Variable reload times hurt slower missiles

[Verain]

There are five things that seem to vary with the missiles:

 

1)- The lockon time.

2)- The power.

3)- The range.

4)- The target circle.

5)- The reload time.

 

In general, the "more powerful" the missile, the:

Longer the lockon time.

Longer the range.

Smaller the target circle.

Longer the reload time.

 

This slider works in reverse too. There's no missile that is like:

"Long range, big circle, low damage, long lock on"

"Short range, big circle, short lock on" (the CC probe is the closest heree)

 

 

And I think we all mostly understand why a long range missile gets a smaller circle and a longer lockon.

 

 

But what's up with the reload time?

 

Ion and EMP are famous for really long lock on times, but why does cluster get to be so short? Why is proton so long? Concussion seems about right. Why does being able to lock on and fire quickly equate to a faster reload?

 

 

I'd say that missiles should be much more uniform in reload time. Clusters could have a slower reload for SURE. Protons and thermites, faster. And totally unrelated to this post at all, EMP and ion could be faster- they are much slower than anything else on purpose, and they don't need to be.

[Pilgrim_Grey]

I'd agree with clusters reloading too fast.

 

I might worry a little about EMP being too short since it can debuff a lot of stuff when invested in, but... it's still going to be held up in that regard due to its lock on time, etc. Is its reload time longer than concussion? If so, then I don't see any need to have it be different. Heck, making this even for every missile would make them easier to balance, I would say--its their other characteristics that should set them apart anyway.

[tunewalker]

I'd agree with clusters reloading too fast.

 

I might worry a little about EMP being too short since it can debuff a lot of stuff when invested in, but... it's still going to be held up in that regard due to its lock on time, etc. Is its reload time longer than concussion? If so, then I don't see any need to have it be different. Heck, making this even for every missile would make them easier to balance, I would say--its their other characteristics that should set them apart anyway.

 

it only debuffs 2 things when invested in and does zip for damage any way sooo... thats the advantage of it.

[Ramalina]

Well I can tell you that proton torpedos have a slow reload time because if their reload time were as short as that of concussion missiles you'd be able to chain fire them. That would be unpleasant for bombers, and for anyone who is out of missile break maneuvers.

 

My feeling is that the damage dealing heavy missiles are in a good place right now, the utility missiles could use some buffs, and that cluster missiles are doing more damage than they should for the amount of skill and effort involved (could be fixed via lock on time, reload time, or straight damage nerf none of these would need to be large changes though I think. It's slightly too easy to use for its output, not significantly overpowered.)

 

Still, this is the viewpoint of someone who uses proton torpedoes as their preferred primary missile weapon, and it took about 2 months of practice and the engine maneuvers nerf to get them (and me) into a place where they are a really good missile choice. If you don't spend a lot of time with the slower missiles they can be frustratingly difficult to use, especially if you can't toggle to a second missile choice as the Pike/Quell can.

 

I'm not sure if that's a big problem though, it rewards sticking with GSF long enough to get skilled at missile employment, and if things are balanced so that new players are as effective as old hands you run into problems with missiles either being overpowered for skilled users or simply becoming so easy to use that they're boring.

[tunewalker]

Well I can tell you that proton torpedos have a slow reload time because if their reload time were as short as that of concussion missiles you'd be able to chain fire them. That would be unpleasant for bombers, and for anyone who is out of missile break maneuvers.

 

My feeling is that the damage dealing heavy missiles are in a good place right now, the utility missiles could use some buffs, and that cluster missiles are doing more damage than they should for the amount of skill and effort involved (could be fixed via lock on time, reload time, or straight damage nerf none of these would need to be large changes though I think. It's slightly too easy to use for its output, not significantly overpowered.)

 

Still, this is the viewpoint of someone who uses proton torpedoes as their preferred primary missile weapon, and it took about 2 months of practice and the engine maneuvers nerf to get them (and me) into a place where they are a really good missile choice. If you don't spend a lot of time with the slower missiles they can be frustratingly difficult to use, especially if you can't toggle to a second missile choice as the Pike/Quell can.

 

I'm not sure if that's a big problem though, it rewards sticking with GSF long enough to get skilled at missile employment, and if things are balanced so that new players are as effective as old hands you run into problems with missiles either being overpowered for skilled users or simply becoming so easy to use that they're boring.

 

I think the problem some people have with all this is effort for Proton kill vs Effort with Slug Rail/ BLC Cluster BO/ Quads Pods builds.

