Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Benglada
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 01:17:00 -
[1]
Everyone knows cruise missiles and missiles in general are tad overpowered, thats ok with me, as long as you specilize in them
Well, im not going to deny it, i did just get owend by t2 precision cruise, so i was curious and looked up the skills required to use t2 cruise
Level 5s for t2 cruise:
Cruise 5 Missile op 5
And then said, wait? what do large t2 blasters require? Small hybrid 5 med hybrid 5 large hybrid 5 motion prediction 5 Gunnery 5
Can anyone explain to me how balanced it is to require little less then 1/3 the training on top of missiles already being overpowered?
Id say either remove the small5 and med 5 req's or add standard missile5 and heavy missile5 to cruise 2's.
Its pretty ***tastic. ---------------------------
Originally by: Wrangler Unfrtinately you dnot get to vote..
|
Deja Thoris
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 01:22:00 -
[2]
Well tbh he probably had target navigation prediction and all those other juicy skills trained up to make the most of his t2 launchers.
He would have been a lot less effective without all those skills.
|
J'val Iktar
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 01:22:00 -
[3]
Don't forget small blaster spec 4 and medium blaster spec 4. It is pretty ridiculous actually. In fairness, you get most of the prereqs for t2 large rails along with it while the missle user has to train torp. 5 as well, but it should still be more even.
|
Benglada
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 01:24:00 -
[4]
So? it doesent matter what he "might" have... with t2 cruise you have the option to train the support skills or not, with large gusn you HAVE to train the support skills.. ---------------------------
Originally by: Wrangler Unfrtinately you dnot get to vote..
|
Zyper
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 01:26:00 -
[5]
Ya but if he don't train the support skills he will suck pretty badly :) And then the gain from the tech2 cruisers pretty much negated itself :D
|
KilROCK
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 01:27:00 -
[6]
They should require Guided Missile precision 4 at least..
|
J'val Iktar
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 01:29:00 -
[7]
Edited by: J''val Iktar on 17/03/2006 01:30:56
Originally by: Zyper Ya but if he don't train the support skills he will suck pretty badly :) And then the gain from the tech2 cruisers pretty much negated itself :D
??? How much does small blaster 5 and medium blaster 5 help large blasters? This isn't a question of having to train support skills, its a question of having to train for t2 small and medium variants of a weapon in order to use the t2 large variant of that weapon.
|
Mjeh
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 01:35:00 -
[8]
I have no problems with that, but TBH I don't think you're likely to find many pilots with cruise spec that don't already have Guided Missile Precision IV, as well as most other missile support skills to at least level 3-4. Sure, it is possible to train cruise spec really fast, but you're really only fooling yourself by doing so IMO.
What seems a bit unfair to me about the whole issue, though, is that you don't have to spec in any smaller class missile to spec in cruise missiles, unlike what you have to do to spec any sort of turret.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 01:36:00 -
[9]
"Id say either remove the small5 and med 5 req's or add standard missile5 and heavy missile5 to cruise 2's."
If you remove the requirements for lower class guns specializations etc from higher class guns, you will **** off everyone who "wasted" millions of skillpoints to train these smaller gun skills, just to get the large turrets.
If you introduce matching requirements for missiles, you will lock out of combat for long weeks (and consequently **** off) people who didn't yet train these skills as they didn't have to.
Whatever you do, you will **** off roughly between 1/3rd to half of your playerbase, for sake of year-late balance.
Pick your poison... wisely. :s
|
Benglada
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 01:39:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Benglada on 17/03/2006 01:40:15 well, j0sephine as it stands, t2 cruise are retardly overpowered (precision cruise anyone?)
I dont really care about those who didnt train the skills, because as it stands everyone who uses turrets is getting pretty screwed.
Edit: J0sephine dont you fly a raven ? ---------------------------
Originally by: Wrangler Unfrtinately you dnot get to vote..
|
|
Tiuwaz
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 01:47:00 -
[11]
another reason why caldari are popular
while i do think that it is unfair for turret users, they wont change it that late, and i can live with it, just see it as a general advantage of missiles and missile users
also the ones who might get screwed over most by increasing the reqs for t2 missile launchers (siege , cruises etc) wouldnt be caldari but those races which use missiles as 2nd weaponsystem on some ships
so i say leave it be as it is now, view it just as an(other ) advantage for missile users
Originally by: Oveur ****! Lets nerf it!
