| Author |
My hopes/opinions on future balance changes |
Incinarator
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 24, 2010
Posts: 237
|  Posted: 2014-10-30 11:58
Quote:
On 2014-10-29 08:09, Pantheon wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-10-29 07:25, Forger of Destiny wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-10-27 18:52, Jim Starluck wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-10-27 10:31, DiepLuc wrote:
You may slow down the speed and raise up the signature of station missle a bit Jim. That allows player to dodge.
|
Ah, but slower missiles also have more time to turn and aim at the target. It's easier for them to overshoot if they're faster.
|
I feel confused here. If you can tweak velocity V (speed) and angular velocity W (turn rate), then radius should just be V/W.
Turn rate is a free variable here. Velocity depends on range and cooldown time (you don't want players to fire 5 missiles before their 1st one runs out of fuel). Diameter (2x radius) should be fitted to the minimum range of the missile (so dread strike missiles get radius 600/2 = 300) so they can hit stationary targets at minimum ranges when firing vertically. And this radius will probably be too large for hitting moving cruisers and even dreads, so work from there by fitting frigate missile turn radius to turn radius of a cruiser, and others can be fitted to dread turn radius.
Off the top of my head, cruiser turn radius is 20 * 57.3 / 16 = about 75 gu. Frigate Skirmish missiles having minimum firing range 150 would be hitting cruisers reliably at around 300-500 gu or so.
V, W, R, and maybe the frequency at which missiles update their turn rate in game. These parameters should govern everything from missiles to mines, so what am I missing here?
|
You haven't factored in update rates for missiles. You're acting like they can immediately turn whenever they require - they can't. They're limited to one update per second. This is sadly a world where we need to control the world simulation rates, and SmartNouns are extremely costly, which is why they're limited to one simulation per second.
In a twitch world, this can mean the difference between hitting a ship, and missing it completely.
We're looking into dice-roll based missiles so we can just apply a percentage hit rate, have other things effect that (how much PD is on active on the target, signature, etc), and make everyone much happier (including the server).
This would remove some of the cooless of missiles (being that you can intercept them, etc), but sometimes you have to trade-off with things like this (like in the case of planetary defences, which were using a ridiculous amount of CPU).
|
The irony of the fact that would be exactly the opposite of EVE's firing system isn't lost on me.
As far as intercepting the missiles goes, would it be too hard for the server to check and see if any ship gets close enough to the 'theoretical path' of the missiles to PD them? If we can't do this then pure PD ships become kind of useless and we won't be able to help each other PD. You'd also have to calculate planet interception (what about when they're halfway out?) and all other sorts of irritation. It just seems like a lot of work.
Quote:
On 2014-10-29 14:14, Zero28 wrote:
If the update per second is truly a problem, then maybe having the missiles move so fast trought those updates and force em to make such a huge turn ( like firing from the top) is maybe not the best combo, even thou it look so cool
Considering the fact that the heavier missiles shouldn't hit faster target, maybe just having the heavier missile move slower to a point were much smaller ship outruns it (dreads vs destroyers) while the not soo smaller can just out turn and/or PD effectivly in time (Dread vs Cruisers)
I gonna put the idea of even removing tracking ability of the most damaging missiles, but allow them to move at a good speed towards target, kinda like sabot rockets are But still being able to get Pded
|
I like this idea. Having missiles (notably PCMs) be cruise missiles would be pretty awesome. Seeing a swarm of missiles coming at you then would be like having three minelayer dreads laying mines at you - scary but slow.
I was going to say that PD would need a nerf to keep them from just always shooting down the missiles... but the more I think about it the more I think this is a good thing. It would not only keep missiles from being overused all the time, but it would also allow for more advanced strategies like interlacing mines in with your missiles to take up PD time.
I think a unilateral buff to missile damage if we make them this way would be acceptable as a way to offset the PD factor, and it would make PD ships much more useful. It would also help smaller ships hit larger ships much more, as the faster missiles would be much less likely to get shot down as well as getting a damage bonus.
_________________
I be rebuilding your planets!
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2014-10-30 12:04
Quote:
On 2014-10-29 08:09, Pantheon wrote:
We're looking into dice-roll based missiles so we can just apply a percentage hit rate, have other things effect that (how much PD is on active on the target, signature, etc), and make everyone much happier (including the server).
This would remove some of the cooless of missiles (being that you can intercept them, etc), but sometimes you have to trade-off with things like this (like in the case of planetary defences, which were using a ridiculous amount of CPU).
|
How would this factor in PD of other nearby ships, ECM applied to the target while a missile is in flight, or the target moving out of range of the missile while it's in flight? If it's all calculated when a missile is fired and the missile itself is just a visual effect I'm unsure how that would make everyone happier. Aside from the server anyway, because I can see how it would benefit.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Chewy Squirrel
Chief Marshal
Joined: January 27, 2003
Posts: 304
From: NYC
| Posted: 2014-10-30 12:41
Wait wait wait, you guys cannot possibly be for a roll based missile system, can you? Think about how much strategy that would remove.
- No more playing with speed/turning to dodge missiles
- No more hiding behind allies to take the damage for you as you retreat
- No more angling missiles to go behind objects/planets or to hit a certain arc.
- No more PD to missiles mid flight
- No more hiding behind planets to avoid missiles
- No more equipping a ship with light armor and maneuverability enchancements to make it able to dodge 100% of missiles.
And really, much more. Missiles would no longer feel "real." Just a lame source of guaranteed damage.
Seriously, what's next? Roll based cannons?
_________________
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2014-10-30 18:48
Quote:
On 2014-10-30 12:41, Chewy Squirrel wrote:
Seriously, what's next? Roll based cannons?
|
No, people don't complain about the tracking on those.
Missiles ultimately were designed to be the most effective against a class of ship two levels higher than it was fired from (e.g. destroyers vs. dreads). Unfortunately, getting missiles to track in such a way, and against PD in such a way, that this happens verges on the side of impossible.
So we now have a problem. These missiles which are supposed to hit something bigger have a decent chance of hitting something much smaller. This is bad, because now you have these weapons which are balanced with high damage in mind, but not to instagib little targets.
Honestly, it seems silly in retrospect, though there is an alternative solution, which would be just to vastly reduce the damage that missiles can do, and probably remove the missiles off Battle Stations and give them something else to play with. That way if on the chance a dread missile hits a destroyer, its not removing its entire hull too.
[ This Message was edited by: Enterprise on 2014-10-30 18:49 ]
_________________
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2014-10-30 19:31
Why not just revert the changes to missile tracking that caused this to begin with and take them back to how they were in 1.5x? Back when missiles were great against Dreadnoughts and Stations, unreliable against Cruisers, and could be safely dodged by Destroyers and under.
Sure Frigate missiles might not fulfill their design ideal of being able to hit Destroyers in that case, but it'd be better than missiles being able to hit almost everything like it currently is.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Zero28
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 25, 2006
Posts: 591
| Posted: 2014-10-30 19:33
Quote:
On 2014-10-30 18:48, Enterprise wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-10-30 12:41, Chewy Squirrel wrote:
Seriously, what's next? Roll based cannons?
|
No, people don't complain about the tracking on those.
Missiles ultimately were designed to be the most effective against a class of ship two levels higher than it was fired from (e.g. destroyers vs. dreads). Unfortunately, getting missiles to track in such a way, and against PD in such a way, that this happens verges on the side of impossible.
So we now have a problem. These missiles which are supposed to hit something bigger have a decent chance of hitting something much smaller. This is bad, because now you have these weapons which are balanced with high damage in mind, but not to instagib little targets.
Honestly, it seems silly in retrospect, though there is an alternative solution, which would be just to vastly reduce the damage that missiles can do, and probably remove the missiles off Battle Stations and give them something else to play with. That way if on the chance a dread missile hits a destroyer, its not removing its entire hull too.
