| Author |
1.701 Missile Change Feedback |
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
|  Posted: 2013-10-22 11:59
Summary
In cruiser versus cruiser combat, pitted a Tercio Cruiser against a Strike Cruiser. The Strike Cruiser launched IT missiles from various ranges, starting at 1000 gu. The missiles hit the Tercio Cruiser more often than not.
Reproduction steps
1) Acquire Tercio Cruiser and Strike Cruiser, keep both as their stock setups
2) Set them up in open space at about 1000 gu distance while moving at speed
3) Launch IT missiles from Strike Cruiser, do not PD as Tercio Cruiser
4) Tercio Cruiser engages evasive manoeuvres
Result
Missiles accurately hit the Tercio Cruiser, with evasion only being possible after losing 40% global armour due to increased mass. Most missiles still hit despite that.
Expected result
Cruiser-class IT missiles have difficulty hitting a Tercio Cruiser at all stages of combat.
[ This Message was edited by: Bardiche on 2013-10-22 14:59 ]
_________________
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2013-10-22 12:47
Quote:
On 2013-10-22 11:59, Bardiche wrote:
Summary
In cruiser versus cruiser combat, pitted a Tercio Cruiser against a Strike Cruiser. The Strike Cruiser launched missiles from various ranges, starting at 1000 gu. The missiles hit the Tercio Cruiser more often than not.
Reproduction steps
1) Acquire Tercio Cruiser and Strike Cruiser
2) Set them up in open space at about 1000 gu distance while moving at speed
3) Launch missiles from Strike Cruiser, do not PD as Tercio Cruiser
4) Tercio Cruiser engages evasive manoeuvres
Result
Missiles accurately hit the Tercio Cruiser, with evasion only being possible after losing 40% global armour due to increased mass. Most missiles still hit despite that.
Expected result
Cruiser-class missiles have difficulty hitting a Tercio Cruiser at all stages of combat.
[ This Message was edited by: Bardiche on 2013-10-22 12:00 ]
|
Having participated in this particular battle, I can verify the above.
I was able to dodge very few missiles, and the ones I did dodge it was by mere tens of GU. It did not matter what angle of attack, speed changes, or movement changes did, it was simply inefffective.
Interestingly, I was able to dodge enough that it did not slam into my fore armor, but more often my sides and rear, suggesting that the tracking ability is only just a little too good.
Personally don't mind if the high tracking variants can hit cruisers, as they have lower damage. But the ones intended for dreads should be expected to be dodged within reason.
_________________
|
Chewy Squirrel
Chief Marshal
Joined: January 27, 2003
Posts: 304
From: NYC
| Posted: 2013-10-22 13:04
Are cruiser missiles hitting other cruisers necessarily a bad thing? I mean the minimum range was already nerfed
[ This Message was edited by: Chewy Squirrel on 2013-10-22 13:08 ]
_________________
|
DiepLuc
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1187
| Posted: 2013-10-22 14:48
Question:
Quote:
All shields: vulnerable to EMP and ELF weapons
|
EMP and ELF does not do damage. How to understand "vulnerable" here?
Quote:
- Skirmish Shields: -- Fastest regen -- Highest energy use -- Increased signature penalty
|
So far as I know, the shield regen by draining energy, so highest energy is a consequence to fastest regen. Highest signature is also a result. Now it also gets signature penalty. Is it double?
Quote:
- Chitinous Armor: -- High HP -- Low regen -- High mass -- Signature penalty
- Reflective Armor: -- High HP -- Low regen -- Low mass -- Bonus resistance to Energy damage -- Weak resistance to Kinetic damage -- Signature penalty
|
Isn't mass added by armor HP? High mass should be the consequence of high HP. How do you make high HP = low mass, Jim? Can you tell us more details about these changes?
At last, albative is going to regenerate. I appreciate it.