 

Simply put its takes much less skill to kill with those FoTM ships then it does for a seasoned Strike pilot to land those heavy missiles on another seasoned pilot. While seasoned pillots in the others ships (Rampart on Dom, Quarell, or Flashfire) are essentially using the same level of effort to land their burst kills on each other while the effort put forth by a strike can often times be much higher.

 

Or at least thats my understanding i could be wrong.

[JeepWithGuy]

I play strike fighters (Pike/Clarion) almost exclusively. I rarely ever run into cooldown problems. I run a proton/thermite 'Gunkat' build on my Comet Breaker, and do occasionally have to wait if I'm steadily firing, but I don't consider it a problem more than a poor build choice.

 

I could see maybe slower missiles having too many detractors in general. Damage would be mitigated by reload/lock times. Distance would be compensated by reticle size, but moving too slowly as well? This essentially gives enemies a better chance to avoid. Am I missing any other balancing factors? I'm sure quantity would make a difference, but that can be potentially unlimited with certain other ships available. I'm not sure how that would balance anything but damage, but if you die before using them all, it has no effect on anything.

[Pilgrim_Grey]

Well I can tell you that proton torpedos have a slow reload time because if their reload time were as short as that of concussion missiles you'd be able to chain fire them. That would be unpleasant for bombers, and for anyone who is out of missile break maneuvers.

 

My feeling is that the damage dealing heavy missiles are in a good place right now, the utility missiles could use some buffs, and that cluster missiles are doing more damage than they should for the amount of skill and effort involved (could be fixed via lock on time, reload time, or straight damage nerf none of these would need to be large changes though I think. It's slightly too easy to use for its output, not significantly overpowered.)

 

Given how long Proton's lock on time is, I'm dubious that lowering the reload time to 5.5 seconds would really cause chain firing. We're talking 3.4 seconds to lock on, 5.5 to reload, and another 3.4 to lock on. Unless the bomber is flying in a straight line and not reacting, that's pretty much an impossibility (and they'll be dead to lasers before that).

 

Not saying some concern isn't warranted, but 11 seconds is a pretty hefty reload time and I do butt up against it at times with the utility missiles and protons.

 

Personally, I think the reload time should be normed for each at around 5.5 or 6, as the other capabilities of the missiles are still going to separate them. Clusters will be more balanced with a longer reload, Protons, etc., will still be weakened by their long lock ons and small targeting cones, etc. I'd settle for just lengthening clusters and lowering the big ones, but it still seems like this would be balanced. It's not like missiles are "derp, derp" easy to use, other than clusters.

[Verain]

I play strike fighters (Pike/Clarion) almost exclusively. I rarely ever run into cooldown problems.

 

I believe that these slower reloading missiles are making you pay a penalty that you really shouldn't have to. Protons are devastating, but they pay for that with their long lock on time. The huge reload time is just extra punishment.

 

Meanwhile, clusters can't stop won't stop!

 

I could see maybe slower missiles having too many detractors in general. Damage would be mitigated by reload/lock times. Distance would be compensated by reticle size, but moving too slowly as well? This essentially gives enemies a better chance to avoid.

 

You've nailed the differences. Concussion is around 1100ish and ignores armor. Clusters are like 840 and lockon super ludicrous quick, but have 5k range. Thermite and proton both seem to be "worth" about 1600 worth of damage, though they don't just DO that much, they have tricks, and have longer reload times.

 

 

Am I missing any other balancing factors?

 

Clusters and concussions are the only ones that are worth using if you have the choice, in general. I just don't see why everything doesn't have the concussion cooldown.

 

The actual damage per lockon moment isn't that far off on these missiles, and it's MUCH easier to land a short lockon than a long one. Why ALSO have a huge reload on just SOME missiles?

[Marstrike]

These points are all valid but i really hope that they address bombers and mine's first. It's still not right imo.

[Pilgrim_Grey]

These points are all valid but i really hope that they address bombers and mine's first. It's still not right imo.

 

There really isn't any reason they can't do both, nor is there a reason to drop everything just to focus on bombers. They aren't the only issue in game, and actually, this one is a fairly easy, no brainer change, while bombers are a lot more ticklish.

[Ramalina]

I believe that these slower reloading missiles are making you pay a penalty that you really shouldn't have to. Protons are devastating, but they pay for that with their long lock on time. The huge reload time is just extra punishment.

 

Meanwhile, clusters can't stop won't stop!