[ This Message was edited by: Enterprise on 2014-10-30 18:49 ]
|
if the damage of the misisle gets nerfed, then we go back a few patches were missiles used to be weak and heavily spammed..well maybe less now that the Md is not the first and only dread for Vice admirals lol
i still vote for having destroyes and cruisers keep soemwhat their missiles, but dreads and station gets non tracking high damage missiles. that wya the only destroyers whos gonna dai from dread missiles will be those who stay still and fly in a straight line
_________________
19:33:51 [ZION]GothThug {C?}: "Zero..you are DS's hero"
|
Forger of Destiny
Chief Marshal
We Kick Arse
Joined: October 10, 2009
Posts: 826
| Posted: 2014-10-30 23:26
Non tracking missiles is a good suggestion, though I'd advise that changing how missiles start off from the firing ship would be good.
Part verticality of the firing direction, as implemented in that (un)popular harrier frigate patch, is good to curve missiles around planets and ships. Straight up vertical is bad for range when your missile turns so slowly. Better would be that missiles have some verticality while their horizontal component is aimed straight towards the target.
So range gets saved a lot, missiles still curve around a bit and fulfill their role as all-direction usable weapons. If turn rate and update frequency is kept low, and minimum range and velocity made high, missiles are great for hitting dreads and stations, and other slow stuff (stationary ships, ships flying straight away from you, and platforms).
Personally, I think we should stop trying to hit cruisers with frigate missiles. They're small, fast and fairly maneuverable - unless one of these is absent, cruisers will always end up being too different a class of targets compared to dreads (big) and stations (big, immobile, slow). Missile frigates should be made for hitting platforms instead of cruisers. So with frigates you have siege torpedoes for large platform clusters and missiles for platforms spread out, and possibly hard to approach within a 1kgu distance.
PD changes should be carefully suggested, as they affect not only missiles but also other targetables (fighters, bombs, pods, mines) which move much slower than missiles. Current PD system looks quite good aside from PD suggestions as noted in page 1 and 2 of this thread.
[ This Message was edited by: Forger of Destiny on 2014-10-30 23:34 ]
_________________
Forging legends and lives outside till naught remains inside.
|
Egoist
Marshal
Joined: December 16, 2012
Posts: 1
| Posted: 2014-10-31 02:49
Can we roll back to 1.703 missiles?
We can all see how the current missiles aren't working, so for now why don't we just roll back to how missiles were back in 1.703 version until a better fix comes out. At the very least those missiles could reliably reach their intended targets and most players can dodge those missiles with some effort. Also with siege torps, station spamming might not be such a huge problem. Thanks for listening! #BringBackOurMissiles
_________________
|
DiepLuc
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1187
| Posted: 2014-10-31 12:17
Remove PD and make missle less powerful, less mines per lay.
This is the simpliest solution.
_________________
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2014-10-31 17:35
Quote:
On 2014-10-31 12:17, DiepLuc wrote:
Remove PD and make missle less powerful, less mines per lay.
This is the simpliest solution.
|
This is a serious discussion, stop trolling.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
DiepLuc
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1187
| Posted: 2014-11-01 09:21
Quote:
On 2014-10-31 17:35, Talien wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-10-31 12:17, DiepLuc wrote:
Remove PD and make missle less powerful, less mines per lay.
|
This is a serious discussion, stop trolling.
|
What make you think that I'm trolling?
I'm serious.
PD gives NO prestige for the protector and also LIMIT prestige for the attacker. Do I miss any purpose it serve?
Is it a must to create a tool to postpone or stop the prestige penalty? No. Just need to earn loss prestige it by killing the one who killed.
Nevertheless, PD doesn't encourage teamwork. I don't see any escort role follow a bomber role. I only see assault, sensor or gun role fly aside bomber or supplier.
Last but not least, two problems arise: missle tracking and cpu processing.
Seems like the problems never solve completely as long as PD exists together with the idea "missle is to attack 2 ship-class higher but higher ship-class also has more PD". It's like a circle.
My opinion is simple and straight-forward. I can't think of any better idea. However, that doesn't make me a troller.
_________________
|
Incinarator
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 24, 2010
Posts: 237
| Posted: 2014-11-02 04:36
Quote:
On 2014-11-01 09:21, DiepLuc wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-10-31 17:35, Talien wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-10-31 12:17, DiepLuc wrote:
Remove PD and make missle less powerful, less mines per lay.
|
This is a serious discussion, stop trolling.
|
What make you think that I'm trolling?
I'm serious.
PD gives NO prestige for the protector and also LIMIT prestige for the attacker. Do I miss any purpose it serve?
Is it a must to create a tool to postpone or stop the prestige penalty? No. Just need to earn loss prestige it by killing the one who killed.
Nevertheless, PD doesn't encourage teamwork. I don't see any escort role follow a bomber role. I only see assault, sensor or gun role fly aside bomber or supplier.
Last but not least, two problems arise: missle tracking and cpu processing.
Seems like the problems never solve completely as long as PD exists together with the idea "missle is to attack 2 ship-class higher but higher ship-class also has more PD". It's like a circle.
My opinion is simple and straight-forward. I can't think of any better idea. However, that doesn't make me a troller.
|
Quote:
On 2014-11-01 09:21, DiepLuc wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-10-31 17:35, Talien wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-10-31 12:17, DiepLuc wrote:
Remove PD and make missle less powerful, less mines per lay.
|
This is a serious discussion, stop trolling.
|
What make you think that I'm trolling?
I'm serious.
PD gives NO prestige for the protector and also LIMIT prestige for the attacker. Do I miss any purpose it serve?
Is it a must to create a tool to postpone or stop the prestige penalty? No. Just need to earn loss prestige it by killing the one who killed.
Nevertheless, PD doesn't encourage teamwork. I don't see any escort role follow a bomber role. I only see assault, sensor or gun role fly aside bomber or supplier.
Last but not least, two problems arise: missle tracking and cpu processing.
Seems like the problems never solve completely as long as PD exists together with the idea "missle is to attack 2 ship-class higher but higher ship-class also has more PD". It's like a circle.
My opinion is simple and straight-forward. I can't think of any better idea. However, that doesn't make me a troller.
|
Prestiege given should have NO impact on the relevance of a role. ECM gave no prestiege for a VERY long time, and was mostly useful for 'stopping an enemy from getting prestiege OR getting them killed' but I would never want to see it removed. Ergo, this argument is moot.
PD does encourage teamwork, but your complaint about a lack of PD ships is valid. The reason we lack PD ships is because taking one of our combat ships and changing it for a PD isn't reasonable when there are less than ten ships per side. PD ships would be much more useful if there were 20+ player battles, or if they were given a much more powerful PD (or normal ships lost half of theirs).
I don't understand your argument about the CPU usage. Yes, missiles and PD take up CPU, but I don't see what that has to do with them being PDd and them being used against class+2 ships. Removing them entirely would indeed reduce the CPU load, but the majority of the issue is the missiles themselves, not the PD.
The reason we think you're trolling is because you're saying something so outlandish and so blatantly unproductive that we think you must just be joking.
[ This Message was edited by: Incinarator on 2014-11-02 04:40 ]
_________________
I be rebuilding your planets!
|
DiepLuc
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1187
| Posted: 2014-11-02 05:09
Quote:
On 2014-11-02 04:36, Incinarator wrote:
ECM gave no prestiege for a VERY long time, and was mostly useful for 'stopping an enemy from getting prestiege OR getting them killed' but I would never want to see it removed. Ergo, this argument is moot.
|
ECM and ECCM now both grands prestige. Unlike the relation between PD and missle, ECM user doesn't intercept ECCM user from earning prestige and vice versa.
Even many ECM helps signature negative doesn't guarantee a survival, it requires skill to manually fire. But when the number of PD = the number of missle, there is almost no chance to damage.
Quote:
On 2014-11-02 04:36, Incinarator wrote:
I don't understand your argument about the CPU usage. Yes, missiles and PD take up CPU, but I don't see what that has to do with them being PDd and them being used against class+2 ships. Removing them entirely would indeed reduce the CPU load, but the majority of the issue is the missiles themselves, not the PD.
|
I conclude from this:
Quote:
On 2014-10-29 08:09, Pantheon wrote:
This would remove some of the cooless of missiles (being that you can intercept them, etc), but sometimes you have to trade-off with things like this (like in the case of planetary defences, which were using a ridiculous amount of CPU).
|
If the issue had been the missles themselves, then missles should have been removed, not the planetary beam.
Or maybe I misunderstand what Pant's hint.
_________________
|
Incinarator
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 24, 2010
Posts: 237
| Posted: 2014-11-02 06:09
Quote:
On 2014-11-02 05:09, DiepLuc wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-11-02 04:36, Incinarator wrote:
ECM gave no prestiege for a VERY long time, and was mostly useful for 'stopping an enemy from getting prestiege OR getting them killed' but I would never want to see it removed. Ergo, this argument is moot.
|
ECM and ECCM now both grands prestige. Unlike the relation between PD and missle, ECM user doesn't intercept ECCM user from earning prestige and vice versa.
Even many ECM helps signature negative doesn't guarantee a survival, it requires skill to manually fire. But when the number of PD = the number of missle, there is almost no chance to damage.
Quote:
On 2014-11-02 04:36, Incinarator wrote:
I don't understand your argument about the CPU usage. Yes, missiles and PD take up CPU, but I don't see what that has to do with them being PDd and them being used against class+2 ships. Removing them entirely would indeed reduce the CPU load, but the majority of the issue is the missiles themselves, not the PD.
|
I conclude from this:
Quote:
On 2014-10-29 08:09, Pantheon wrote:
This would remove some of the cooless of missiles (being that you can intercept them, etc), but sometimes you have to trade-off with things like this (like in the case of planetary defences, which were using a ridiculous amount of CPU).
|
If the issue had been the missles themselves, then missles should have been removed, not the planetary beam.
Or maybe I misunderstand what Pant's hint.
|
If there was a non-explotable way to give PD prestiege, they almost certainly would give prestiege for PD. Still, you're missing the point. Prestiege gain is not an argument against something. You don't get prestiege for transporting resources, should we now make all planets have infinite resources? Yes, it's not great when you're not making prestiege for what should be a vital role, but that doesn't mean it should automatically be removed.
Yes, you misunderstood his point. It wasn't so much the missiles themselves as the planets constantly searching for targets. Imagine if the game suddenly had 500 AIs per team constantly searching for targets and you can imagine basically what was happening with the planets, because every base on every planet acted like an AI. Now imagine even a few dozen of them shooting CPU intensive missiles and you can really feel the server's pain.
[ This Message was edited by: Incinarator on 2014-11-02 06:41 ]
_________________
I be rebuilding your planets!
|
DiepLuc
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1187
| Posted: 2014-11-02 08:17
I imagine like this: 1 missle dread shooting 8 missles, each targets an escort dread with 8 PD (eccm and scanner activated).
Each missile only tracks 1 target. 8 tracking progresses.
But each escort tracks 8 missles (all of them have to keep watching any missle because they can't predict what missle does not hit). 64 tracking progresses.
Same thing happened with the old planetary system. A bomber dread was going for cloud bombing. During the 2000gu marathon, it released 5 bombs 10 times = 50 bombs. 6 def base opened like 50 x 6 = 300 tracking windows.
Tracking fighter is even worse because they stay out of PD range but the ship keeps looking for it. An agincourt launches 12 x 3 = 36 fighters. Not only server keeps the record, but also does the client have to do the job. That explains why weak computer is almost frozen when dozens of fighters are scanned. I never get trouble with cloud bombing planet because it's server side task, but I have to stay away from groups of command stations because my CPU and GPU could not tolerate.
PD removed = no more scanning mobile pods. Everyone, even the one with old computer, can enjoy the game.
Still, this is what I guess. It might be incorrect.
_________________
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