To the nerfmobile!
|
Benglada
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 01:52:00 -
[12]
Its kinda *** now tho because the last four ravens i have seen in 0.0 all have precision cruise because it takes like two weeks to train for it. ---------------------------
Originally by: Wrangler Unfrtinately you dnot get to vote..
|
Sai Remik
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 01:52:00 -
[13]
Sorry to jump in but this is a subject quite over discussed in many many threads. Missile are not overpowered. Before Cold War, I would agree but they're quite on par with others for many reasons beyond just skill time.
1) Missiles are the only non-instant damage weapon. Blasters, Rails, and Beams all do instant damage to their target. Missiles take time and can take quite a bit of time depending on the range to reach the target.
2) Defenders. You can shoot missiles down. No other fitted weapon system has that weakness. In fact, if the timing is right, a smart bomb can take out missiles.
3) Lack of missile slots. If you notice on the Raven, it only gets 6 missile bays as opposed to it's peers like the Apoc gets 8 beams and the Thron gets 7 rails/blasters. So, if a Raven pilot wants to even approach the kind of damage output the others get, he has to fit out some sort of turrets in the other two slots which puts him right into the same problem you have.
About now a lot of people love to bring up the issue where missiles always hit and turrets can miss. True, but you never see a missile ever hitting for 1500 points of damage unlike a Tach II Beam from an Amarr BS. So turrets may not always hit but if you do the math by similar skilled pilots in a Raven / Apoc, you'll notice an Apoc can out do the Raven in raw damage by quite a bit.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 01:54:00 -
[14]
"well, j0sephine as it stands, t2 cruise are retardly overpowered (precision cruise anyone?)"
Yup; i spent quite a while complaining about exactly that (precision missiles and long range ammo in general) in the recent thread about tech.2 ammo.
"I dont really care about those who didnt train the skills, because as it stands everyone who uses turrets is getting pretty screwed."
That's too bad, but why should your care or lack thereof mean anything? Would you like me to use precisely this argument when you wake tomorrow and find out that overnight the requirement to fly say, Minmatar battleships has changed and now includes Scrap Metal Processing 5, "because it's logical anyone who wants to fly these needs to be good at handling junk. And no, i don't care that you didn't train this skill yet"..?
It doesn't matter if you care, and it doesn't matter if i care. What is important, this sort of change does affect very large amount of players. If it can be done by say, making official announcement 3-6 months in advance that skill requirements are to be changed, then fine. Otherwise you have a forum clusterfsck at your hands that'll make all the whining about the original missiles overhaul pale in comparison. And what good is that for?
"Edit: J0sephine dont you fly a raven ?"
I fly number of ships, Raven sometimes included. Am in middle of finally training the large hybrids specs, for the next tier Caldari battleship. If you think the choice of ships i fly puts a bias in what i say... think again.
|
Wesley Harding
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 01:55:00 -
[15]
I suppose it's good if you want to hop into a Raven and bypass Caldari frigs and Cruisers altogether, but any specialized person will eventually want to train up T2 Heavies and Standards anyway.
The real reason I suspect is so that pilots in Megas and Apocs and Tempests can train up for T2 cruise and siege if they are so inclined to do so. It's the fault of the pilots of those ships if they are not so inclined to use the hardpoints at their disposal.
|
Benglada
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 01:55:00 -
[16]
umm. defenders are high slot modules which means you havve to sacrafice fire power to shoot them down, which really almost hurts more then letting the missiles hit (not to mention a lot of ships dont have missile slots) ---------------------------
Originally by: Wrangler Unfrtinately you dnot get to vote..
|
Hamatitio
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 01:59:00 -
[17]
Don't forget, missile changes came out 5-6 months after the turret changes.
Wouldn't be all that fair to make them train for 3-4 more months than they did to be where they were before, would it? ---
I Post on the forums for Fate. Im cool. Industrialists wanted |
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 02:00:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 17/03/2006 02:01:14
Originally by: j0sephine Would you like me to use precisely this argument when you wake tomorrow and find out that overnight the requirement to fly say, Minmatar battleships has changed and now includes Scrap Metal Processing 5, "because it's logical anyone who wants to fly these needs to be good at handling junk. And no, i don't care that you didn't train this skill yet"..?
... don't even try.
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
|
Tiuwaz
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 02:04:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Sai Remik Sorry to jump in but this is a subject quite over discussed in many many threads. Missile are not overpowered. Before Cold War, I would agree but they're quite on par with others for many reasons beyond just skill time.