 

 

 

You've nailed the differences. Concussion is around 1100ish and ignores armor. Clusters are like 840 and lockon super ludicrous quick, but have 5k range. Thermite and proton both seem to be "worth" about 1600 worth of damage, though they don't just DO that much, they have tricks, and have longer reload times.

 

 

 

 

Clusters and concussions are the only ones that are worth using if you have the choice, in general. I just don't see why everything doesn't have the concussion cooldown.

 

The actual damage per lockon moment isn't that far off on these missiles, and it's MUCH easier to land a short lockon than a long one. Why ALSO have a huge reload on just SOME missiles?

 

Personally I find that protons are the most worth having. They get kills very reliably once you've learned to use them. It's problematic using them on a scout that's paying attention, but other than that I'd rate them as the best missile weapon.

 

Another note, is that as far as the spammable nature of Clusters goes, a lot of that is a matter of having them on type 2 scouts where the drawback of short range turns out not to be a drawback at all. Clusters on a strike aren't really all that spammy because the defender has a reasonable shot at creating distance if they want to.

 

Hmm, I was all set to disagree and here I am pretty much implying that reload normalization might be a good thing.

 

Ok, fine. Whatever. Consider me signed on.

[Verain]

These points are all valid but i really hope that they address bombers and mine's first. It's still not right imo.

 

If protons, thermites, ions, and EMP had a real reload time instead of a ludicrously long one, which ship class would be most hurt by this?

 

The one that has to waddle over to a node, and can't break missiles during that?

 

 

Right now, launching a proton at a bomber is a joke. He takes some damage, sure, but he's got more where that came from. Because you can't reload the proton, you have to go into melee and hit him, and again, he's got plenty of HP.

 

 

 

If these things had rapid reloads, then we'd see that a bomber would worry about crossing a vast space without an escort or a plan. A scout wouldn't just casually immune your missile and know that you were no threat.

 

 

 

 

But no, this isn't a bomber cry thread, and please don't make it that. There's already a pending bomber nerf on the PTR.

[Nemarus]

I support this. I feel like Concussions have a good reload time, and would like to see normalization to that level.

 

That being said, Interdiction Missile is going to be pretty powerful--right now its awesomeness is really only bounded by its 8-second cooldown.

[Altheran]

Some missiles may be more potent than others right now, than some need changes, but I think the CD are mostly good as they are now.

 

I know that the class of ships that would probably be impoved the most by this proposal would be Strikes like the Pike and Clarion which are lagging behind in terms of scores and performances, but I think they're exactly where they should be at : it's normal to lag a bit behind when chosing a ship that excels at nothing.

However it's true that sometimes the difference in potential with other classes is baffling, but I think that's it's because the others are too formidable.

 

I also know that it would help such ships as Spearpoint and Cometbreaker which are also lagging without particular reason. But I'm not fond of the idea of a GSF where all ships are upgraded to get the insane burst capacity of a Flashfire or Quarrel. I'd rather have one where everyone is tuned down at Starguard level.

 

Also note that a Starguard would likely get no help from this change unless they take Proton... which would probably make it the worst ship in game, and that would mostly be beyond help.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Altheran

[Pilgrim_Grey]

Also note that a Starguard would likely get no help from this change unless they take Proton... which would probably make it the worst ship in game, and that would mostly be beyond help.

 

I think you're making more of this proposed change than is needed--it's about no one component being weaker than it needs to be due to reload. For the most part, missiles are pretty well-balanced by their lockon, range, and targeting angle (sorry, forgetting the in-game name for that last one... derp). Reload times aren't really a needed balance point and are actually a point of imbalance for missiles at the moment. Clusters reload far too fast and the longer reload missiles take far longer than they really need to. An added advantage to this is it actually makes it easier for the devs to balance the missiles and how they function.

 

Starguards are hardly going to be weakened by this, either, as they'll just have access to equal tools where needed. There are pros and cons to the type 1 and 2 strike fighters, and an adjustment to how the utility missiles and/or protons is not going to make them obsolete. The other variations in their loadouts is what really makes them different.

[Altheran]

I think you're making more of this proposed change than is needed--it's about no one component being weaker than it needs to be due to reload. For the most part, missiles are pretty well-balanced by their lockon, range, and targeting angle (sorry, forgetting the in-game name for that last one... derp). Reload times aren't really a needed balance point and are actually a point of imbalance for missiles at the moment. Clusters reload far too fast and the longer reload missiles take far longer than they really need to. An added advantage to this is it actually makes it easier for the devs to balance the missiles and how they function.

