Features & Ideas Discussion

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

4 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

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

Jump to first DEV post
Author
Caldari State
#1 Posted: 2013.08.28 21:18
I'm not saying missiles are bad, actually, I think that they're mostly in quite a good state. If anything, light missiles and cruise missiles are almost too good in certain situations, which brings me to my point. Look at the following table, and sorry for the crappy format.

Rockets 17 cpu 4 pwg 150 exp v 20 rad 4.5 km 8 dps
Light 24 cpu 7 pwg 170 exp v 40 rad 18.8 km 7 dps
Assault 50 cpu 113 pwg 101 exp v 125 rad 9 km 16 dps
Heavy 55 cpu 105 pwg 81 exp v 140 rad 28 km 11 dps
Torp 88 cpu 1838 71 exp v 450 rad 9 km 31 dps
Cruise 66 cpu 1513 pwg 69 exp v 330 sig 65.8 km 23 dps

This table shows the power grid and cpu requirements of t2 launchers and the tracking, range and dps characteristics of a single unbonused launcher firing t1 missiles. What I see when I look at it is a progression similar, though a little different, to what you might expect out of a line of turret weapons. In exchange for tracing characteristics and a little dps, the long range weapons here gain a significant ability to project their damage. In the case of missiles, this tradeoff is very significant. For small weapons, the range advantage is almost four to one, for mediums its three to one, and for large weapons its more than 7 to one. The big outliers here are torpedoes, both in range and application.

In most cases, range is a quality exchanged for dps and application. Torpedoes are one of the biggest outliers from this system, and currently it hobnails them into only a few extremely limited roles. In pve they find occasional use on ships like the golem, which is one of the most ideal cases for their use, but except for a few missions, the extraordinary range and application advantage outweighs the dps you gain against battleships.

What I propose is that CCP enhance the range of torpedoes slightly while keeping their velocity the same and damage the same. At the same time increase their application to be slightly better than cruise missiles, which something like a sig rad of 320 and an explosive velocity of 73. Decrease the application of cruise missiles, so they better fit the profile of the other long range missiles. Adjust the bonuses of stealth bomber accordingly so they don't become too powerful. This way, players flying missile boats like the typhoon will have a choice between short range teeth, or the ability to strike out to long ranges, just like the smaller ship classes.

Before anyone gets really crazy over this think about the following comparison.
Two ships of similar role with fairly equivalent fits. A buffer tank raven vs a buffer tanked megathron, both with ideal skills, tech 2 gear and with no implants or boosters. All EFT numbers.

[Raven, Torp raven]
Damage Control II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II

Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II
100MN Afterburner II
Stasis Webifier II
Warp Disruptor II

Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo
Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo
Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo
Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo
Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo
Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo
Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I

Large Core Defense Field Extender I
Large Core Defense Field Extender I
Large Core Defense Field Extender I

1005 dps before drones, sig 518, speed 318 ehp 103,577, range 30.4 km.

[Megathron, Mega Basic pvp]
Damage Control II
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II

Tracking Computer II
Stasis Webifier II
Warp Scrambler II
100MN Afterburner II

Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L

Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Large Trimark Armor Pump I

1047 dps before drones, sig 380, speed 356, ehp 126,725, range 4.8+14

They look pretty close on paper right? A couple of tradeoffs in ehp, mobility, sig rad, some differences in drones, etc, until you start to look at the application of damage against virtually any target. The raven simply falls right on its face, it cant even muster full dps against most comparable battleship targets eve with its web. Compare this to another short range missile boat- the HAM drake. Comparatively, its missiles do more dps than the long varieties, have better application, but even with their power, the drake has plenty out there to counter it.