I recall the HP and regen of chitin in 1.6 is like heaven and hell. The armor self regeneration is nowhere near the need of player. Not only chitin but every armor does not regen as fast as you can see at shield. Without depot or supply drone, you will never wait very long. I expect to see the difference between "high-fast" and "low-slow" will be distinguishing in 1.71.
Quote:
- All missiles have much higher minimum ranges: -- Dreadnought: 600 gu
|
Ganglia maximum range is 1000gu. Are you going to extend its maximum range, Jim? Currently in 1.7, Ganglia loses to both ICC & UGTO Cannon Dread on range. It's a bit contradict for a missle ship to approach the cannon ship in order to hit it. I know that Ganglia has a small advantage thanks to cloak, but if Ganglia missle has the same range as UGTO core cannon (1200gu) then it fairer.
_________________
|
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
| Posted: 2013-10-22 14:55
DiepLuc, this thread is for missile changes primarily. I don't see a thread for the beta changes period but maybe a dev will make those later.
I have to add that the missiles in question used were IT missiles, which I was informed are Anti-Dreadnought and Anti-Station, providing sufficient damage to threaten either. Their damage are out of proportion as far as I know for cruiser versus cruiser combat.
Would appreciate feedback from Jim what the expected result should be and the intention of the missile changes.
_________________
|
Jim Starluck
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 2232
From: Cincinnati, OH
| Posted: 2013-10-22 15:08
Diep, Bard is right. If you want to make a thread all about 1.701 Armor/shield changes I'll be happy to discuss them with you there; this thread is for missiles.
As to the main topic, Bard, you're right. Cruiser-launched missiles should not be that accurate against other Cruisers. I'll be looking into adjusting their turn rate again--as that's basically the only variable I have to work with--when I get home from work.
As to why Cruiser missiles hitting Cruisers is bad, their damage output is balanced with the intention of being used against Dreadnoughts, not other Cruisers. As such they are overkill when used like that, which is why their accuracy needs adjusting.
_________________
If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger space battleship and try again.
|
Iwancoppa
Fleet Admiral
Joined: November 15, 2008
Posts: 709
| Posted: 2013-10-22 17:57
Once again we must not use 1v1 tests as conclusive evidence for balance changes. Missiles should be able to hit as well as they do now. PD , especially in group engagements... takes a significant toll on missile fire that we do not see in 1v1 engagements.
We should be doing incremental changes. If 600 is the target and 200 is now, increment at 400. Referring to min range changes.
_________________
|
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
| Posted: 2013-10-22 18:20
Quote:
On 2013-10-22 17:57, iwancoppa wrote:
Once again we must not use 1v1 tests as conclusive evidence for balance changes. Missiles should be able to hit as well as they do now. PD , especially in group engagements... takes a significant toll on missile fire that we do not see in 1v1 engagements.
|
I doubt a group engagement will show different accuracy reportings for missiles. Missiles were not meant to be used against targets of a same or smaller class, and that is why they currently do such high damage. Returning them to the model where cruisers should be able to hit cruisers also merits a return to damage being roughly equal to a torpedo. The huge advantage of missiles is already that you do not need to approach your target, you only need to mash spacebar while fleeing.
Whether point defence takes out missiles or not has no bearing on whether missiles are too accurate or not. Live gameplay is why the missiles had their firing arcs changed to begin with: The observation was that missiles were accurately hitting cruisers. This test is nothing more than to determine whether the changes had the intended effect, and they do not.
_________________
|
Iwancoppa
Fleet Admiral
Joined: November 15, 2008
Posts: 709
| Posted: 2013-10-22 19:06
Quote:
On 2013-10-22 18:20, Bardiche wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-22 17:57, iwancoppa wrote:
Once again we must not use 1v1 tests as conclusive evidence for balance changes. Missiles should be able to hit as well as they do now. PD , especially in group engagements... takes a significant toll on missile fire that we do not see in 1v1 engagements.
|
I doubt a group engagement will show different accuracy reportings for missiles. Missiles were not meant to be used against targets of a same or smaller class, and that is why they currently do such high damage. Returning them to the model where cruisers should be able to hit cruisers also merits a return to damage being roughly equal to a torpedo. The huge advantage of missiles is already that you do not need to approach your target, you only need to mash spacebar while fleeing.
Whether point defence takes out missiles or not has no bearing on whether missiles are too accurate or not. Live gameplay is why the missiles had their firing arcs changed to begin with: The observation was that missiles were accurately hitting cruisers. This test is nothing more than to determine whether the changes had the intended effect, and they do not.
|
I am trying to point out the idiocy of what is trying to be achieved. IT miisiles should hit a default armor cruiser with no pd on. Making missiles miss more is bad balancing. Cruiser missiles are not OP and no complaints have been posted yet we Are nerf nerf nerfing an already under used weapon system. Missiles need to do more damage because of PD.
using a 1v1 anecdote with no PD as a metric for missile balance is quite literally retarded. Cruiser missiles can be dodged easily and PDd easily after taking some damage. If you're so worried about missiles hitting how about using some agility enhancements. Or, maybe, a smaller ship! Gosh, how about a picket or close assault ship? Adapt and overcome instead of nerfing the underdog. There is no reason to make PDable dps only able to be applied to one vessel size effectively.
TLDR; don't nerf missiles, use pd and/or SMALLER ships.
_________________
|
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
| Posted: 2013-10-22 19:51
Quote:
using a 1v1 anecdote with no PD as a metric for missile balance is quite literally retarded. Cruiser missiles can be dodged easily and PDd easily after taking some damage. If you're so worried about missiles hitting how about using some agility enhancements. Or, maybe, a smaller ship!
|
Cruisers are meant to take out Missile Cruisers, who are meant to take out Dreadnoughts. Cruiser missiles cannot be dodged easily, that is what this test shows. Whether or not they can be PDed is not the issue, the issue is they are too accurate.
We even replicated the test with ICC dodging UGTO missiles.
Expected result
Cruiser missiles can be dodged easily by cruisers.
Result
Cruiser missiles are exceedingly hard to dodge, and impact on cruisers more often than not.
I forget, we also attempted Cruiser vs Destroyer.
Expected result
Cruiser missiles can be dodged easily by destroyers.
Result
Destroyers dodge cruiser missiles easily.
This entirely suggests only a slight adjustment to missiles are necessary to achieve the original intention.
[ This Message was edited by: Bardiche on 2013-10-22 20:01 ]
_________________
|
Chewy Squirrel
Chief Marshal
Joined: January 27, 2003
Posts: 304
From: NYC
| Posted: 2013-10-22 20:39
OK, so can we leave cruiser anti-radar missiles accurate enough to hit other cruisers? They do do half the damage of IT missiles...
_________________
|
Iwancoppa
Fleet Admiral
Joined: November 15, 2008
Posts: 709
| Posted: 2013-10-22 21:49
Quote:
On 2013-10-22 19:51, Bardiche wrote:
Quote:
using a 1v1 anecdote with no PD as a metric for missile balance is quite literally retarded. Cruiser missiles can be dodged easily and PDd easily after taking some damage. If you're so worried about missiles hitting how about using some agility enhancements. Or, maybe, a smaller ship!
|
Cruisers are meant to take out Missile Cruisers, who are meant to take out Dreadnoughts. Cruiser missiles cannot be dodged easily, that is what this test shows. Whether or not they can be PDed is not the issue, the issue is they are too accurate.
We even replicated the test with ICC dodging UGTO missiles.
Expected result
Cruiser missiles can be dodged easily by cruisers.
Result
Cruiser missiles are exceedingly hard to dodge, and impact on cruisers more often than not.
I forget, we also attempted Cruiser vs Destroyer.
Expected result
Cruiser missiles can be dodged easily by destroyers.
Result
Destroyers dodge cruiser missiles easily.
This entirely suggests only a slight adjustment to missiles are necessary to achieve the original intention.
[ This Message was edited by: Bardiche on 2013-10-22 20:01 ]
|
I really do not know how to address your dogmatic refusal to listen to or consider other points of view in your blunt attempts to nerf something that doesn't even need nerfing.
The whole point is, it's absolutely fine if cruiser missiles hit cruisers.
Next thing you'll be whining dread missiles hit dreads.
If we ever only made stuff do what it was intended to do we'd be so severely limited as a human society that we'd probably not even be around today.
I also do not know why you want to nerf an already(as of .701) bad weapons platform. It does not matter that they are 'intended' to be used against dreads. If we are only supposed to use ships against their intended targets, just code that in to the game. Shoot the intended target or no damage. It's what you're essentially pushing for. If cruisers can 'barely' dodge other cruisers, adapt and overcome instead of asking for nerfs to an already bad weapons platform.
They are not too accurate. The DPS is not sky-high and you're consistently ignoring the effect of PD. you yourself said that they 'only barely' hit, and that you could dodge them after losing some armor. Does this not highlight that, you know, Once you take a bit of fire, you can, indeed, dodge them and kill that missile cruiser? They are not overpowered and you proved it in your own topic.
Instead of just saying 'X's weapon can hit, NERF!' why don't you actually see if another cruiser can easily kill a missile cruiser in a combat situation.
Hell, why don't you even look at the bigger picture, or read your own topic.
You're considering one aspect of a 'problem' and completely disregarding others. By your logic, I could make statements like these...
*Fighters can hit scouts. Fighters are clearly not working as intended. Nerf fighters.*
Do an actual combat test with PD on with a stock missile ship vs. other stock cruisers with both types of missiles and then present your results if you're so desperate to nerf an underperforming platform in to the ground.
and missiles definately aren't the ICC primary weapon system or anything, you know, definately don't screw over one faction more then others...
_________________
|
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
| Posted: 2013-10-22 21:59
Quote:
I really do not know how to address your dogmatic refusal to listen to or consider other points of view in your blunt attempts to nerf something that doesn't even need nerfing.
|
I am not attempting to nerf anything. I am reporting to the developers whether a change achieves their intended goal. You do not need to address anything of mine, as this is feedback to developers, not to players.
Quote:
The whole point is, it's absolutely fine if cruiser missiles hit cruisers.
|
Quoting Jim:
Quote:
Cruiser-launched missiles should not be that accurate against other Cruisers.
|
Therefore it's not "absolutely fine" as they operate outside of their intended parameters.
Game mechanics working as they should has nothing to do with the human society, please avoid strawman arguments. I iterate again that I did not aim to test the effectiveness of missiles versus cruisers, only their accuracy. I am not interested in testing anything that does not require testing/is not being changed in beta.
[ This Message was edited by: Bardiche on 2013-10-22 22:03 ]
_________________
|
Altodar
2nd Rear Admiral
Joined: September 29, 2013
Posts: 25
| Posted: 2013-10-23 01:47
Since there is no "Two higher" for Dreads and Stations, perhaps their missiles should take on a whole different role entirely.
The fact that dreads and stations can't avoid eachothers missiles just means that the Missile destroyers (anti dread) and Missile cruisers (anti station) are honestly just terrible at their role since a battle station or missile dread is simply better at just that.
_________________
If you're looking for a personal ally to support you in combat, feel free to drop me a message @239068
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2013-10-23 01:57
Not necessarily. Dreadnoughts and Stations are hugely vulnerable in 1.7 and require escorts, Cruisers do not and can operate on their own just fine. A couple Missile Cruisers will be more effective than a Dreadnought or Station in many situations simply because they can maneuver far better and can reposition much easier due to their JD recharging a faster.
You also lose far less prestige if you die in a Cruiser than in a Dreadnought or Station.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