 

Starguards are hardly going to be weakened by this, either, as they'll just have access to equal tools where needed. There are pros and cons to the type 1 and 2 strike fighters, and an adjustment to how the utility missiles and/or protons is not going to make them obsolete. The other variations in their loadouts is what really makes them different.

The point was not they'd be weakened, but kept approximately unchanged (if clusters or concussion) while others get buffed significantly because they use those missiles with longer reload time.

 

But whatever, I disagree strongly with the premise that the long reload time causes imbalance. Proton is not weak compared to Concussion. With the same reload time, it would literally bring havoc.

 

Now, I may be inclined to admit that some missiles are lackluster, or that some may be a bit too easy to use or too limited, but that's proper to these missiles. Some are already fine with their current reload time, and altering them would probably make them stronger than they ought to be. That's why I'm opposed to a normalization.

[Lyshar]

I'm fine with variable reload times. What's wrong with weaker missiles being more easily reloaded? You just do a more similar damage over time.

 

If you change the reload times you should also change the ammo pools. Those are balanced out with the rest of their properties. If your ship isn't destroyed and no one refills your ammo you'll only have your primary weapons, the reload time in combination with the ammo pool balances this out more.

 

And if everyone ends up with huge range & huge damage missiles at spamming supply that will unbalance everything. Beware my Clarion if that happens, which is even without an increase in ammo pool.

 

Identical reload times may sound fair, but I think it's unbalancing.

[mr_sim]

As the self proclaimed expert on proton torpedos I will say that reducing the CD on protorps would increase my deadlyness by a significant margin.

[Altheran]

As the self proclaimed expert on proton torpedos I will say that reducing the CD on protorps would increase my deadlyness by a significant margin.

Who will hold back our self refilling Clarion (or Imperius) from wrecking havoc ?

 

Proton Torpedoes, special sales, everything shall disappear.

No pay back

[mr_sim]

Who will hold back our self refilling Clarion (or Imperius) from wrecking havoc ?

 

Proton Torpedoes, special sales, everything shall disappear.

No pay back

 

I don't think I've ever shot my Quell dry on protorps I have the Droid for reload time but he also gives more capacity, I do not choose magazine increase in the proton tree and I don't choose the big magazine either though.

[Altheran]

I don't think I've ever shot my Quell dry on protorps I have the Droid for reload time but he also gives more capacity, I do not choose magazine increase in the proton tree and I don't choose the big magazine either though.

 

Personally, I run out of Proton on my Pike so often that I force myself to rely on my Concussion.

 

I have a screenshot of one of those match in the record thread, the 29 kill streak on a Pike in TDM, and and the only reason I have missiles in stock was a spawned refill.

 

EDIT : I looked at the screenshot with detailed statistics of that match (not uploaded), and I launched 20 missiles. So I wasn't at the "missile bankrupt" point, but not far. I think my Proton was T4 at that time.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Altheran

[Pilgrim_Grey]

I'm fine with variable reload times. What's wrong with weaker missiles being more easily reloaded? You just do a more similar damage over time...

 

Identical reload times may sound fair, but I think it's unbalancing.

 

Two things I wanted to hit on in that post. You're not really responding to anything that was brought up in the OP or the thread. Weaker missiles have a significantly easier lock on, arc, and reload time, and the point is that reload times are not implemented in a way that makes sense, given those. And actually... weaker missiles aren't easily reloaded... the utility missiles are a much weaker at damage but have really long reload times, so it's not a consistent thing.

 

I've never once heard anyone say concussion missiles are unbalanced, other than the odd complaint that they have a tier 5 option to slow and drain engine energy (and that's because ion missiles stink so much). All the missiles have a lot of balancing points that don't require having variable load times at all. They're limited by their arc and lock on time, as would EMP, etc.

 

And if there are still some protests about 5.5 seconds being the norm, I hope most can agree Proton, Thermite, EMP, and Ion don't need to be so high. 7 seconds still seems high to me, but could be better than we have now. No matter what, there's no good reason for reload times to be so long when there are so many other balance points.

 

I also would argue strenuously that Clusters have too short of a lock on time. They're still going to have pros and cons that balance concussions if they had an equal reload time.

 

As the self proclaimed expert on proton torpedos I will say that reducing the CD on protorps would increase my deadlyness by a significant margin.

 

Okay. I like Protons and do get them to land fairly often, but their reloading faster isn't going to help much with that... the small arc (combined with inevitable server lag) and long lock on times are the main things that slow up Protons. Good on you if you're deadly with them, but the only way a faster reload time is going to make you much more deadly is if you're fighting a bunch of derpers that fly in a straight line to the sat. Even decent Bomber pilots shouldn't be easily hit by two in a row if the reload time was faster.

[mr_sim]

 

Okay. I like Protons and do get them to land fairly often, but their reloading faster isn't going to help much with that... the small arc (combined with inevitable server lag) and long lock on times are the main things that slow up Protons. Good on you if you're deadly with them, but the only way a faster reload time is going to make you much more deadly is if you're fighting a bunch of derpers that fly in a straight line to the sat. Even decent Bomber pilots shouldn't be easily hit by two in a row if the reload time was faster.

 

Protorps are their own game, it is very frequent in fact that I find opportunity to get a second lock and get the second torpedo off. A good example is BR GS they use their BR to escape my first lock attempt but 1100m lock range is hard to stay out of and they are out of tricks eat the first protorp still try to hold the range open and I drop another one. I do the same thing to scouts too.

 

Really all I'm saying is reduced CD on protorps will make a big difference for people like myself who already use protorps to amazing effect. They already work for me as is, I'm just saying reduce the CD at your own risk

[Verain]

Protorps are their own game, it is very frequent in fact that I find opportunity to get a second lock and get the second torpedo off.

 

Definitely. But the payoff is not that amazing for the work involved.

 

A good example is BR GS they use their BR to escape my first lock attempt but 1100m lock range is hard to stay out of and they are out of tricks eat the first protorp still try to hold the range open and I drop another one.

 

But that's an unmastered gunship, and honestly, one playing poorly. If I'm near an object to LOS, I will NEVER get locked by proton. On my gunship, I have barrel roll to an object, I have distortion field, and then I have "boost out of the cone".

 

I do the same thing to scouts too.

 

The scouts that get torped are awful and I don't want the game balanced around that. There's much easier ways to kill those scouts!

 

 

 

 

 

I would be shocked if a reduced cooldown made protorps actually that great. If you're seriously rocking out with them- seriously dominating- then I'd say you are probably STILL undercompensated for your skill level.

[Lyshar]

Two things I wanted to hit on in that post. You're not really responding to anything that was brought up in the OP or the thread. Weaker missiles have a significantly easier lock on, arc, and reload time, and the point is that reload times are not implemented in a way that makes sense, given those. And actually... weaker missiles aren't easily reloaded... the utility missiles are a much weaker at damage but have really long reload times, so it's not a consistent thing.

 

I'm saying the reload time is part of the balance. It's part of the reason why some people pick one missile over another. If it's all the same some will go for something that sounds better but they can't handle themselves. When I started I went for faster missiles with more safety and faster reload, only after a while I went to heavier hitters.

 

But if you want a team of newbies with proton torpedoes, not even getting how to fire the blasters with any chance to hit. I prefer if I only have to explain them that space=boost (preferably not even that), definitely not that the massive missiles are probably above their skill for now. A difference in reload time can help there as well.

 

You say utility are weaker, in damage sure, but they are utility for a reason. By having different reload times you avoid having everyone and their grandmother on her way to Coruscant constantly being forced to crash into asteroids (so you get more mercy killings instead of the dreaded "I'm gonna craaaaaash... slowly").

 

I think the devs did good in giving different reload times. I'm not saying the differences in them are perfect, just that differences are good. There are even more balance points than brought up in the original post, devs obviously know this, ship types for one, ship upgrade options, possible combinations in said upgrades. I don't hold the illusion that I know every factor, just that there is more than balancing 3 things and the rest not being needed.

 

If it had been me, I would probably have put in a trade-off on some of the tier 4 & 5 upgrades on systems. Allow people to choose 1 upgrade or another arguably better upgrade with a downside. Like a "You want this effect on your missile, then it'll be more dangerous to handle, add a second to reload due to a safety protocol". That seems to also reduce your issues and if they did that they could lower the default reload time on those missiles.

 

I think for non-upgraded missiles a lower reload time would help overall, but people should still be stimulated to upgrade. Give newer people a bigger fighting chance so people may want to keep playing, in that regard most upgrades should come with a cost if they did this.

 

I don't see how this opinion isn't valid for the discussion, unless you just want everyone to agree, but that will never happen if there's no room for compromise. Besides, I wouldn't expect anything to change when people don't want to compromise their ideals.