1) Missiles are the only non-instant damage weapon. Blasters, Rails, and Beams all do instant damage to their target. Missiles take time and can take quite a bit of time depending on the range to reach the target.
2) Defenders. You can shoot missiles down. No other fitted weapon system has that weakness. In fact, if the timing is right, a smart bomb can take out missiles.
3) Lack of missile slots. If you notice on the Raven, it only gets 6 missile bays as opposed to it's peers like the Apoc gets 8 beams and the Thron gets 7 rails/blasters. So, if a Raven pilot wants to even approach the kind of damage output the others get, he has to fit out some sort of turrets in the other two slots which puts him right into the same problem you have.
About now a lot of people love to bring up the issue where missiles always hit and turrets can miss. True, but you never see a missile ever hitting for 1500 points of damage unlike a Tach II Beam from an Amarr BS. So turrets may not always hit but if you do the math by similar skilled pilots in a Raven / Apoc, you'll notice an Apoc can out do the Raven in raw damage by quite a bit.
while i dont think missiles are overpowered i gotta response to that
1) true that, the tradeoff here is missiles always hit while turrets can miss, overalli agree and say its balanced
2) Defenders suck, they are a pain to use, and very hard or impossible? to kill torps cruises, Turrets have a weakness namely in tracking disruptors. and i take a tracking disruptor over defenders anyday. i'd love to have an EW equivalent of Tracking disruptor for missiles and would gladly give up defenders for it. ANY DAY
3) bad comparisons, Tempest has 6 turret slots, typhoon has freggin 4, anyways didnt really get this point its like taking apples and oranges and saying one of them looks bluer than the others
I dont think that missiles are overpowered, mostly fine in my books
BUT precision cruises totally reversed what they tried to achieve with the initial missile changes. Namely wtfpwning small targets with the big guns. An no just because it has the t2 tag doesnt justify that.
Originally by: Oveur ****! Lets nerf it!
To the nerfmobile!
|
Hllaxiu
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 02:05:00 -
[20]
Originally by: j0sephine If you introduce matching requirements for missiles, you will lock out of combat for long weeks (and consequently **** off) people who didn't yet train these skills as they didn't have to.
Whatever you do, you will **** off roughly between 1/3rd to half of your playerbase, for sake of year-late balance.
Pick your poison... wisely. :s
Its not as if it hasn't happened before with missiles. In fact at the time I had trained MLO5, cruise missiles 3 and standard missiles 3 and I didn't have any trouble running around in my Kestrel because of the way the skill requirements were set... (ie, you can use a module if you have the primary/secondary/tertiary skills required, it doesn't matter if you don't have the prereqs for those skills and already have them trained. See the dev character on that fanfest vid when you gave himself carrier 5 without the prereqs) --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson |
|
Arashi Miike
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 02:06:00 -
[21]
Well then, in the interest of balance, they could at least lower the requirements of tech II large guns. I know people have invested a lot of SP into training them, but it's not as though lowering the reqs would take anything away from them. They'd still be able to use tech II small and medium guns.
Really, complaining because somebody else gets something which costs you absolutely nothing at all just makes you malicious and greedy, and if those kinds of people want to cry about it, then let them. If I started whining to the gov't because someone else won the lottery, do you think they'd take me seriously? Game balance should take precedence over whiners any day.
Besides, nobody whined (afaik) when they lowered the requirements for tractor beams. "I should have been a pair of ragged claws/ scuttling across the floors of silent seas." |
Tiuwaz
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 02:08:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Naughty Boy Edited by: Naughty Boy on 17/03/2006 02:01:14
Originally by: j0sephine Would you like me to use precisely this argument when you wake tomorrow and find out that overnight the requirement to fly say, Minmatar battleships has changed and now includes Scrap Metal Processing 5, "because it's logical anyone who wants to fly these needs to be good at handling junk. And no, i don't care that you didn't train this skill yet"..?
... don't even try.
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
looking at the "New" phoon and the skills required to fly it to its potential i'd say that would just be a minor annoyance
Originally by: Oveur ****! Lets nerf it!
To the nerfmobile!
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 02:11:00 -
[23]
"(ie, you can use a module if you have the primary/secondary/tertiary skills required, it doesn't matter if you don't have the prereqs for those skills and already have them trained."
