Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ezra Tair
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 22:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
Earlier this week (like after/during the US holiday memorial day) I noticed that TDs had a bonus to 'explosion velocity' now they do not? Am I crazy, or did CCP change it with one of the recent smaller patches? |
Linda Shadowborn
Dark Steel Industries
135
|
Posted - 2012.06.02 18:21:00 -
[2] - Quote
you are not crazy, they first planned to add that but then i think it was some probs with it and it was removed prior to hitting tranq, but some text remained |
Ezra Tair
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 00:28:00 -
[3] - Quote
Well this was on Tranquility. Should have screen shot it. Only way to tell was to look at the bonus, the tracking distruption matched the bonus to explosion velocity. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 03:07:00 -
[4] - Quote
Linda Shadowborn wrote:you are not crazy, they first planned to add that but then i think it was some probs with it and it was removed prior to hitting tranq, but some text remained
Maybe they realized how bad an idea it was? How could a module designed to effect a turrets tracking have any effect on how fast the explosion is from a missile???
How about some shield boosters that repair armor? :-) |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
34
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 10:09:00 -
[5] - Quote
IIshira wrote:Maybe they realized how bad an idea it was? How could a module designed to effect a turrets tracking have any effect on how fast the explosion is from a missile???
How about some shield boosters that repair armor? :-)
How about some game balance where you can hamper missile effectiveness just like you can with turrets?
|
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
95
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 12:05:00 -
[6] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:IIshira wrote:Maybe they realized how bad an idea it was? How could a module designed to effect a turrets tracking have any effect on how fast the explosion is from a missile???
How about some shield boosters that repair armor? :-) How about some game balance where you can hamper missile effectiveness just like you can with turrets?
The game balance already exist but you don't care about: speed
You can't outrun missiles but the faster you go the less dmg they do to you. And if something, missiles were the most balanced weapon system IG, no need to nerf/buff except HAM's and Cruise in need of tweaks.
Once again, players feedback being useless bring then your TDs againt missiles and break something that didn't need fixing...CCP and their understanding of their own game is just staggering. |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
34
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 12:24:00 -
[7] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Vilnius Zar wrote:IIshira wrote:Maybe they realized how bad an idea it was? How could a module designed to effect a turrets tracking have any effect on how fast the explosion is from a missile???
How about some shield boosters that repair armor? :-) How about some game balance where you can hamper missile effectiveness just like you can with turrets? The game balance already exist but you don't care about: speed You can't outrun missiles but the faster you go the less dmg they do to you. And if something, missiles were the most balanced weapon system IG, no need to nerf/buff except HAM's and Cruise in need of tweaks. Once again, players feedback being useless bring then your TDs againt missiles and break something that didn't need fixing...CCP and their understanding of their own game is just staggering.
And you can use angular velocity and range to affect turret damage, doesn't mean tracking disruptors shouldn't exist. So you're just very much whining about a change that might affect your playstyle. |
Wuxi Wuxilla
The Tuskers
24
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 12:56:00 -
[8] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Vilnius Zar wrote:IIshira wrote:Maybe they realized how bad an idea it was? How could a module designed to effect a turrets tracking have any effect on how fast the explosion is from a missile???
How about some shield boosters that repair armor? :-) How about some game balance where you can hamper missile effectiveness just like you can with turrets? The game balance already exist but you don't care about: speed You can't outrun missiles but the faster you go the less dmg they do to you. And if something, missiles were the most balanced weapon system IG, no need to nerf/buff except HAM's and Cruise in need of tweaks. Once again, players feedback being useless bring then your TDs againt missiles and break something that didn't need fixing...CCP and their understanding of their own game is just staggering. And you can use angular velocity and range to affect turret damage, doesn't mean tracking disruptors shouldn't exist. So you're just very much whining about a change that might affect your playstyle.
But you can use midslot/lowslot and rigs to buff turret tracking/range. Missiles only have rigs to counteract the anti-missile TD, give missile ships a explosion velocity script for the tracking computer, then you can maybe buff TDs (though it would still make them ridiculously overpowered) |
Noisrevbus
127
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 13:16:00 -
[9] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:IIshira wrote:Maybe they realized how bad an idea it was? How could a module designed to effect a turrets tracking have any effect on how fast the explosion is from a missile???
How about some shield boosters that repair armor? :-) How about some game balance where you can hamper missile effectiveness just like you can with turrets?
You mean the game balance where they would also introduce missile accuracy modifiers akin to tracking enhancers and computers, effectively rendering all missile platforms able to throw the curve and raise their damage application on smaller ships - enabling things like Torp Ravens and scaling their damage up on anything from frigs to BC?
Yes, that is definately a 'balance' we'd all love to see... cough.
This ridiculous approach is just another completely backward attempt at trying to deal with a problem that doesn't exist.
The HML (Drake) is only considered overpowered in an element or paradigm that the developers themselves continue to feed and nurture; the blob.
It's a reliable damage projection on a low-cost, immobile and high-buffer platform, that completely rely on other ships to: maintain hostiles on grid, maintain hostiles in range, stay alive and pin down to apply accuracy. It's only powerful when piling numbers exceed intricate execution of all ship roles (or active modules), and/or exceeding the invididual or collective ability to afford extending numbers.
"Big awesome fights" is the problem, no self-deceptive notion of 'balance'.
They can continue to introduce these self-deceptive changes that will only serve to removing balance where it exist, yet not do anything to deal with the percieved imbalance.
This was the case with ECM, still is, and will be the same with HML. They do not yet understand the concept of scale impact.
In short, this change will never be effective on a large scale - only on a small scale - or more importantly (applying the scale-perspective of Malcanis' Law) only to the benefit of a large group when dealing with a small groups (more Drakes, more numbers; feeding the blob, consolidation of forces in the game and AFK empires). |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
34
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 13:30:00 -
[10] - Quote
You're trying too hard.
The ease of use compared to turrets balances that all out. Amat victoria curam. |
|
Lunkwill Khashour
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
100
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 13:35:00 -
[11] - Quote
You're not crazy and it's a bad solution to the HML problem. |
Noisrevbus
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 13:57:00 -
[12] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:You're trying too hard.
The ease of use compared to turrets balances that all out.
The problem with your assessment is that complexity can be used both ways.
The issue is that you, and large portions of the community with you, do not have a grasp of the benefitial side of that complexity. Too few groups out there are 'good' at countering dumbfire missiles or being 'good' at using complex tracking components to their advantage. This is why things like Titan/Moros-blapping, Deimos-use or Talos-blapping (note: all Gallente) come as a complete surprise to you.
This is also why groups like PL and Genos continue to thrive on their respective scales, while they too become fewer and fewer while larger and more condensed. Those groups also have no larger issues dealing with 'Drakes'. While the popular solution to counter that with "more numbers" continue to grow; the solution that embodies the HML 'imbalance'. Numbers.
When dumbing down the game, the community inadvertently grow dumber. |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
34
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 14:05:00 -
[13] - Quote
you're talking about dumbing down the game, and you defend missile use?
Right.
I'll say again, the fact that you don't have tracking issues up close and falloff issues at range makes up for any and all downsides there may be to missiles. Are they useful in fleets that mostly consist of turret users? no but that is the only downside they really have.
Amat victoria curam. |
FlinchingNinja Kishunuba
Bellum Esca
98
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 14:08:00 -
[14] - Quote
...or they could fix defender missiles. |
Noisrevbus
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 14:21:00 -
[15] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:you're talking about dumbing down the game, and you defend missile use?
Right.
I'll say again, the fact that you don't have tracking issues up close, lost dps due to ammo/range/falloff issues makes up for any and all downsides there may be to missiles. Are they useful in fleets that mostly consist of turret users? no but that is the only downside they really have.
Once again, i don't think you understand the mechanics.
Any reliable mechanic also have reliable counters, counters you can only do so much to deal with. Missiles never have perfect transversal mitigation but they also never have non-existant mitigation. Any relative movement will mitigate the damage of a missile (here lie the strength of sig-speed, which for example make 100mn setups popular or made the budding AHAC trend popular; something else that i bet someone like you would like to 'nerf' because you don't understand it's concept or how to deal with it); whereas on turrets you can adapt relative movement to make larger guns score hits on smaller things: things you are not 'meant' to hit (rfr. you are meant to hit it, but i'm applying a dumbed down logic here to illustrate the point for you).
These are components that have popularized with the "blapping" trend. Though they have always been around and good groups have always exploited them. It's what made the Vaga so powerful in the nano- and post-nano eras. It's what make the Talos powerful in small-scale settings now. The Talos have no larger issues dealing even with frigates, two magnitude below their turret resolution. It comes from the fact that a good Talos pilot will understand the "tracking issues" much better than your random Frigate pilot. He knows that they come with the upside of always having a chance to score hits - and when they do targets will feel the full brunt.
It's essentially the same chance-based function some people complain about when it comes to ECM.
I keep comming back to the same examples in various context because they all relate.
|
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
34
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 14:34:00 -
[16] - Quote
I like your condescending tone, fun fact is that it's unwarranted as I understand game mechanics just fine. I also understand that in fleet situations where the majority in that fleet uses turrets missile have issues due to flight time. Outside that missiles perform JUST FINE. Be it in PVE or in solo/small scale PVP. I'll concede that cruise could use a buff (while HML needs a nerf).
Ofcourse they use different mechanics and there's some pros and cons but the ease of use combined with no specific way to hamper their effectiveness (outside speeding up, which also affects turrets as long as it's no too much radial), with turrets it's about tracking, loss of dps due to range ammo and falloff issues. Turrets can be shut down completely by TD's, where's the missile equivalent? Amat victoria curam. |
ValentinaDLM
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
503
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 14:37:00 -
[17] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:IIshira wrote:Maybe they realized how bad an idea it was? How could a module designed to effect a turrets tracking have any effect on how fast the explosion is from a missile???
How about some shield boosters that repair armor? :-) How about some game balance where you can hamper missile effectiveness just like you can with turrets? How about tracking enhancers and computers making my explosion velocity better and my range greater? There is no balance when there is no opposing mod, for damps we have sebos and Sig amps, for ecm we have sensor arrays and eccm, for tds we have tracking comps and enhancers but those DO NOT do anything for explosion velocity, the only way balance can be had is if ccp implements the Td buff, my bomber better be able to fit tracking enhancers and target painters and alpha frigs....do we really want that?
P.s. yes, I also believe we need modules that reduce Sig radius to counter target painters too. |
Noisrevbus
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 15:05:00 -
[18] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote: Ofcourse they use different mechanics and there's some pros and cons but the ease of use combined with no specific way to hamper their effectiveness (outside speeding up, which also affects turrets as long as it's no too much radial), with turrets it's about tracking, loss of dps due to range ammo and falloff issues. Turrets can be shut down completely by TD's, where's the missile equivalent?
You get the condescending tone because you are being defiant and unobservant. Your latest reply keep repeating that.
In your quote for example you change your mind twice. First you claim to understand that both systems have benefits and drawbacks, something you previously claimed they did not, which started this discussion. Next you turn back to your initial course and claim TD "completely shut down turrets". It's still a chance based mechanic. Let's play with very simplistic figures and say that you apply enough TD to push a turret a full magnitude up. Then that turret will only hit as much as the larger class of turrets will. Yet they can hit targets under their class equivalent.
If you understood the concept of chance and transversal, there's no way you could reach such a conclusion even if you tried to sum it up or simplify because you end up on the wrong side of the simplification.
That you bring up outside factors like Time-to-arrival on missiles or optimal-falloff ranges of turrets also go to show that you still don't understand what we're talking about here. You are only making the discussion more complicated for yourself by adding peripheral factors. Look again at what i've told you so far instead.
Let's add yet another example:
Why was the Crow the most popular frigate during the nano era?
Missiles only factor in the movement of the target, not your own. While the Vaga, a turret platform, became popular as it could close transversal - the Crow stood out in a class that had issues with putting an impeding transversal on themselves.
Do you see the balance between the simplistic missiles and the complicated turrets now? |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
34
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 15:24:00 -
[19] - Quote
- Show me where I stated that missiles have no drawbacks.
- apply 2 TD's with tracking script on any turret ship and see how well it does against a same size target in a short-medium range scenario when there's a decent amount of angular going on. Result, it won't hit for any useful amount at all. Would you try to shoot a smaller target you're left with a 1% wrecking chance - apply 2 TD's with range script to turrets and it loses all dps in a ranged scenario. A Naga with spike loaded and a TC will have issues getting to 80km if hit by 2 unbonused TDs instead of doing 250+ optimal without being TDed
That's pretty much "shut down" don't you think?
You don't want TDs affecting missiles because "missiles already have so many issues". They don't, they're fine (bar some slight rebalancing for some types).
Your Crow vs Vaga doesn't help your case, it helps MY case. Missiles are easy to use, generally have OP range (not counting unguided) and are not easy to counter outside being fast which also applies to turrets so that point is mostly moot (avoiding the angular vs radial issue).
All you have done is use lots of words going "waaah, don't touch missiles". I'll fully concede that turrets have range enhancing mods that missiles don't have, and I'd fully support TC/TE affecting missile range (if guided missile range gets a good nerf as that's WAY too high, even now) and THEN allow TD's to affect range expl. radius. You just want it easy and will go to any length and "logic" to keep that status quo. Amat victoria curam. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 15:35:00 -
[20] - Quote
I love how people get angry over a game lol. All my point was is that a module designed to affect the tracking speed of a turret shouldn't be able to do a totally different function. Affecting an explosion is a totally different thing.
Now if they want to introduce an "Explosion Velocity Jammer" or something similar that is something I would consider. If they do that I would think missiles should also get modules that boost their effectiveness like turrets do. The missile equivalents of "Tracking Computer" and "Tracking Enhancer"
Remember even though "Eve is real" it's important to have fun! |
|
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
34
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 15:41:00 -
[21] - Quote
Not angry at all, just having a nice discussion with people who differ in opinion. Amat victoria curam. |
FlinchingNinja Kishunuba
Bellum Esca
99
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 16:03:00 -
[22] - Quote
FlinchingNinja Kishunuba wrote:...or they could fix defender missiles.
Variety is the spice of life, why should missiles be the same as turrets?
CCP are cruising towards another epic fail if they do this. |
Noisrevbus
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 16:47:00 -
[23] - Quote
First of all, like Vilnius said, i don't think anyone is angry here. We are argumenting, which is the point of a forum. A little prick here or there, or letting off some frustration is fine, as long as it doesn't get abusive.
Vilnius Zar wrote:- Show me where I stated that missiles have no drawbacks. - apply 2 TD's with range script to turrets and it loses all dps in a ranged scenario. A Naga with spike loaded and a TC will have issues getting to 80km if hit by 2 unbonused TDs instead of doing 250+ optimal without being TDed
That's pretty much "shut down" don't you think?
You can already similarily shut down missiles the same way, using similar existing mechanics. Why should TD trample even more over, for example, Damps - yet another module that the nerfminded scream about on these very forums?
When it comes to accuracy, it doesn't shut down. It's only relevant in situations where it can push margin.
That, in itself, is a very interesting continued discussion which i doubt we have room to get into properly here. It's an interesting aspect of the demise of the HAC class (which rely on a low-margin tri-unity mitigation tank). Anyway, on-topic...
Quote:Your Crow vs Vaga doesn't help your case, it helps MY case. Missiles are easy to use, generally have OP range (not counting unguided) and are not easy to counter outside being fast which also applies to turrets so that point is mostly moot (avoiding the angular vs radial issue).
All you have done is use lots of words going "waaah, don't touch missiles". I'll fully concede that turrets have range enhancing mods that missiles don't have, and I'd fully support TC/TE affecting missile range (if guided missile range gets a good nerf as that's WAY too high, even now) and THEN allow TD's to affect range expl. radius. You just want it easy and will go to any length and "logic" to keep that status quo.
The crow-vaga example was meant to illustrate the point that while turret mechanics affect both agressor and defender in both ways, missile mechanics only affect one actor in one way. A missile ship can never apply his own mobility to increase his accuracy, so while he will reliably hit well enough under most scenarios - he will never hit well enough when it comes to pushing exception. The exception that make good groups good. The groups who understand and utilize the finer points of complexity in the game. The complexity the ongoin design trends streamline and cause more issues like the percieved issues with missiles to errupt.
Quote:You don't want TDs affecting missiles because "missiles already have so many issues". They don't, they're fine (bar some slight rebalancing for some types).
I moved this part down since it is pretty much the crunchpoint, and it relates back to the other two replies. I don't really care too much about missiles - i care about the misconception that they are too powerful, that something glaringly needs to be done about it, and that any haphazard band-aid is acceptable.
My main concern as illustrated over and over is that this will just continue to trample over other balance (most notably, numbers which is the real cause for the majority of missile concerns).
It's "because of Falcon" and "tier 3 BC" all over again (which did little to balance Falcon or Drake, but did plenty to ruin Cerb and Deimos, among other things - making the game poorer rather than richer). It will not deal with the sweeping issue, but it will ruin application of existing balance, ships and mods in other areas (or scales) of the game, where the issues don't manifest themselves because the counters are effective and balance upheld.
It's a continuation of broad sweeping solutions from a large-fleet perspective, which is an incredibly poor position to start from as large scale battles necessarily tone down various layers of complexity.
The proposed TD changes is a perfect example of that, it will not be effective on the large scale gameplay where missiles are popular. It won't nerf a Drakeblob, which i can only assume is it's expressed motive. It will make it better, by enabling the blob and streamlining mechanics.
If you want it put crass - many recent proposed changes to HML-spam 'imbalance' will only make it worse. |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 18:11:00 -
[24] - Quote
My point is that if you can make a TCed 425 rail Naga with Spike (which is about as long range as it gets) force to within 80km dps range then a TD with 72km optimal and lots of falloff is pretty devastating when used in ranged engagements. 2 gangs, both at 100km from each other, one hits fine but the other is being TDed and does exactly 0 dps. The simple fact that the target gets a different range than he expected from his ammo generally is enough to turn the tide.
Your "but they can be damped" is here nor there, turret ships can be damped too so that changes nothing. It still stands, there is no viable way (as stated by someone, defenders don't work) to limit missile effectiveness other than the normal speed/sig radius equation which also, albeit in a different manner, affects turrets. That needs to be changed. Amat victoria curam. |
Exploited Engineer
Creatively Applied Violence Inc.
43
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 18:29:00 -
[25] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:Your "but they can be damped" is here nor there, turret ships can be damped too so that changes nothing. It still stands, there is no viable way (as stated by someone, defenders don't work) to limit missile effectiveness other than the normal speed/sig radius equation which also, albeit in a different manner, affects turrets. That needs to be changed.
There's also no way to increase missile effectiveness by just slapping on a few low or med slot modules.
Oh, yeah, and defender missiles. Maybe fix these instead of making TDs the catch-all counter against enemy damage application (except smart bombs). |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 18:42:00 -
[26] - Quote
Why not, you hardly see TD being used and as the proof is in the pudding that probably means they're not "good" or OP. They could use some help. Amat victoria curam. |
Noisrevbus
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 19:13:00 -
[27] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote: P.S. what does those 50 Drakes stop from TDing turret ships and get that exact same result?
You mean apart from the fact that the Turret ships can still hit them effectively unless they sit in the Drakes' optimal?
You missed part of the argument, and you're still being as defiant as ever, assuming (for some reason) like newer players tend to do that the game is balanced on some sort of versus-grounds.
Using damps is either or not just as applicable and 'here' as TD. You inferred another factor: range, in contrast to accuracy. A damp can deal with range just as well as a TD was my reply. Why would you bring a TD to deal with Rail Nagas? A damp would be more effective, since they couldn't just overextend ammo and stay at range. Since there is no versus-grounds, it's also quite well balanced now, in how the TD have the option to both deal with range and accuracy on turrets, while a damp have the option to deal with the range of all ships (and locktime). If balance is your motive, why trample balance where it exist?
So what would happen to the Talos under some TD from a Drake? Well, an MWD'ing Drake have the sig of a capital. XL guns can hit a Drake. So in order to deal with a Talos firing L, you'd need to TD it below an XL turret and then some.
Let me intercept you and continue: What if the Drake has an AB then? Then i'd like to congratulate you upon finding a way to deal with HML. After all, simply slapping an AB on tend to mitigate a large portion of missile DPS. We're talking about above 50% figures. Ever see two 100mn Tengus killing each other? No? There's a reason, they mitigate 90% dps.
They don't toward turrets though. They can be as small and fast as they like, but if they're not faster than the turret ship, all they are is small.
This is also my reservation with you. I care about underdogs and variety like Gallente, HACs, smaller gangs, drones and damps. You seem all too eager to trample all over them to have an easier time with Drakes or Tengus. |
Ashriban Kador
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 22:07:00 -
[28] - Quote
The funny thing here is everyone is totally missing the point.
Each Race in EvE has a racial electronic warfare system. Capacitor Warfare and Propulsion Jamming moduals are used by everyone so can be ignored in this case.
Caldari: ECM. Works against any ship type. Countered by ECCM.
Gallente: Sensor Dampeners. Works against any ship type. Countered by Sensor Boosters.
Minmatar: Target Painters. Works against any ship type. Countered by other EWar?
Amarr: Tracking Disruptors. Works only against turreted ships. Countered by Tracking Computers.
I don't think it matters how turrets and missiles place their damage. I -think- (although i don't presume to speak for CCP) they want to make each main EWar system viable against any target.
If this is so, then obviously the counter to said EWar system will be equally useful (IE: They will add a helpful bonus to tracking computers for missiles.)
Just because they haven't said anything now means they aren't even sure any penalty to missile effects will be enough to warrent an addition to TCs Your goals may align with some ... and with others, collide with the force of suns. |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 23:05:00 -
[29] - Quote
Noisrevbus wrote:Lots of nonsense, trying ever so hard to use big words in the hopes that it helps
You trying to play the "I'm older in this game" card is hilarious, mostly because there's a good chance you're wrong and it doesn't matter anyway. It won't help you in this discussion and just makes you look dumb so perhaps you should try and stick to real arguments, if you have any.
A Damp only works for range really and is mostly useless if the fight end up short range. A TD can also work within that range due to tracking script so yeah you're wrong there and I'm kinda amazed for someone who claims to be so knowledgeable to not notice the difference. Your "lets facehug a talos with a drake and see how tracking scripts on a TD don't help much" is quite funny, especially how you try to explain the AB bit, it's endearing. Because every target is a drake ofcourse and you always go against targets in short-medium range that are faster than you. Nice pick on the drake vs talos, sadly I see through it.
Your "see, tengus and missiles suck" is also quite funny as it's one of the best solo PVP ship for a reason, not every target is a 100mn AB cruiser and because of that (amazingly) they work great so you're wrong there as well. Missiles do less damage to moving targets, wooptidoo want a cookie? Turrets do less damage to targets at range and with higher angular, potato potato.
Missiles have no specific ewar against them, turrets do. There's also other ewar types that work against both so they don't count. Still remains the fact that there's no valid ewar against missiles, thus that needs to be fixed. End of story really.
Do try to use real arguments in your next post, would make things so much easier. Amat victoria curam. |
Ezra Tair
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 23:54:00 -
[30] - Quote
While this is now off-topic (LOL) I just wanted a way to counter missile spamming drakes in my Merlin. i play alot of different ships, and missiles are nice for non-huge fleet fights. The sort of fights where ECM matters anyway.
Improving one type of ECM like TDs, I figured, would give me some options against alot of the ships I see. I mean, you do not use a mod that can't be used every time. At lest the other ones can always be used to effect. Even if the situation renders the effect worthless (lol TPs in 80%+ of fights). If the change to TDs goes though, like I thought it had :( It would become a mainstay module to use in any spare mid-slot.
Although I'd REALLY like to see a buff to target painters, or a refocusing on Minmatar 'flavor' of ECM. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |