On 2013-09-10 02:11, Fluttershy wrote:
Missiles killing smaller ships is a very bad thing considering it completely goes against their role.

According to the terms, cruiser missiles should be only marginally effective against dreads, and most effective against stations, and are they? Not really.

Throw desync into the formula and missiles are even more deadly to smaller ships.

Why use cannons to pick away at a smaller enemy when you can obliterate them in one salvo?

Could I propose giving them completely terrible tracking, especially at cruiser and up, but improve the damage? Once you get to dread, the missile role seems blurred, because what is 2 grades higher than a station? And a station with missiles?
[ This Message was edited by: Kenny_Naboo on 2013-09-10 05:12 ]

On 2013-09-10 05:07, Kenny_Naboo wrote:

You're overthinking this.

Missiles already kinda have bad turn rates, and not-so-great tracking (until the devs come up with an algorithm that doesn't suck the CPU dry). And the damage is dependent on the launch platform's level.

IMO, It's just a a kind of design statement that says that missiles are meant to kill ships one or two class larger than you. If a missile can kill a dread in two salvos, it sure as hell better kill a dessie or maybe even a cruiser in one, otherwise it would make no sense.

But it has to connect first before making that kill. And dessies (desync non-withstanding) should be able to dodge missiles via fancy footwork. We can't factor desync into game balance. Some people get it, some don't. Sucks to be you if you do, but the game shouldn't be designed around the lowest common denominator.


If the driver is asleep at the wheel, or isn't looking at what's incoming and blunders into it... no amount of balancing can prevent that. I'll be damned if the game is tweaked to cater for Stupid or Lazy.

On 2013-09-10 06:21, Jim Starluck wrote:

Quote: On 2013-09-10 05:07, Kenny_Naboo wrote: You're overthinking this. Missiles already kinda have bad turn rates, and not-so-great tracking (until the devs come up with an algorithm that doesn't suck the CPU dry). And the damage is dependent on the launch platform's level. IMO, It's just a a kind of design statement that says that missiles are meant to kill ships one or two class larger than you. If a missile can kill a dread in two salvos, it sure as hell better kill a dessie or maybe even a cruiser in one, otherwise it would make no sense. But it has to connect first before making that kill. And dessies (desync non-withstanding) should be able to dodge missiles via fancy footwork. We can't factor desync into game balance. Some people get it, some don't. Sucks to be you if you do, but the game shouldn't be designed around the lowest common denominator. If the driver is asleep at the wheel, or isn't looking at what's incoming and blunders into it... no amount of balancing can prevent that. I'll be damned if the game is tweaked to cater for Stupid or Lazy.

The thing is, the "missiles are for killing big targets" was decided back when it seemed like it was virtually impossible for them to hit smaller ships. But here we are now and they're turning out to hit them reliably.

I'm not entirely sure what changed, here; whether it was the values I set for turn rate and velocity that just had the magic combination, or if other changes to the game code improved their performance. But they're way, way better at hitting small ships than I ever expected them to be, and it's quite concerning.

On 2013-09-10 06:21, Fluttershy wrote:
You could simplify the algorithm.
Instead of calculating an intercept course, just turn to point at the ship directly.
If this is done, then it can presumably be balanced more easily, perhaps basing missile turn rate on its ideal target, so ships can veer and out-turn it, or go parallel such that it can't turn fast enough without shooting past.
The current tracking system is overly complex.

As far as lag goes, you really should take desync into consideration unless you wanna hear complaints from 1/3rd of the players getting nuked even though they clearly dodged a set of missiles.
This is an online game, so lag and desync is a reality that needs to be taken seriously, as not everyone has a direct 120TB/s 0.1ms fiber optic cable bundle with security checkpoints every 2 miles and a team of engineers on 24/7 standby ensuring its well-being and peak performance leading straight into the DS server.

At the moment the missiles have a really odd tracking behavior, they CAN turn sharply but they needlessly slow down once they're just about on target, but turn faster again if the target starts to evade, so it's always a very very narrow miss with little room for error, and this narrow room for error makes hits almost guaranteed for anyone with any degree of lag.
If you have no trouble dodging missiles, your internet is probably very stable, good for you

[ This Message was edited by: Fluttershy on 2013-09-10 06:28 ]

On 2013-09-10 06:21, Fluttershy wrote:
As far as lag goes, you really should take desync into consideration unless you wanna hear complaints from 1/3rd of the players getting nuked even though they clearly dodged a set of missiles.
This is an online game, so lag and desync is a reality that needs to be taken seriously, as not everyone has a direct 120TB/s 0.1ms fiber optic cable bundle with security checkpoints every 2 miles and a team of engineers on 24/7 standby ensuring its well-being and peak performance leading straight into the DS server.

At the moment the missiles have a really odd tracking behavior, they CAN turn sharply but they needlessly slow down once they're just about on target, but turn faster again if the target starts to evade, so it's always a very very narrow miss with little room for error, and this narrow room for error makes hits almost guaranteed for anyone with any degree of lag.
If you have no trouble dodging missiles, your internet is probably very stable, good for you

On 2013-09-10 08:53, DiepLuc wrote:
The easiest way to make missle less precise is to increase their velocity. When it's too fast, players won't be able to auto-detonate them in time.

On 2013-09-10 11:18, Kenny_Naboo wrote:

Have we considered that ships now turn and accelerate slower? And factored in any improved logic in your tracking mechanism/code?

Maybe Flutter has the right idea in simply making the missile attempt to point its nose at the target instead of leading it. Do real world missiles like say... a Sidewinder attempt to lead the target or simply home in on the heat source?

On 2013-09-10 11:26, -DBS wrote:

Oh no 3 people are going to complain about it!!! A large missile should kill a small ship. Even a miss when detonated close enough should kill a small ship. Use ecm or short jump to get out of the way. Get inside the missile platforms fire range and shoot at it! What is the point of using a missile if it cant hit anything. I have been waiting for them to be accurate for years. Now they work and they are going to get nerfed? Atleast create a enh that will inprove accuracy if they are going to be limited.

On 2013-09-10 12:59, Jim Starluck wrote:
Perhaps they need some kind of maintained target lock, or are more accurate against higher-signature objects than low-sig ones.

On 2013-09-10 13:36, Fattierob wrote:

Quote: On 2013-09-10 12:59, Jim Starluck wrote: Perhaps they need some kind of maintained target lock, or are more accurate against higher-signature objects than low-sig ones.

The size of the hitbox/model and the current signature of the target reduce turn rate if smaller then some pre-determined numbers. Anti-dread missiles can have heavy penalties against scouts, frigates, etc; anti-scout missiles don't have any penality.

You're welcome.

On 2013-09-10 14:31, Fluttershy wrote:
If people want missiles that can hit smaller targets, could the missile ships have a refit with a large minimum range (like 400-600), low damage, but good tracking?

That could fulfill the"hitting stuff at range" thing that some players are wanting without it being insanely overpowered, since the damage for these could be modified to be within sane limits for its intended target.

This wouldn't make cannons pointless, as they would remain useful for ships which close in, while the interceptor missiles would be useful once a target is out of effective cannon range.

On 2013-09-10 15:17, -xTc-.xisT *XO* wrote:
What.

Here we are nerfing stuff based on speculation and opinion received from people who speculate and opinionate and 1.7 isn't even released yet.