Oi, i didn't think of that. You are right then, and it would mean instad of all missile users whining, you'd only have the new people who didn't train the specializations yet... whine about the vets getting unfair advantage by being able to use gear without inventing new millions of skills. All in all, not that much of difference as far as backlash goes... -.^
|
Legende
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 02:46:00 -
[24]
"BUT precision cruises totally reversed what they tried to achieve with the initial missile changes. Namely wtfpwning small targets with the big guns. An no just because it has the t2 tag doesnt justify that."
Just give my Gleams a "+1000% Tracking Speed" bonus and I won't complain.
|
Benglada
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 05:34:00 -
[25]
Originally by: j0sephine
"Edit: J0sephine dont you fly a raven ?" If you think the choice of ships i fly puts a bias in what i say... think again.[/quote
Good Job proveing me wrong. ---------------------------
Originally by: Wrangler Unfrtinately you dnot get to vote..
|
Malthros Zenobia
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 05:44:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Benglada So? it doesent matter what he "might" have... with t2 cruise you have the option to train the support skills or not, with large gusn you HAVE to train the support skills..
Only a moron wouldn't train the support skills, unless you want to be one of those Raven pilots who gets owned by an AF or inty.
Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu I'm probably one of the biggest Bush fanboys in Eve... This is like, Darth Vader, can't-reach-climax-without-killing-a-puppy evil.
RAWR!11 Sig Hijack!11 - Imaran |
Lienzo
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 05:51:00 -
[27]
Unless you're rich, it would be kinda dumb to move up to tII launchers unless you had good skills anyway. I don't think missiles were intended to be a primary weapon system until later changes.
What really bothers me is that you have to train small gun spec skills in order to train medium spec guns. This is a completely unnecessary time sink and reinforces the false belief that bigger ships are unjustly denied their omgwtfpwnmobile status rather than a flexible link in the food chain.
Assault Missile Launcher Improvement
|
Malthros Zenobia
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 05:54:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Benglada I dont really care about those who didnt train the skills, because as it stands everyone who uses turrets is getting pretty screwed.
The cruise user can only use cruise missiles, the heavy turret user can use any t2 rail/blaster of large/med/small size. Versatility can be nice, and a BS loaded with precision cruise who runs into another BS, or even a HAC/CS is pretty screwed, because they're getting penalties and no real bonus against those targets.
Requiring target nav and/or warhead upgrades 3/4 for t2 missiles is fine by me, make it go up per weapon size. 1-2 for rocket/light, 3 for heavy, 4 for cruise/torp (torp wouldnt need guided skill, neither would rockets, for obvious reasons).
Ofcourse I have warhead upgradesto 4, and guided is almost 4, so I'm abit biased.
And you can bet your ass that standard missiles are getting a heavy workout soon for hawk changes.
Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu I'm probably one of the biggest Bush fanboys in Eve... This is like, Darth Vader, can't-reach-climax-without-killing-a-puppy evil.
RAWR!11 Sig Hijack!11 - Imaran |
J'val Iktar
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 06:06:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Malthros Zenobia
The cruise user can only use cruise missiles, the heavy turret user can use any t2 rail/blaster of large/med/small size.
Good point, we should require standard missle 5 and heavy missle 5 to give missle users the same versatility that turret users enjoy.
Originally by: Malthros Zenobia
Versatility can be nice, and a BS loaded with precision cruise who runs into another BS, or even a HAC/CS is pretty screwed, because they're getting penalties and no real bonus against those targets.
Ahahahaha hahaha hahaha hahahaha hahaha hahaha *gasp* hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha... No real bonus? Ahahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha... Hilarious
|
Hugh Ruka
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 06:43:00 -
[30]
Originally by: J'val Iktar
Originally by: Malthros Zenobia
The cruise user can only use cruise missiles, the heavy turret user can use any t2 rail/blaster of large/med/small size.
Good point, we should require standard missle 5 and heavy missle 5 to give missle users the same versatility that turret users enjoy.
Originally by: Malthros Zenobia
Versatility can be nice, and a BS loaded with precision cruise who runs into another BS, or even a HAC/CS is pretty screwed, because they're getting penalties and no real bonus against those targets.
Ahahahaha hahaha hahaha hahahaha hahaha hahaha *gasp* hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha... No real bonus? Ahahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha... Hilarious
well compare the sig radius of bs/hac to the precision cruise and normal cruise with precision skill to 4 and then talk about advantages. You get an increase for HAC, but any bs has larger sig then standard cruise with GMP 4, so you are only left with the t2 ammo penalty. ------------------------------ Removed due to offensive content - Laqum
I realy liked my signature. Oh well ... |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |