Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 .. 213 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 63 post(s) |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
1540
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:09:00 -
[241] - Quote
20%? seriously? 5 or even 10 would be ok, but 20% is the same as slapping people who have HM skills trained and kick them right on the groins. "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer |
Bad Messenger
Nasranite Watch
254
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:10:00 -
[242] - Quote
Sad thing is that Tracking Distruptor will be over power after this change, there will be lot of TD on every ship after this change.
|
Dread Pirate Pete
Tribal Core Defiant Legacy
40
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:11:00 -
[243] - Quote
I would like to thank Fozzie for buffing all the things I like to fly, and nerfing all the things that shoot me down on a regular basis |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
227
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:11:00 -
[244] - Quote
MisterNick wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:At which point do you factor in the fact that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) have travel times and that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) can be destroyed by smart bombs. Have you ever seen that actually done?
???
Yea, like every single time my alliance has fought CFC and the FC called for FIREWALL ships. Which has been A LOT lately in Tribute lol.
|
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
197
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:12:00 -
[245] - Quote
Bad Messenger wrote:there will be lot of TD on every ship after this change. How?
Will someone please tell me how we get free TDs on all the ships?! |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
560
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:12:00 -
[246] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Lili Lu wrote: Fozzie, are you guys considering any slight nerf to TD base strength? Because if not, everyone and his mother will be fitting TDs. It seems to me that the module could use little nerf, so as not to become the must have "multispec of doom", and to make the speicialized ships more desirable in fleets.
Yup it's something we're looking very closely at.
yeah give it the same treatment that rsd got back in the day... just up the bonus on specialty ships so not every one fits one...
i mean you cant find a ship in faction warfare that does not have a TD for this reason...
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
1540
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:12:00 -
[247] - Quote
MisterNick wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:At which point do you factor in the fact that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) have travel times and that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) can be destroyed by smart bombs. Have you ever seen that actually done? Yes, infact, we (and I'm sure other alliances/coallitions as well) do firewalls quite often. It's a fairly common tactic to reduce and even nullify incoming missile damage. "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
197
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:13:00 -
[248] - Quote
Kriorth wrote:Except that missiles shouldn't be doing maximum damage against moving targets. There isn't a reduction in damage to a moving target from a railgun is there?
Not sure if I'm missing some sarcasm or you're unaware of medium railguns having terrible tracking & range combos regardless of ammo. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
560
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:13:00 -
[249] - Quote
Sarah Schneider wrote:20%? seriously? 5 or even 10 would be ok, but 20% is the same as slapping people who have HM skills trained and kick them right on the groins.
good!
drake fleet was never meant to be a doctrine...
kill all drakes! Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:14:00 -
[250] - Quote
The changes sound harsh and I am weeping for my collection of almighty hurricanes but I think they are needed. Take a few days and think about them and the greater picture and you will see. |
|
Sellendis
Masters of Zen Circle-Of-Two
156
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:14:00 -
[251] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:Sellendis wrote:Did anyone even see a minmatar BC or Comm. ship in the AT X? Uh. Sleipnir, Cyclone. Almost 300 fielded ships, that's basically NONE~
That was intended sarcasm :) Minm ships were deployed like crazy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz-PtEJEaqY&feature=related Pretty sure this is how CCP balances things....sadly.
AT X ship usage...
Merlin - 149
Tengu - 48 Drake - 7
Sleipnir - 146 Cyclone - 129
According to this numbers, nerfing HMs is completely ok. |
Rita May
State War Academy Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:14:00 -
[252] - Quote
uh, one thinghy i nearly forgot:
like the Carebear i am i want to ask if all the NPCs are going to get some "defender-turrets"? Because, like how it is now missles against NPCs already receive an "applied" damage reduction that turrets do not?
cu |
Mara Tessidar
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
645
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:15:00 -
[253] - Quote
How nice of CCP announce these changes in advance so I can make sure to sell my Tengu and whatever Drakes I have lying around.
You keep doing these heavy-handed changes--supercarriers and mining barges, for example--and it never ends well. Ever. EveO is a circus train that is for bafflingly unclear reasons also carrying tanks of chlorine gas,-ácrashing and exploding in the middle of a small midwestern town. -áCalling it a mere train wreck gives neither the entertainment nor the horror it offers its proper due. |
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance
110
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:15:00 -
[254] - Quote
Sarah Schneider wrote:MisterNick wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:At which point do you factor in the fact that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) have travel times and that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) can be destroyed by smart bombs. Have you ever seen that actually done? Yes, infact, we (and I'm sure other alliances/coallitions as well) do firewalls quite often. It's a fairly common tactic to reduce and even nullify incoming missile damage.
I confess myself surprised, always assumed it was a gimmick. "Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom." |
Planetary Genocide
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:15:00 -
[255] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
Danggg. Dat Tengu/Drake nerf. +1 |
Kriorth
Deadspace Knights
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:16:00 -
[256] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:Kriorth wrote:Except that missiles shouldn't be doing maximum damage against moving targets. There isn't a reduction in damage to a moving target from a railgun is there?
Not sure if I'm missing some sarcasm or you're unaware of medium railguns having terrible tracking & range combos regardless of ammo.
No, no sarcasm.. stats were quoted with DPS for each weapon (assuming they hit)... But missiles do reduced damage against moving targets based on the velocity do they not?! |
darius mclever
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:16:00 -
[257] - Quote
MisterNick wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:At which point do you factor in the fact that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) have travel times and that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) can be destroyed by smart bombs. Have you ever seen that actually done?
no never.
also nobody runs smart bomb only t3s in fleet regularly. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
288
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:16:00 -
[258] - Quote
Oh dear
All that adoration you have received the past few months must have gone straight into reinforcing your balls for you to touch the third rail of balancing: Missiles.
Not sure the damage hit on heavies is warranted/needed with the other changes mentioned, but guess that is what testing is for.
By the by, could you tone down mission Sansha TD spam the same way you toned down Serpentis ECM .. these changes will make drone boats the only viable way of running the missions with large spawns. As Amarr only using a Tachy Paladin I have started declining all Sansha missions as 5km optimal 90% of the time really does no good |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit Jokers Wild.
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:17:00 -
[259] - Quote
Kriorth wrote:
Except that missiles shouldn't be doing maximum damage against moving targets. There isn't a reduction in damage to a moving target from a railgun is there?
There's this thing called tracking, you might've heard of it. It reduces your damage if your target is moving in any direction but directly towards or away from you. |
Thalen Draganos
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:18:00 -
[260] - Quote
Kriorth wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike:>Needs buff, medium rails are the most useless thing in the game currently. DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5 Time to hit: instant
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:>Needs buff, probably will get one cause they suck DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8 Time to hit: instant
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24 Time to hit: instant
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3 Time to hit: 10 seconds
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems. fixed Except that missiles shouldn't be doing maximum damage against moving targets. There isn't a reduction in damage to a moving target from a railgun is there? uhhh yeah lol Your kidding right? oh and missiles are affected by transvers movement as well as a targets speed. Anyone who uses an AB on an anomaly tengu will confirm this. :) |
|
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
49
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:18:00 -
[261] - Quote
While we're at it could we buff HAM's? I feels HAM's could get a bit more dps or range and reduction in PG cost.
Lower the exp radius and/or increase exp velocity since missile exp radius rigs don't affect HAMs. "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."
-áKahlil Gibran |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:19:00 -
[262] - Quote
I support the general direction of these changes.
In terms of skill training and making the game more interesting. Do you think it might be better to add 2 new modules for missiles instead of having TE's and TC's effect missiles? While keeping the TD the ewar against all.
That way missile skills would get you missile bonuses. Though keeping it the way you have planned makes split weapon system ships more viable. |
DeadNite
Focused Annihilation Detrimental Imperative
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:19:00 -
[263] - Quote
CCP Foz, I have a few questions regarding missiles: - Do you think it is time to remove the specific damage type bonus on ships so they can make full use of their weapon systems? Now with HM damage being lowered, it makes sense that they should be able to use all missile types to their full effect. - Will mods/rigs/implants that currently enhance LM/HM/CM finally affect Rockets/AM/HAM/Torps like the other weapon systems? - Will bombs be impacted by any of this? (e.g.; Attempt to target bombers as they de-cloak and dampen to reduce bomb damage or equip TEs/TCs on your bomber to increase damage application to smaller/moving targets)
I know that CCP has tried very hard to keep from missiles being just another turret type but one would think they should still be consistent in fitting choices that affect them like other weapons systems (e.g.; some of the questions above).
|
McBorsk
Multispace Technologies Inc Yulai Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:19:00 -
[264] - Quote
Booo! All the ships I can fly are now terrible. Thanks. |
Kriorth
Deadspace Knights
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:19:00 -
[265] - Quote
Cpt Gobla wrote:Kriorth wrote:
Except that missiles shouldn't be doing maximum damage against moving targets. There isn't a reduction in damage to a moving target from a railgun is there?
There's this thing called tracking, you might've heard of it. It reduces your damage if your target is moving in any direction but directly towards or away from you.
Reduces you damage or your chance to hit? |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
197
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:20:00 -
[266] - Quote
Kriorth wrote:Daneel Trevize wrote:Kriorth wrote:Except that missiles shouldn't be doing maximum damage against moving targets. There isn't a reduction in damage to a moving target from a railgun is there?
Not sure if I'm missing some sarcasm or you're unaware of medium railguns having terrible tracking & range combos regardless of ammo. No, no sarcasm.. stats were quoted with DPS for each weapon (assuming they hit)... But missiles do reduced damage against moving targets based on the velocity do they not?! And turrets can constantly miss things while missiles will always do some damage.
Kriorth wrote:Cpt Gobla wrote:There's this thing called tracking, you might've heard of it. It reduces your damage if your target is moving in any direction but directly towards or away from you. Reduces you damage or your chance to hit? Both, especially when combined with falloff, if you don't know this you perhaps shouldn't comment. Not quite the place to ask for such info either. |
Lelob
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
56
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:20:00 -
[267] - Quote
Hurricanes have always been insanely overpowered with 2 medium neuts, capless guns and fairly awesome speed. It's a nice change to remove 1 of the medium neuts, but in all likelihood the ship itself will still probably be a little overpowered with the excellent tracking from 220s and a single medium neut (shield fit anyways). |
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
49
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:21:00 -
[268] - Quote
Why are you increasing the explosion radius of precision missiles?
Isn't this counter intuitive? "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."
-áKahlil Gibran |
Uris Vitgar
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:23:00 -
[269] - Quote
Instead of flight time, why not make range-scripted TDs affect missile speed instead? Not only does it make more sense from a fluff perspective, but it aso gives them some potential synergy with defenders and smartbombs.
As for disruption scripts, I suspect that modifying missile explosion radius/velocity at all is a dangerous road to go down, but that will be revealed in testing. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
435
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:23:00 -
[270] - Quote
In comparing HMLs and other long range weapon system, one important thing that is often forgotten is fitting requirements.
Beam lasers, artillery and railguns have higher fitting requirements than their close range equivalent. In particular beam and artillery ships tend to be glass cannons due to the high fitting requirements. In contrast, HMLs have similar fitting requirements as their close range equivalent (slightly more CPU, slightly less PG). This means they have room for a substantial tank.
I believe that this is the main compensation for the drawback of travel time. HML ships take longer to apply damage, which is why they are more durable. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 .. 213 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |