V
FleetAdmiralHarper
Ministry of Silly Walks.
Parasitic Legion.
#42 - 2013-08-30 07:43:37 UTC
dear god please yes!. im begging ccp for these modules.
Atmosphear
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2013-08-30 08:34:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Atmosphear
CCP Rise wrote:
I appreciate the well constructed post. I can't give you an equally thorough response but I can say a few things on the subject.

First - torps simply perform better than you make it seem using your example. A mega has a tracking bonus for one, so its a weird thing to use for comparison, and theres a lot of other factors which aren't really accounted for. I picked out an example of my own to sort of demonstrate what I mean. This represents a 3bcu cruise raven, a 3bcu torp raven, and a 2mfs hyperion all shooting the same shield extended cruiser that is webbed: http://imgur.com/sP8JJZ6

As you can see, you get better max potential damage from the turrets, but the torps give you a lot more range flexibility. Both weapons are probably better than cruise until you get outside of effective range for them and then cruise takes over. This seems fairly healthy and I'm sure you can give examples where it isn't true, but there's an awful lot where it is true.

Second - and maybe more interesting to you - there's some work being done which will impact this situation. Some of it I can't talk about now but the most important piece is that we're looking seriously at more mod interactions with missiles. A missile equivalent to tracking enhancers, for instance, would allow you the flexibility to gain more damage application and/or range. If we are able to get something like this in before too long, we would likely be re-evaluating the state of all missile systems in relation to the change and some tweaks may happen as a result.

Thanks for the post o/


edit: erm. the draft thing made me accidentally delete my post... that was odd.
Sevena Black
The Black Redemption
#44 - 2013-08-30 08:42:21 UTC
The cool thing with missiles is you can apply damage while maxing tranversal at all times.
Silvetica Dian
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#45 - 2013-08-30 09:46:55 UTC
what about capitol missile platforms? the caldari dread is the joke of eve and can be speed tanked by a carrier. It should be able to apply some damage to things down to BS size like the other dreads can. surely this is not beyond the wit of man.

Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85

300 jews
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2013-08-30 10:42:03 UTC
they also need to get rid of the 5% kin damage and make it all around damage
Aaron Kyoto
Frozen Silver.
Arkhos Core
#47 - 2013-08-30 11:58:11 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Stuff


What about TD's? will you add missiles to them or make a separate mod / fix defender missiles and move to a mid slot?
Also please tell me you will nerf HAM and small missiles range as there range is OP and conflicts with larger class weapons?


Why not keep Defenders as a high slot item, give them a small smartbomb style 'self-destruct' to take out nearby missiles? Let the AoE damage effect any ship within its range, too. Might even be effective vs Bombs.

Give them a very fast flight time, burst fire (ie they fire in groups, rapidly) and then a reload time. Should work as a short duration defense against immediate threats - which reduces the chance of being overhwelmed by a mass of missiles at once, but a flurry will still damage you.

Alternatively, a "TD" like item that uses EMP pulses to disrupt the missiles tracking systems and reduces their accuracy/damage potiential.
Berluth Luthian
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#48 - 2013-08-30 15:02:58 UTC
Well the change to the cycle time of TP being reduced certainly helps a bit.
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
#49 - 2013-08-30 15:57:58 UTC
The OP demonstrates equal damage (ignoring application mechanics) for blasters and torps.

However, torps hit to 30ish km with that damage while blasters hit to 6.

It seems reasonable to expect, given that range discrepancy, that torps should expect some kind of penalty for this extra range and versatility.

It seems ok on the whole to me.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".

Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
#50 - 2013-08-30 15:59:44 UTC
Aaron Kyoto wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Stuff


What about TD's? will you add missiles to them or make a separate mod / fix defender missiles and move to a mid slot?
Also please tell me you will nerf HAM and small missiles range as there range is OP and conflicts with larger class weapons?


Why not keep Defenders as a high slot item, give them a small smartbomb style 'self-destruct' to take out nearby missiles? Let the AoE damage effect any ship within its range, too. Might even be effective vs Bombs.

Give them a very fast flight time, burst fire (ie they fire in groups, rapidly) and then a reload time. Should work as a short duration defense against immediate threats - which reduces the chance of being overhwelmed by a mass of missiles at once, but a flurry will still damage you.

Alternatively, a "TD" like item that uses EMP pulses to disrupt the missiles tracking systems and reduces their accuracy/damage potiential.


Defender missiles would be useful if they attacked missiles heading for friendly ships, rather than missiles heading for only your ship.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".

Yabba Addict
Perkone
Caldari State
#51 - 2013-08-30 20:24:43 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
A missile equivalent to tracking enhancers, for instance, would allow you the flexibility to gain more damage application and/or range.



Plz, Rise, if you have any influence on the work being done in this area, try and keep them away from homogenising the weapon systems. CCP has to realize that to have different weapon systems/ships means there will alway be a general favorite and there will always be people crying OP or broken depending on what they're talking about
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#52 - 2013-08-31 20:29:12 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I appreciate the well constructed post. I can't give you an equally thorough response but I can say a few things on the subject.

First - torps simply perform better than you make it seem using your example. A mega has a tracking bonus for one, so its a weird thing to use for comparison, and theres a lot of other factors which aren't really accounted for. I picked out an example of my own to sort of demonstrate what I mean. This represents a 3bcu cruise raven, a 3bcu torp raven, and a 2mfs hyperion all shooting the same shield extended cruiser that is webbed: http://imgur.com/sP8JJZ6

As you can see, you get better max potential damage from the turrets, but the torps give you a lot more range flexibility. Both weapons are probably better than cruise until you get outside of effective range for them and then cruise takes over. This seems fairly healthy and I'm sure you can give examples where it isn't true, but there's an awful lot where it is true.

Second - and maybe more interesting to you - there's some work being done which will impact this situation. Some of it I can't talk about now but the most important piece is that we're looking seriously at more mod interactions with missiles. A missile equivalent to tracking enhancers, for instance, would allow you the flexibility to gain more damage application and/or range. If we are able to get something like this in before too long, we would likely be re-evaluating the state of all missile systems in relation to the change and some tweaks may happen as a result.

Thanks for the post o/

CCP Rise,

You seem to be ignoring the very large drawbacks of having missiles do delayed damage and their vulnerability to firewalling in larger fleets. In order for that torpedo to hit out to those 25ish km ranges, it needs to wait 9 seconds for it to hit.

The way you paint the situation doesn't sound so bad but when you take these extra problems into consideration I think missiles need some work. It's a similar problem with drones, they look good on paper, but the real damage application is much more complicated while turrets are pretty straight forward.
SGT FUNYOUN
Elysian Space Navy - 1st Fleet
#53 - 2013-08-31 22:41:51 UTC
Onslaughtor wrote:
Lets also fix the problem where torps don't fly out to their stated range because they launch at a angle and have to accelerate. So the flight time needs a small adjustment to fix this.


I would say that, instead of using the Missile Motor to launch the missile, there should be a small launching mechanism inside the launcher that actually launches them... this way, you are not burning up fuel getting it out of the tube.

It works in reality, why not in a video game?
Cade Windstalker
#54 - 2013-08-31 23:57:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
SGT FUNYOUN wrote:
Onslaughtor wrote:
Lets also fix the problem where torps don't fly out to their stated range because they launch at a angle and have to accelerate. So the flight time needs a small adjustment to fix this.


I would say that, instead of using the Missile Motor to launch the missile, there should be a small launching mechanism inside the launcher that actually launches them... this way, you are not burning up fuel getting it out of the tube.

It works in reality, why not in a video game?


This is entirely not the issue. The missile loses flight time accelerating, as far as I know it does not lose flight time based on launch angle. Real world missiles still need to accelerate up to speed.

We can also be fairly confident that CCP are balancing missiles around their real-world flight distances not the simplified ones.

(because they have their fleet-fight in a can tools and access to the missile acceleration formula)

Edward Pierce wrote:

CCP Rise,

You seem to be ignoring the very large drawbacks of having missiles do delayed damage and their vulnerability to firewalling in larger fleets. In order for that torpedo to hit out to those 25ish km ranges, it needs to wait 9 seconds for it to hit.

The way you paint the situation doesn't sound so bad but when you take these extra problems into consideration I think missiles need some work. It's a similar problem with drones, they look good on paper, but the real damage application is much more complicated while turrets are pretty straight forward.


Not all weapon systems are going to be viable in all situations. Firewalling is definitely "a thing" but that doesn't mean that missiles should be turned into another instant-damage weapon system, nor does it mean they should be over-buffed for small gang and solo situations just to satisfy massive null-sec fights.

The two big issues with Firewalling are that the best way to deal with it is to un-group your launchers so they can't mitigate your entire volley and that a single meta smartbomb kills a torpedo in a single shot. This encourages tactics that cause lag in fights which, given that server resources are always going to be finite, is not something that should be encouraged.

Given the relative difficulty of pulling off a successful Firewall formation though I don't exactly see this as the primary driving factor in missile balance right now. If you have proof to the contrary by all means provide it.
Lugia3
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#55 - 2013-09-01 01:05:44 UTC
I still want to know why you are comparing that Raven to such a failfit Megathron.

"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik

Icarus fall
What Shall We Call It
#56 - 2013-09-01 02:56:43 UTC
Lugia3 wrote:
I still want to know why you are comparing that Raven to such a failfit Megathron.



only way to get the raven to compare favorably
Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2013-09-01 04:05:34 UTC
Soaran Sikadi wrote:
It seems like missiles have the advantage on application already, due to totally ignoring transversal. Giving them the ability to enhance their application even further seems somewhat ludicrous.


Except that: 1) transversal affects their maximum engagement range, because they have to chase the target, and 2) target speed affects their applied damage, regardless of the direction of movement, which is worse than having only transverse velocity affecting hit chance, as with guns.

Also, with all due respect, Rise's nice graph was perhaps misleading, in that it compared a blaster BS (so, the very shortest range weapons) with a Torp Raven (and Ravens have a range buff). Comparing that same Raven to a Pulse Abbadon, even using mutlifreq and not Scorch doesn't look nearly so nice for the Raven (which manages superior DPS only inside 10km, assuming no webs on the target cruiser). An Apoc, with its tracking and optimal bonuses out DPS' a torp Raven by a really silly amount, again, even not considering Scorch.

Now, once you look at landing hits on battleships it's quite different, though even here Torps don't land full damage on Apocs, etc. because of their 'small' signature size.

IMO torpedoes suffer from poor damage application compared to their long range counterparts, and poor range compared to their smaller siblings (HAMs). They should possibly get a slight buff to explosion velocity and radius, and have their velocity buffed to match HAMs (50% higher than it is now), which would give them a nice boost to their range. I'm more interested in the latter than the former - the poor damage application to 'small' and 'fast' targets wouldn't matter so much if the engagement envelope wasn't so small.
Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2013-09-01 04:18:58 UTC
Azriel X wrote:
OMG missiles getting mods? Like actual things to make them NOT crap? Did I miss the eve apocalypse or something? Is it my birthday soon?

Consider this - if actual in-game missile DPS is currently balanced, then overall missile DPS can not be allowed to increase as a result of these new modules. Thus any missile system that is currently considered by CCP to be performing well (so probably at the very least rockets, lights, RLMLs, HAMs, and cruise missiles) will be in for a nerf, unless all the new modules are low slot modules and thus can be assumed to be replacing BCUs, in which case the nerfs will be more minor. As shield ships already have real problems mounting tank and PvP utility (webs, points, etc.), this means there's a very real chance that new missile modules will cause real fitting issues for shield/missile ships.

Traditionally armour ships have had to choose between 'tank' and 'gank' (low slots), with slight competition in the mids between utility and tank (in the form of tracking mods). Shield ships got their DPS 'for free', and had competition between their tank and their utility in the mids. If missile mid modules become a thing, shield+missile ships will face competition between DPS, tank, and utility all as once.

The other thing to consider is that the balance point is likely to be with what CCP consider a 'reasonable' fit of BCUs and these new modules. That means that a long-range missile sniper (Raven, Cerberus, etc.) with next to not tank will likely have a good deal more applied DPS than planned for. Caracal gangs are already a thing, and this is likely to be a buff for them (and if it's not, and such builds are DPS neutral, it's a nerf to all other missile ships).

Overall, I'm not optimistic about new modules for missiles, but remain hopeful that they work out okay.
Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services
The Possum Lodge
#59 - 2013-09-01 13:45:05 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

...Blah stuff....

As you can see, you get better max potential damage from the turrets, but the torps give you a lot more range flexibility.


Now, take that comparison and put some real testing on it. Take all three ships and physically SHOOT a large offline POS Tower with them. (or something else large and not moving)

One thing you guys at CCP seem to like to do is look at 'paper' dps only. Occasionally you'll say something about tracking, but that doesn't actually fix the inherent problem with turrets.

If you take those 3 afore mentioned ships (maybe switch hyper to laser boat) and shoot a very large, non-moving target, you will likely see that the turrets will be on par with the cruises, or lower. This is because of the stupid 'dice roll' that they do for dmg, no matter how big or not-moving the target is, the turret will still only average about 60-70% of it's paper DPS(even after factoring in resists). Where as the missiles will do 100% of their dmg, 100% of the time on said target.

This is from a fair amount of practical use, though i could be wrong.

http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing    < Unified Inventory is NOT ready...

Jake Warbird
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#60 - 2013-09-01 14:27:38 UTC
Torps have been terrible for quite awhile. Although introducing 'tracking enhancer' type modules for missiles might mitigate it some. But then again, I'm sure you would make TDs counter missiles.