I think its time for ccp to look at torpedoes, and look at missile battleships as a whole. While the changes in odyssey were mostly good, especially for cruise missiles, they need to be looked at again. Ships like the raven, with its bonus to range, using long range missiles, doesn't need the bonus to range. The native range of cruise missiles is long enough for pve activity. In pvp the range of cruise missiles doesn't count for anything, because even with their incredible application, youre too far away to use webs and often cant fit target painters because of conflicting fitting requirements or range issues. Moreover, missiles have the inherent disadvantage of having to fly to their targets, which is a big liability in long range pvp, and pvp, even with the bonus the raven currently receives to missile velocity.
Ad-Astra
#2 Posted: 2013.08.28 21:44
+1 For a very well thought out and well researched post that doesn't suggest a specific fix but rather a general problem area and uses reproducible numbers to support its points.

Bonus points for not throwing a fit and acting like this needs to be fixed immediately or the game is doomed.
Caldari State
#3 Posted: 2013.08.28 21:50  |  Edited by: Bullet Therapist
Cade Windstalker wrote:
+1 For a very well thought out and well researched post that doesn't suggest a specific fix but rather a general problem area and uses reproducible numbers to support its points.

Bonus points for not throwing a fit and acting like this needs to be fixed immediately or the game is doomed.


Thank you, I'd actually spent a couple of days thinking about this before I posted anything, and a couple of weeks prior to that play testing with torpedoes and various turrets.

There is a lot more to missiles than meets the eye, however. People should really take a look at the way their damage is calculated and think about how it is going to affect how it can be used to missile balance. In particular the damage reduction factor is something that ccp could use to make missiles stand out from guns in a good way, to really set them apart and give players a hard choice.

BTW, Cade, I see a lot of your posts on the forums here and I have much the same thoughts about you. You're posts are well thought out and you provide great references to ccp posts/activity. Thanks for the input and I hope to see more from you.
Gallente Federation
#4 Posted: 2013.08.29 01:11
+1 because of all that stuff that Cade said, and because good, constructive posts should get visibility. Not much more to add, I simply agree.
Affirmative.
#5 Posted: 2013.08.29 01:25
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.
Caldari State
#6 Posted: 2013.08.29 01:29
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 didn't realize this was an issue. I thought that the game did a calculation to determine exactly where along the flight path the actual missile was and that the graphic was a second cosmetic feature. I'll look into this and post again when I can find some information.
Northern Associates.
#7 Posted: 2013.08.29 01:30
Already liked the OP, but need to bump it so:
+1
#8 Posted: 2013.08.29 01:47
I've personally never had a problem with my torp raven even before rigor rigs and the guided missile precision skill were changed to affects torps. Your argument is well written, but in my personal experience the damage application of torps is fine. I would also point out that you have nowhere mentioned the ability of torp ravens to seamlessly switch damage types. That makes up for a perceived lack of damage application imho.
Caldari State
#9 Posted: 2013.08.29 02:16  |  Edited by: Bullet Therapist
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
I've personally never had a problem with my torp raven even before rigor rigs and the guided missile precision skill were changed to affects torps. Your argument is well written, but in my personal experience the damage application of torps is fine. I would also point out that you have nowhere mentioned the ability of torp ravens to seamlessly switch damage types. That makes up for a perceived lack of damage application imho.


I agree that the ability to switch between damage types is a powerful feature of missiles as a whole, and that there should be drawbacks to missiles for having that ability. In response I feel like the missile launcher system does have weaknesses outside of torpedoes specifically to warrant the power of selectable damage.

First, launchers are not available in tiers, as are turreted weapons. If you decide to fit out a HAM boat, that's what you're fitting it with. If you run into a conflict with other modules fitting requirements you can't sacrifice a little dps or range and fit a downgraded weapon, like 220mm Vulcan IIs in order to get that 1600mm plate, mwd, medium neut, or whatever it is that you want. You have to go the route of ancillary current routers, cpu upgrades etc. This is a good thing, it helps to differentiate missiles from turrets, and the contrast between different weapon systems is part of the lifeblood of this game.

Secondly, switching between damage types is viable in pve all the time, but in pvp it is only viable some of the time. If you're well prepared and you know what you're going to fight against, you can essentially double your effective dps by switching your damage type to the targets damage resist hole. You don't always know what you're up against though, or what that person has fit for modules, moreover it isn't always practical to switch to a different missile mid combat. Sure, you can do it, but sometimes that extra 10 seconds to switch to an ideal damage type might give your opponent the reprieve they need to beat you, so often it is better to stick with a non ideal type. Again this is a balance feature and I think its a good one to keep.

Thirdly, rigor rigs, catalyst rigs, and target painters are a luxury in pvp. Theyre not something you can always fit. Under most circumstances, they do bring your applied dps, when using torpedoes, to over what you would expect when using cruise missiles. However, when you compare an application fit torp ship, to a buffer fit or ASB fit cruise ship, is that the torp ship can eek out a little more dps, with much worse range, mobility, and utility. This is a game of tradeoffs and choices, no one ship should do it all, but in this case, I believe that the tradeoff is a little too steep.

If you want to think about how missile dps is applied, look at the dps formula. This is before resists.

"The base damage of the missile is multiplied by min(1, S/E, (S/E*Ve/Vt)^(ln(drf)/ln(5.5))"

This is taken straight from EVEuni. S is the signature radius of the target, E is the explosion radius of your missile, Ve is the explosion velocity of the missile, Vt is the velocity of the target, ln is the natural logarithm (base e log) and drf is the damage reduction factor. So whats happening here is that the game is choosing the minimum of three quantities. The reason the 1 is there is because small missiles would end up doing thousands of dps against larger ships. Everything else is self explanatory except the damage reduction factor. What it is, is a factor that prevents the damage of most missiles from too rapidly approaching zero as the target gets smaller and faster compared to the weapon. Each missile type has a damage reduction factor ranging from about 2.6 to 5.5 for the largest weapons.

Ill be back later to provide a more specific example of how cruise missiles can vastly outperform torpedoes in overall dps and projection sometimes tomorrow. Right now I have to go to work.
Ad-Astra
#10 Posted: 2013.08.29 03:08
Bullet Therapist 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 didn't realize this was an issue. I thought that the game did a calculation to determine exactly where along the flight path the actual missile was and that the graphic was a second cosmetic feature. I'll look into this and post again when I can find some information.


Actually ran into this yesterday on Eve Uni comms and was working under the same assumption (eve though I'm a Caldari pilot I use hybrids not missiles). Missiles really do navigate in space and while you're partly correct that the graphical version is just a representation of the actual game data and not 100% accurate the missile does navigate in space and the stated range is not the actual practical range.

As near as I can tell the acceleration takes somewhere between 5 and 10% off your actual applied range and the movement of your target takes a variable amount depending on target distance and missile flight path.

For reference Fozzie mentioned missile acceleration in this old thread from Retribution. More real-world testing would be required to figure out how much range is actually being lost though, and it likely depends a bit on the velocity and flight time of the missile and maybe even missile type.
#11 Posted: 2013.08.29 07:02
Thanks for the well though-out post. +1
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#12 Posted: 2013.08.29 08:24
Bullet Therapist wrote:
The raven simply falls right on its face, it cant even muster full dps against most comparable battleship targets even with its web.


-1 for being wrong.

Unless you commonly meet these ABing battleships, of course.
Caldari State
#13 Posted: 2013.08.29 10:07
Gypsio III wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
The raven simply falls right on its face, it cant even muster full dps against most comparable battleship targets even with its web.


-1 for being wrong.

Unless you commonly meet these ABing battleships, of course.


Actually the Torp raven is unable to apply full dps using a web to the following ship fits, even while theyre using a mwd, as soon as theyre scrammed, a common situation in pvp you'll have to agree.

Buffer tanked Armageddon, buffer tanked abaddon, buffer tanked apocalypse, buffer tanked raven, buffer tanked typhoon, AAR hyperion, buffer megathron, buffer dominix, buffer tempest and dual asb maelstrom. These are common fits that commonly use MWDs and often ABs. The application situation often gets worse when you start to consider rep fits, high resist fits, spider tanking fits that use ABs, etc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#14 Posted: 2013.08.29 10:53  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Bullet Therapist wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
The raven simply falls right on its face, it cant even muster full dps against most comparable battleship targets even with its web.


-1 for being wrong.

Unless you commonly meet these ABing battleships, of course.


Actually the Torp raven is unable to apply full dps using a web to the following ship fits, even while theyre using a mwd, as soon as theyre scrammed, a common situation in pvp you'll have to agree.

Buffer tanked Armageddon, buffer tanked abaddon, buffer tanked apocalypse, buffer tanked raven, buffer tanked typhoon, AAR hyperion, buffer megathron, buffer dominix, buffer tempest and dual asb maelstrom. These are common fits that commonly use MWDs and often ABs. The application situation often gets worse when you start to consider rep fits, high resist fits, spider tanking fits that use ABs, etc.


Nonsense. At least in the situation stated.

Torp explosion radius is 337.5 m and explosion velocity is 106.5 m/s. The only T1 BS with a sig smaller than 337.5 m, and hence capable of mitigating damage via sig, is an non-LSE-fit- or shield-rigged Typhoon, sig 330 m. When webbed with MWD off, none of the listed BS can move faster than 106.5 m/s, and hence none receive damage mitigation via speed. With these figures, there is clearly no damage application problem to BS.

However... you may be implicitly assuming that the hostiles have an Evasive Manoeuvres link. If so, you really need to state this. It can easily be argued, however, that the problem is not torps but that the Evasive Manoeuvres link itself, and gang links in general, are massively overpowered.

It is possible that damage can be mitigated immediately after a MWDing BS is scrammed. In this case, it loses its sig bloom immediately while its speed decays more slowly. But I don't think that this is the effect that you're referring to, and anyway it's hardly a big deal.

Edit - this isn't to say that torps don't need a bit of help. A bit more range would help, while reducing the DRF would help apply damage to small fast stuff. But in "normal" situations (i.e. disregarding links - I know that links are ubiquitous but IMO the problem is links, not the torps), there is, quite simply, no damage application problem against BS.
#15 Posted: 2013.08.29 10:54
Further to the OP, I think something like this could work:

Torpedoes ... 88 cpu / 1838 pwg / 73 exp v (+2.0) / 300 sig (-150) / 18km (+9.0) / 31 dps
Cruise Missiles ... 66 cpu / 1513 pwg / 69 exp v / 330 sig / 48km (-17.8) / 23 dps
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Limitless Inc.
#16 Posted: 2013.08.29 11:26
Bump - because I bumped a bad thread by pointing out why it was a bad thread - and this is a good thread.

Yeah - Torps. I was trying to use them or make a fit for them the other day - and we dropped the design in favour of the Mega!! Just like in your post.
Drunk 'n' Disorderly
#17 Posted: 2013.08.29 11:59  |  Edited by: Asa Shahni
torps need a range buff ...having the same range as HAMs is just ******** imo
every weapon system in the game will have his range increased the biger they are but not the torps
i dont fly torp boats personaly so i dont want an unbalanced weapon system or some kind of advantage but i believe they do need that range to be on par with the other system my mega pulses dont shoot at the same range as my heavy pulses and i think it would be fair for those missiles users ...my 10 cent
C C P Alliance
#18 Posted: 2013.08.29 13:16
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
#19 Posted: 2013.08.29 13:25
Just curious, is that an EFT Screenshot?

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Also This --> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=216699
Please stop making "afk cloak" threads, thanks in advance.
C C P Alliance
#20 Posted: 2013.08.29 13:26
4 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump