These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Making Missiles more viable in pvp

Author
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2011-11-25 19:31:54 UTC  |  Edited by: HELLBOUNDMAN
My thought for making missiles more viable for pvp is a 3 step process

1 - buff velocity
2 - Nerf flight time
3 - balance

1 and 2 tie together. Lets say you have a 6000m/s velocity, and a 5 second flight time, giving you 30km range. Increase the velocity to 30km/s and reduce the flight time to 1 second. giving you the same range.

However, this would require some balancing in other means, since the missiles will fly much faster, they'll reach the target and hit it more directly than the current system.

So in that thought, you could reduce the explosion velocity of missiles, but i'm not sure that would be enough to balance them.

It may require the addition of a new factor, such as penetration. Which would be the ability of the missile to puncher defences and apply more damage.

Perhaps this factor would replace explosion velocity, and any skill or buff effecting exp velocity would become a pentration skill or buff.

Any other suggestion on this to balance it would be helpful for me.

However, the ultimate goal is to balance missiles better, so that they're not focused directly towards pve, and more balanced to be as effective, or at least more effective towards pvp like turrets are.
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2011-11-25 21:00:29 UTC
Increasing velocity and nerfing flight time causes desync, according to a CCP post of old. This might have changed, but given they also said "no" to a general speed boost as well, I'm inclined to believe it's still a technical limitation.

HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
However, this would require some balancing in other means, since the missiles will fly much faster, they'll reach the target and hit it more directly than the current system.


The missile's velocity has nothing to do with it's explosion velocity (i.e. applied damage).

Anyway, not supported, rockets, standard missiles, HMLs, and (arguably) HAMs and torps are reasonably well-balanced right now, so I'm opposed to any general missile buff as opposed to one focusing specifically on the missile systems that desperately need work (cruise).
SGT FUNYOUN
Elysian Space Navy - 1st Fleet
#3 - 2011-11-25 22:49:59 UTC
Making the missles fly faster and nerfing the distance sound like a good idea. But...

A Tomohawk Cruise missle in RL can fly up to Mach 5 and 100-500 km. That = 1475 m/s. So a standard class T1 Cruise missle in EVE can fly 3750 m/sec and has a max flight time of 20,000 seconds. This would = Mach 12.7 and 75,000 km of range in RL.

The missles in EVE not only replicate RL missles rather well, they are actually faster. So yeah making them faster and shorter range might be a good idea but, It might screw with the realism too much.
Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#4 - 2011-11-25 23:08:21 UTC
Quote:
A Tomohawk Cruise missle in RL

Stopped reading here. EVE is not even remotely realistic, and using RL figures to justify things is stupidity.
That being said, cruise missiles at the very least need their velocity buffed, as well as a small damage buff.
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#5 - 2011-11-25 23:15:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Hirana Yoshida
You do know that the term "Mach" refers to speed right, as in "times the speed of sound"?

Mach 5 has only ever been achieved by experimental scram/ram-jet planes, even the mighty SR-71 never went over Mach 4 or so. Modern cruise missiles are all sub-sonic with a few specialized super-sonics (mainly anti-ship gizmos).

As for OP: Would certainly make them direct competitors with gun based systems (read: PvP enabled), but why would we want that? They used to have a lot going for them by being the only "pure" damage type selection on the block, but they have been upstaged by the Winmatar patch which made projectile ammo as good as "pure" ..
Hopefully they'll get a niche at some point that can/will not be taken over by a gun platform, like being able to target specific subsystems for instance .. until them I'd advise you to train gunnery and hop on the Winmatar train as it doesn't look like it has any stops scheduled stops until next summer at the earliest.
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2011-11-25 23:45:20 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
You do know that the term "Mach" refers to speed right, as in "times the speed of sound"?

Mach 5 has only ever been achieved by experimental scram/ram-jet planes, even the mighty SR-71 never went over Mach 4 or so. Modern cruise missiles are all sub-sonic with a few specialized super-sonics (mainly anti-ship gizmos).

As for OP: Would certainly make them direct competitors with gun based systems (read: PvP enabled), but why would we want that? They used to have a lot going for them by being the only "pure" damage type selection on the block, but they have been upstaged by the Winmatar patch which made projectile ammo as good as "pure" ..
Hopefully they'll get a niche at some point that can/will not be taken over by a gun platform, like being able to target specific subsystems for instance .. until them I'd advise you to train gunnery and hop on the Winmatar train as it doesn't look like it has any stops scheduled stops until next summer at the earliest.


lol.. Yeah, the winmattar train is definitely rolling.

My thing is though that I much prefer missiles, they're easier to work with as far as ranges, they have all damage types, and torps look really pretty when they go off.

The only problem missiles seem to have is their pvp viability. While I feel missiles are somewhat viable, their flight time is what causes a lot of people to avoid them.

However, once they do hit, they hit pretty hard.
Goose99
#7 - 2011-11-25 23:57:38 UTC
SGT FUNYOUN wrote:
Making the missles fly faster and nerfing the distance sound like a good idea. But...

A Tomohawk Cruise missle in RL can fly up to Mach 5 and 100-500 km. That = 1475 m/s. So a standard class T1 Cruise missle in EVE can fly 3750 m/sec and has a max flight time of 20,000 seconds. This would = Mach 12.7 and 75,000 km of range in RL.

The missles in EVE not only replicate RL missles rather well, they are actually faster. So yeah making them faster and shorter range might be a good idea but, It might screw with the realism too much.


Tomahawk and most other "cruiser" missiles uses a jet engine, scoops air, burns oxygen, flies in the atmosphere and is subject to drag... If you want to be realistic, compare it to satellite missiles flying through vaccum. Constant acceleration, with no max velocity, remove exp radius and velocity, and vastly increase yield.Cool
Nestara Aldent
Citimatics
#8 - 2011-11-26 10:23:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Nestara Aldent
Missiles are more viable for achievement of high speed than cannon, because by keeping operating pressures low engineering a rocket is much easier.

Don't forget every rocket capable of putting a satellite to Earth orbit travels at least 7800 m/s. Achieving such speed in a cannon would present extreme strain of the barrel. Nuclear powered cannon is also unfeasible.

And talking about current technology in a game where people travel faster than speed of the light and are immortal is pointless.

By the way, your ship, it's expelled from a muzzle of a cannon or has rocket engines of some sort?

And yes, missiles need to hit in these fleet engagements where the target can last only for few seconds. That would mean redesign of some missile skills and ship bonuses.
Daedalus Arcova
The Scope
#9 - 2011-11-26 11:21:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Daedalus Arcova
Drake. Cerberus. Tengu. Stealth Bombers.

All of them are deadly in long-range fleet PVP. Their only drawback of delayed damage is that missiles struggle when operating alongside gunships when the turret dps is enough to kill targets before missiles can hit (in which case, you're in a badly composed fleet). Otherwise, a long range fleet comprised of any of these ships can be a thing of terror.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#10 - 2011-11-27 02:01:09 UTC
I do like the idea of a higher speed missile. Considering in orbit stuff is 5km/s Many things in space move much faster. As for the desync issue, I wonder if there might be a different way to do it, but still keep missiles like missiles. What might be needed is to remove missiles as an object all together in how they currently work. Maybe like a timer of sorts? The missile itself could be a slow moving visual image based similar to many of the other remote effects perhaps.

Take the target painter style thing, but instead is the glow and visual of the missile moving along it at a specific rate. At a specific time, it will hit, use some sort of calculation to determine collision time. Well, that will still be an object of sort since it needs to compare it's range to target range/distance velocity. Compare every data packet. Hit yes/no?

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#11 - 2011-11-27 02:01:19 UTC
I do like the idea of a higher speed missile. Considering in orbit stuff is 5km/s Many things in space move much faster. As for the desync issue, I wonder if there might be a different way to do it, but still keep missiles like missiles. What might be needed is to remove missiles as an object all together in how they currently work. Maybe like a timer of sorts? The missile itself could be a slow moving visual image based similar to many of the other remote effects perhaps.

Take the target painter style thing, but instead is the glow and visual of the missile moving along it at a specific rate. At a specific time, it will hit, use some sort of calculation to determine collision time. Well, that will still be an object of sort since it needs to compare it's range to target range/distance velocity. Compare every data packet. Hit yes/no?

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#12 - 2011-11-27 02:47:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
missiles are already good (almost to good IMO).
- pick the damage type
- range independent damage
- no cap consumption
- they always do damage (no missing)
- no viable counter measures (nobody uses defender missiles)

if you rise dps (or basically anything else) to match turrets they will quickly become imbalanced.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Goose99
#13 - 2011-11-27 04:30:19 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
missiles are already good (almost to good IMO).
- pick the damage type
- range independent damage
- no cap consumption
- they always do damage (no missing)
- no viable counter measures (nobody uses defender missiles)

if you rise dps (or basically anything else) to match turrets they will quickly become imbalanced.


Lol, do you play the same Eve as everyone else? And no, we balance by pvp, not pve.Roll
Gevlin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2011-11-27 08:52:20 UTC
Think it should be more of a specialty ship thing with an increase of speed and drop of flight time.

though a short range torpedo boat getting really close

Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships

Sealy
The Huskarl's
#15 - 2011-11-27 13:05:45 UTC
Ok if you "Fix the Missile problems" you will need to fix the caldari Tank Problem" The Drake the Tengu are just way over tanked and with the missiles these are killer ships.
I dont mind at the moment i fly both the drake and Tengu in PVP but i can also fly almost all other race ships upto Supercaps.

Caldari ships are shield so lightweight missiles/torps are great damage dealers when used correctly the tank of the caldari ships is amazing. this is why you see drake gangs flying around and killing everything in there path.

So lets look at it this way.

Drake
Tengu
Falcon/rook/blackbird

Do you need anything else?
Velicitia
XS Tech
#16 - 2011-11-27 15:17:40 UTC
SGT FUNYOUN wrote:
Making the missles fly faster and nerfing the distance sound like a good idea. But...

A Tomohawk Cruise missle in RL can fly up to Mach 5 and 100-500 km. That = 1475 m/s. So a standard class T1 Cruise missle in EVE can fly 3750 m/sec and has a max flight time of 20,000 milliseconds. This would = Mach 12.7 and 75,000 km of range in RL.

The missles in EVE not only replicate RL missles rather well, they are actually faster. So yeah making them faster and shorter range might be a good idea but, It might screw with the realism too much.


FYP.

gotta remember to check the units that are being used (a lot of websites pull the 20k milliseconds from the static dumps, and don't bother doing the maths). Cool

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Mibad
Interstellar Security Assistance Force
#17 - 2011-11-27 19:08:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Mibad
Missiles take time to accelerate to their max speed. Higher speed + less flight time = more acceleration required in a lower amount of time. Unless other factors are also changed, this would just nerf missile range even more, at least to my knowledge.

When you calculate your max range, you will notice your missiles never hits a target at that range. Sometimes you are 5k short sometimes more. I have confirmed this with a GM. IDK why ccp doesn't calculate the true missile range for us...

No one really talks about it, but its there Sad

I do agree they need to be more viable for pvp. *fire missiles, wait....* Oh look your target is already dead before they even get there.
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2011-11-28 04:06:37 UTC
Sealy wrote:
Ok if you "Fix the Missile problems" you will need to fix the caldari Tank Problem" The Drake the Tengu are just way over tanked and with the missiles these are killer ships.
I dont mind at the moment i fly both the drake and Tengu in PVP but i can also fly almost all other race ships upto Supercaps.

Caldari ships are shield so lightweight missiles/torps are great damage dealers when used correctly the tank of the caldari ships is amazing. this is why you see drake gangs flying around and killing everything in there path.

So lets look at it this way.

Drake
Tengu
Falcon/rook/blackbird

Do you need anything else?


The thing you're not factoring about the drake and tengu is

The drake actually has quite low dps without risking a good amount of tank

The tengu has good dps and good tank but if you're fitted for dps and tank, you're pretty much lacking in everything else.

Both of these ships can pull good dps, both can have a large tank, but never really at the same time.

Not to mention with the type of tank and dps fit you're talking about, you lack in many other aspects of pvp.

The drake has to worry about the target having a heavy enough tank to outlast the drake's dps in comparison to the drake outlasting their dps.
A hurricane can vastly out dps a drake, but can't out tank it... However, that lack of dps on the drake's part means that the hurricane may have enough time to tear down its tank.



Overall with this thread.

We can rebuild missiles to be more pvp oriented.

Increase velocity
Decrease flight time
Adjust for factor of accel time
Replace explosion velocity with accuracy.
Revamp explosion radius to also factor targets within the explosion radius instead of just factoring the size of the ship.


Missiles will now be more balanced for pvp, and since the higher velocity of the missiles means they'll better hit their target, then removing explosion velocity and replacing it with accuracy and revamped explosion radius means that it will have the same general effect on the target that it normally would.

The only difference now is missiles will be much more effective in pvp and will actually have a chance to hit those targets that are going over 3km/s.
King Rothgar
Deadly Solutions
#19 - 2011-11-28 04:57:12 UTC
Confirming drakes and tengus need a buff.Roll

[u]Fireworks and snowballs are great, but what I really want is a corpse launcher.[/u]

HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2011-11-28 07:41:24 UTC
King Rothgar wrote:
Confirming drakes and tengus need a buff.Roll


It's not a buff.

It's a matter of how they apply the dps.

they'll have the same dps, same range, same tank, same blah blah blah.

The only difference is now missiles will just hit sooner.

There are no actual changes to dps or anythingRoll
12Next page