These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[AEGIS] Missile Hitpoints

First post First post
Author
Arthur Aihaken
Kenshin Academia.
Kenshin Shogunate.
#121 - 2015-07-20 02:13:50 UTC
Poranius Fisc wrote:
No CCP response yet if the hitpoint increase helped or not yet... :/

Do you see fleets of Drakes? Then no, probably not...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#122 - 2015-07-20 03:22:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Poranius Fisc wrote:
No CCP response yet if the hitpoint increase helped or not yet... :/

Do you see fleets of Drakes? Then no, probably not...

Drakes Online will never happen again because:
1.) CCP increased ship hitpoints 50% across the board
2.) CCP nerfed resist bonus and buffed rep bonus
3.) CCP made defensive battlecruisers such as the Prophecy, Ferox, Brutix, and Cyclone actually decent, plus the Myrmidon was improved a bit (though it was already somewhat popular).

If a buff to missiles causes missile battlecruisers to become super-popular (which is ridiculous and will never happen), you'll see fleets of Prophecies, Drakes, and Cyclones along with the occasional Navy Drake, Damnation, Nighthawk, or Claymore.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#123 - 2015-07-24 05:37:22 UTC
Considering that even a pair of medium smartbombs is enough to deal with most missiles damage-wise, this change doesn't seem to affect firewalling that much.

So far the only improvement that is consistently reported as making a difference is that missiles are better in PvE now since they don't care that much about defenders. Which isn't quite that impactful on EVE universe as you can imagine.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#124 - 2015-07-24 23:57:18 UTC
Plus, the NPCs only benefit from using defenders because they sacrifice nothing to be able to mount them.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#125 - 2015-07-26 22:44:09 UTC
The flip side of the firewall coin is nerfing firewalls. One strategy used in ESO was a small group using AoE that could wipe out any opposition simply because AoE was so powerful. So Zenimax reworked AoE effects to apply to a limited number of objects within the AoE zone. At present I think each AoE pulse will hit a maximum of six objects.

Something similar could be done to smart bombs, such as dividing the pulse amongst all the targets in range, or limiting the pulse to a maximum number of targets. This would also mean that stacking ships inside smart bomb range of each other will be counterproductive.

Thus smart bombs actually become "smart" in that they will deliver a certain amount of firepower to a set of targets. This set could be determined by target range, IFF, least HP first, or some other criteria. I favour the "closest first" approach since this matches the "lore" explanation for how these things work.

As for defender missiles: here's where you can re-invent the firewall, and have defender missiles seek out enemy missiles to target, rather than only shooting down missiles targeted at the pilot's ship from a selected target. Thus activating a firewall would be as simple as turning on the defender missile system. It will launch one defender each cycle, which will auto-acquire a target if there is one, otherwise it will fly to the end of its maximum flight time and then expire.

The end result is that more missile spam will ensure that at least some missiles will get through a given sized firewall.

As far as missiles go in general, it would be nice to halve flight time across the board (meaning that Mordus ships end up with missiles that are four times faster than present, that fly for a quarter of the current flight time). If this will break things due to missiles from Mordus ships going too fast, perhaps find some other bonus for Mordus ships like 50% improved missile velocity, bonus to missile HP, missile damage resistance, explosion radius/velocity, etc.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#126 - 2015-08-02 22:15:58 UTC
I too agree that the damage flavour resistance needs to be WAAAY up - somewhere around 50% if not higher
I also feel that more missile HP will be needed
I agree that T2 missiles weren't mentioned, and should have been (I think rages and furies ought to get a hp boost)
I agree that cidadel missiles weren't mentioned and should have been
I agree that golem should get a 100% increase in missile HP as part of it's role bonus,
I think that the siege core I ought to get a 700% bonus to missile HP as part of it's siege bonus
I think the siege core II ought to get a 840% bonus to missile HP as part of it's siege bonus

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#127 - 2015-08-07 16:49:25 UTC
given that you intend to put ecm for missiles into the game, given the flight time handycap for missiles, given that using ewar with missiles negates the missile range benefits, making missiles immune to in-flight destruction is the only thing that is going to move missiles beyond anything but micro-niche pvp use.

Either make them immune to destruction or dont bother wasting coding time.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#128 - 2015-08-08 04:59:15 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
given that you intend to put ecm for missiles into the game, given the flight time handycap for missiles, given that using ewar with missiles negates the missile range benefits, making missiles immune to in-flight destruction is the only thing that is going to move missiles beyond anything but micro-niche pvp use.

Either make them immune to destruction or dont bother wasting coding time.

Nobody actually firewalls missiles specifically, and missile ships are plenty prolific and effective. The only reason regular launchers aren't being used much is because rapid launchers are overpowered.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Arthur Aihaken
Kenshin Academia.
Kenshin Shogunate.
#129 - 2015-08-08 05:57:35 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
The only reason regular launchers aren't being used much is because rapid launchers are overpowered.

Perhaps it's because they're the only ones that don't suck at present.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#130 - 2015-08-08 06:01:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
The only reason regular launchers aren't being used much is because rapid launchers are overpowered.

Perhaps it's because they're the only ones that don't suck at present.

Please, a quarter of my Sleipnir's applied DPS is from light missiles and it doesn't even get a damage bonus to those. And before you ask, no, I have not had any trouble whatsoever making the MWD + autocannons setup apply damage to targets. In fact I think this is beating applied DPS values of any battleship I ever took into a level 4 mission so far.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#131 - 2015-08-08 12:12:12 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
[quote=Arthur Aihaken]
Please, a quarter of my Sleipnir's applied DPS is from light missiles and it doesn't even get a damage bonus to those. And before you ask, no, I have not had any trouble whatsoever making the MWD + autocannons setup apply damage to targets. In fact I think this is beating applied DPS values of any battleship I ever took into a level 4 mission so far.

Now take your reload times into account in calculating that DPS, and you'll find it looks pretty different.
The real issue is how much HM's & HAM's suck. Their explosion velocity is 30% the BASE SPEED of their target hulls. That's base speed before any kind of Prop mod enters into the equation. With only about a 40% increase in range for Heavy missiles over light (Cruise is more than double the range of heavies), while HAM's are massively shorter ranged and still have bad application compared to light missiles. It's the base stats on the missiles that is the issue, primarily the base stats on the medium missiles.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#132 - 2015-08-08 15:07:06 UTC
Medium missiles are sorely underpowered--still effective as a weapon--but should be boosted and there's no excuse for their low explosion velocity, but it doesn't hurt the rapid launchers. The RLML only takes 35 seconds to reload, I can easily find time for that between fights. The RHML lasts a lot longer per fight, giving a lot of time to find a time to reload.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Arthur Aihaken
Kenshin Academia.
Kenshin Shogunate.
#133 - 2015-08-08 16:33:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Perhaps it's because they're the only ones that don't suck at present.
Please, a quarter of my Sleipnir's applied DPS is from light missiles and it doesn't even get a damage bonus to those. And before you ask, no, I have not had any trouble whatsoever making the MWD + autocannons setup apply damage to targets. In fact I think this is beating applied DPS values of any battleship I ever took into a level 4 mission so far.

Damage application for HAMs and HMs is abysmal, which is why RLMLs are the medium of choice for most. The same holds true for RHMLs which are preferred over cruise missiles and torpedoes outside of PvE. The bottom line is that heavy missiles suck; heavy assault missiles just suck less.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#134 - 2015-08-09 01:54:19 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
The bottom line is that heavy missiles suck; heavy assault missiles just suck less.

You're actually right. I haven't used heavy missiles much since the tiericide changes, but I never realized how much they had changed. They apply less than half damage to a Stabber slowboating, and far less than that to one with an afterburner. I am quite certain they were applying a lot better back when I actually used them significantly. I know small missiles are fine against cruisers, and last I checked, cruise missiles are working better than ever against battleships. Torpedoes still have terrible range and application, but they also still have more DPS than heavy neutron blasters with antimatter ammo--once again last I checked.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Arthur Aihaken
Kenshin Academia.
Kenshin Shogunate.
#135 - 2015-08-09 03:03:03 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
You're actually right. I haven't used heavy missiles much since the tiericide changes, but I never realized how much they had changed. They apply less than half damage to a Stabber slowboating, and far less than that to one with an afterburner. I am quite certain they were applying a lot better back when I actually used them significantly. I know small missiles are fine against cruisers, and last I checked, cruise missiles are working better than ever against battleships. Torpedoes still have terrible range and application, but they also still have more DPS than heavy neutron blasters with antimatter ammo--once again last I checked.

It's not just that heavy missiles were nerfed - its that they were nerfed while all other medium weapons were buffed. So the recent 5% damage rollback might seem like a lot on paper - but the damage application is so horrible that it really translates into about a 1% damage gain. Torpedoes are a mixed bag of snakes; they work fine for groups of bombers with the huge range boost but otherwise have a terrible time applying damage to anything smaller than a stationary battleship.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
#136 - 2015-08-15 22:05:58 UTC
I like this change.

Now with 100% less Troll.