Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
4 PagesPrevious page1234Next page
 

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

First post
Author
Caldari State
#21 - 2013-08-29 13:40:54 UTC


Cool, ty. Big smile

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.

#22 - 2013-08-29 14:14:56 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/


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?

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

C C P Alliance
#23 - 2013-08-29 15:13:48 UTC
I prob shouldn't have said anything! :D

This is in an early stage and I really don't have any details for you. As with any other balance change I can promise there will be feedback threads with all the details whenever we are close to being able to release.

@ccp_rise

#24 - 2013-08-29 15:41:32 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I prob shouldn't have said anything! :D

This is in an early stage and I really don't have any details for you. As with any other balance change I can promise there will be feedback threads with all the details whenever we are close to being able to release.


Guns have gyroes/heat sinks/magstabs and missiles have BCS. Guns have tracking enchancers/disruptors/links/computers and missiles have... BCS?

It's a reasonable hole in ship fittings to fill for Winter 1.0 or maybe Winter 1.1, if they're not ready yet.


Theory-Crafting:

Guidance Disruptor - mid slot - scriptable to reduce explosion velocity or increase explosion radius
Guidance Computer - mid slot - scriptable to boost either flight time or explosion velocity
Guidance Enhancer - low slot - smaller boost to flight time, explosion velocity, and flight speed

Explosion Radius cannot be reduced via a module, use a target painter.
Missile Velocity and Flight Time cannot be reduced via a module, use defender missiles (which shall be buffed to be useful).
#25 - 2013-08-29 15:49:38 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I prob shouldn't have said anything! :D.


Too late, it's already on reddit; Cat's out of the bag. P
Shadow Cartel
#26 - 2013-08-29 16:03:06 UTC
for the love of the jove, don't make tracking disruptors affect missiles.

If you make something that can disrupt missiles, it has to work differently, and be a different module.

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us

#27 - 2013-08-29 16:04:37 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I prob shouldn't have said anything! :D

This is in an early stage and I really don't have any details for you. As with any other balance change I can promise there will be feedback threads with all the details whenever we are close to being able to release.


While you're already saying thing like this, any chance of the acceleration rate of missiles so we can get a more accurate max range value? Big smile
Arataka Research Consortium
#28 - 2013-08-29 16:06:07 UTC
ALSO!

How 'bout fixing how terribad Phoenixes are? Pllleeaaaase?

Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries: exploring the edge of the known, advancing the state of the art. Would you like to know more?

Project.Mayhem.
#29 - 2013-08-29 16:22:52 UTC
What about firewalling? And the fact that cruise missiles have same hp as heavy missiles, while torps have more?
Of Sound Mind
#30 - 2013-08-29 16:54:16 UTC
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.
Arataka Research Consortium
#31 - 2013-08-29 17:07:49 UTC
Excepting, Soaran, that application mods are generally used on larger ships-- where missiles aren't considered competitive. Phoenixes are regarded as the worst dreadnaught by far, and any missile BC or higher seems to get laughed at. Sure, the lighter missiles are doing just fine, but at heavier levels...

Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries: exploring the edge of the known, advancing the state of the art. Would you like to know more?

Pandemic Horde
#32 - 2013-08-29 17:19:47 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/


It's posts like the OP'S that demonstrate how Eve players have the smartest, most intense community around.

It's responses like this one that demonstrate how the new crop of devs truly care about the game and it's attendant community.

Hats off to you both, you are the engines that will bring us into the next decade.
The Fourth District
#33 - 2013-08-29 17:25:03 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.


It is not so much that they are not affected by transferral as much they are affected by opponent's speed and sig at any angle of approach. In that aspect they are actually worse then turrets. With turrets with smart piloting you can reduce opponents transferral velocity relative to you, but with missiles your piloting has no effect on missiles performance except relative range if you can make your opponent chase you, or if you are forced to chase him.

Personalty I don't care much about missile range modules, but I’d love to see module that would reduce explosion radius and increase explosion velocity, those would drastically improve performance of missile ships under realistic combat circumstances.

Jessica Danikov > EVE is your real life. the rest is fantasy. caught in a corporation. no escape from banality. open up yours eyes, peer through pod good and seeeeeee. I'm just a poor pilot, I need no sympathy. because I'm easy scam, easy go, little isk, little know. anyway the solar wind blows...

Caldari State
#34 - 2013-08-29 17:53:46 UTC
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.



Liked the first post, indeed imho Torps need a little attention but I really mean little because if you fit your ship with Torps and not a single TP then most of your perceived issues come form your bad fit, because it's simply a bad fit with no TP point black.

Your Mega will use scripts to increase range or TE's

You Abby will use TE or TC too and almost every single ship you named will HAVE to fit something helping apply their dmg, why would your Torp ship not have to use any?

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#35 - 2013-08-29 18:24:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Bullet Therapist
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/


Thanks, all I really wanted to see was that its in ccp's collective head somewhere. Also, I know its hard to draw comparisons like that sometimes. This game is so apples and oranges that no matter what kind of comparison and contrast you draw its almost always going to end up a little weird. Closing up here I'd just like to say really quickly that my original post had more to do with torpedoes vs rockets and heavy assault missiles, than it did with torpedoes or torpedo ships vs other battle ships, I think the thread got derailed a little bit there.

Edit: I've thought about missile tracking enhancers before and often wondered why there weren't, and in honestly I just chalked it up to the idea that the devs want missiles to be different. That statement is very interesting. Ill be happy to see how it all pans out.

Thanks for the constructive arguments/comments guys, this is just another reason why EVE is such a great game!
Arataka Research Consortium
#36 - 2013-08-29 18:29:31 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
numbers and things!



Also! Rise. Two questions on your chart.

One; why is the sig radius indicated at 180? Most cruisers have a signature in the 120 to 140 range. Are you assuming that they're being hit with one target painter?

Additionally, why 3x BCUs vs. 2x MFSs? Is this on the assumption that most missile ships use 3 BCUs vs. 2 damage amps for other ships? If so, are we also assuming that the Blasterthron has a TE in the third low?

I'd be curious how this projection changes with an unpainted cruiser, or with a TE, if those are both relevant assumptions about your assumptions. ;)

Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries: exploring the edge of the known, advancing the state of the art. Would you like to know more?

Rote Kapelle
#37 - 2013-08-29 18:44:37 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:


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/


As long as we get some sort of Tracking Disruptor equivalent for missiles (or TD scripts that impact missiles), this sounds like a fantastic idea.
Caldari State
#38 - 2013-08-29 18:57:48 UTC
Bacchanalian wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:


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/


As long as we get some sort of Tracking Disruptor equivalent for missiles (or TD scripts that impact missiles), this sounds like a fantastic idea.


TDs affecting missiles is a terrible idea, and I'm saying this as someone who occasionally uses TDs myself. EVE does not need more ewar that has no counter, and it's not as though missiles are particularly OP as it is.
Caldari State
#39 - 2013-08-29 19:19:15 UTC
I like launch missiles. Big smile

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#40 - 2013-08-29 20:02:35 UTC
Also, for anyone that is interested, this post is in regards to apparent range and acceleration of torpedoes.

On my test raven using t1 ammunition the stated range of my torp launchers is 30km.

The furthest I was able to hit a ship was about 27km. I tested ship orientation in a number of ways and that didn't seem to have an effect.
4 PagesPrevious page1234Next page
Forum Jump