Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 13:57:00 -
[31]
"Yeah. I'm not saying defenders don't need a boost, just that they should have the same drawbacks to use as tracking disruptors and not be usable in just any old launcher."
Defenders are utterly broken in their current shape to begin with. I can't think of a bigger drawback than that, so how about they actually get fixed first to point of being usable (or a new replacement system is introduced for them) ... then we can worry how to limit them, if any..?
|
Somatic Neuron
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 15:05:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Tuxford Right now I'm actually thinking about dedicated defender launcher. But tbh I haven't started the actual work just yet.
That would make the most sense, given that every size ammo has it's own activator for every other ammo type. It shouldn't be tied to a missile slot (there are already too many sizes of missile launchers for the 4 given sizes of ammo (XL, L, M, S)), though, imho...make it a general high slot and then you don't have to worry about point defense systems other than defenders. You already have the basis behind that with the probe launcher not requiring a missile slot. Keep the various missile skill bonuses (RoF, range, etc) for them, but make their Defender skill affect how much damage they can do to the incoming missile, not missile velocity. Defender Level 1 should allow destruction of a rocket with a single defender...Defender Level 2 should allow destruction of a light missile with a single defender...Defender Level 3 should allow destruction of a heavy missile with a single defender...Defender Level 5 should allow destruction of a cruise missile with a single defender...Defender Specialization Level 1, should allow destruction of a torpedo with a single T2 Defender missile. Defender Specialization Level 5 (or lower, if you prefer), should allow destruction of a citadel torpedo with a single T2 Defender missile.
Just my 2 isk ---------- |
Darpz
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 15:31:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Tuxford Right now I'm actually thinking about dedicated defender launcher. But tbh I haven't started the actual work just yet.
finish fixing blasters first mmmkay
The only good fix is a DEAD fix |
Auron Shadowbane
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 22:29:00 -
[34]
I'd suggest to simply introduce a high slot module that has a cycle time comparable to missile launchers and shoots down one missile per cycle (maybe depending on skill needing more than 1 shot for bigger missiles). Make em available in 5 sizes like the missiles whith increasing cpu/power useage, same capa needs but reduced cycle time for bigger modules.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 22:33:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Tuxford Right now I'm actually thinking about dedicated defender launcher. But tbh I haven't started the actual work just yet.
Great.
And what are misiles going to get in return? They're not broken now, and "fixing" defenders means that they just got some nerfvat loving. If they get more damage, that is nasty for everyone WITHOUT a defender launcher, and...
...can'o'worms
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Frezik
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 22:49:00 -
[36]
I like the idea of eliminating defenders entirely and replaced with a CIWS system. Preferably one that doesn't require that the missile be shot at you to shoot it down. It would take a hi slot, a turrent hardpoint, and curiser-level fittings. Then give AFs a bonus to fitting requirements of the CIWS. Or they're fitable on anything, but only AFs can shoot down missiles not targetted at them. That gives AFs a much-needed role in fleet support. ---- "Well in this case, he's being flamed, and rightly so, for whinning about a game mechanic that doesn't actually exist." -Lorth |
Reatu Krentor
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 22:55:00 -
[37]
Personally, I'd rather have a different kind of missile defense (not that defenders aren't cool). Quick fix, new modules that use weapon disruption skill, counterpart to tracking disruptor. And then as a side-effect also a counterpart to the tracking computer. Quick, easy and not so much a nerf as it would be with just "fixing" defenders.
I'm not gonna write down any stats or anything but i'd say the guidance computer could boost missile velocity and explosion velocity(perhaps also reduce explosion radius) - phew! dodged the mods on this sig!
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 22:57:00 -
[38]
I would scrap defender missiles all together.
Just duplicate the tracking disruptor and make it affect missile explosion radius/velocity ect. I'm not a missile expert at all but would this be feasible? - _____
|
Reatu Krentor
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 22:59:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Frezik I like the idea of eliminating defenders entirely and replaced with a CIWS system. Preferably one that doesn't require that the missile be shot at you to shoot it down. It would take a hi slot, a turrent hardpoint, and curiser-level fittings. Then give AFs a bonus to fitting requirements of the CIWS. Or they're fitable on anything, but only AFs can shoot down missiles not targetted at them. That gives AFs a much-needed role in fleet support.
just replacing defenders(that use a launcher) with a defender system that uses a turret nerfs any gun boat that doesn't have any turret slot to spare. Raven on the other hand ... Not a good idea, imo. Assault frigs are perhaps a fleet support ship but they're not thought of as an anti-missile ship. Then again, not my call. ( I'd just expect a destroyer to have some anti-missile capabilities before an assault frigate would) - phew! dodged the mods on this sig!
|
Frezik
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 23:35:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Reatu Krentor
Originally by: Frezik I like the idea of eliminating defenders entirely and replaced with a CIWS system. Preferably one that doesn't require that the missile be shot at you to shoot it down. It would take a hi slot, a turrent hardpoint, and curiser-level fittings. Then give AFs a bonus to fitting requirements of the CIWS. Or they're fitable on anything, but only AFs can shoot down missiles not targetted at them. That gives AFs a much-needed role in fleet support.
just replacing defenders(that use a launcher) with a defender system that uses a turret nerfs any gun boat that doesn't have any turret slot to spare. Raven on the other hand ...
'Nerf' would imply that they'd be weaker than they are now. Gunboats don't have an effective missile defense system now (nobody does), but they'd at least have the option to have one with a CIWS. If they choose not to have one, then they're no worse off than now.
For a Raven to fit one, they'd have to give up one of those oh-so-precious NOS slots. So it's not like they're getting it for free.
Quote:
Not a good idea, imo. Assault frigs are perhaps a fleet support ship but they're not thought of as an anti-missile ship.
Well, maybe they should be
OTOH, maybe this is a better role for destroyers, which could also use a better role. ---- "Well in this case, he's being flamed, and rightly so, for whinning about a game mechanic that doesn't actually exist." -Lorth |
|
Luc Boye
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 23:43:00 -
[41]
tbh they should just scrap the idea of defenders and make a new mid slot module called *drumroll* "missile disruptor".
|
Olirtad Fiven
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 23:58:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Olirtad Fiven on 05/05/2006 23:59:17
Originally by: Frezik
Originally by: Reatu Krentor
Originally by: Frezik ...
just replacing defenders(that use a launcher) with a defender system that uses a turret nerfs any gun boat that doesn't have any turret slot to spare. Raven on the other hand ...
'Nerf' would imply that they'd be weaker than they are now. Gunboats don't have an effective missile defense system now (nobody does), but they'd at least have the option to have one with a CIWS. If they choose not to have one, then they're no worse off than now.
For a Raven to fit one, they'd have to give up one of those oh-so-precious NOS slots. So it's not like they're getting it for free.
Yes a raven would have to sacrifice a nos slot, but a gunboat would have to sacrifice a turret, which lowers their damage. anyway, it would be best to make it not use a turret or launcher slot, if the defenders type of missile defense is kept. I'd much prefer the "Guidance disruptor" (coupled with it's counterpart, the guidance computer).
<edit: gah wrong character , Reatu Krentor is the one it should be >
|
Dr Tetrahydrocannabinol
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 00:24:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Luc Boye tbh they should just scrap the idea of defenders and make a new mid slot module called *drumroll* "missile disruptor".
sure, just dont forget to give missile users tracking computers and enhancers then.
Caldari - BS idea |
Meridius
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 00:58:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Dr Tetrahydrocannabinol
Originally by: Luc Boye tbh they should just scrap the idea of defenders and make a new mid slot module called *drumroll* "missile disruptor".
sure, just dont forget to give missile users tracking computers and enhancers then.
Not needed...
1. There would be no specialized ships that get a bonus to using missile disruptors.
2. Missile ships are less common then turret ships. - _____
|
Gierling
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 01:36:00 -
[45]
IMHO, since a tracking disruptor ruins the targets entire offense.
Defender missilles should attack any hostile missile within a 20k radius.
PRoposal to fix blobbing and make Charisma useful.
|
Reatu Krentor
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 01:45:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Meridius
Originally by: Dr Tetrahydrocannabinol
Originally by: Luc Boye tbh they should just scrap the idea of defenders and make a new mid slot module called *drumroll* "missile disruptor".
sure, just dont forget to give missile users tracking computers and enhancers then.
Not needed...
1. There would be no specialized ships that get a bonus to using missile disruptors.
2. Missile ships are less common then turret ships.
I'd say it would be needed then, i'd assume if they would introduce "guidance disruptors" they would make the amarr ew bonus to weapon disruptors, covering both the tracking one and the guidance one. Though a tracking computer isn't really the counter to tracking disruptor, rather other way round, considering the tracking disruptor's effect is much greater than the tracking computer's effect. - phew! dodged the mods on this sig!
|
Cade Morrigan
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 01:55:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Gierling IMHO, since a tracking disruptor ruins the targets entire offense.
Defender missilles should attack any hostile missile within a 20k radius.
You mean it should attack any missile fired from the ship you have targeted and are applying your Defender module to, of course.
I think there needs to be a missile defense system of some sort, but it needs to be just as difficult to train for and use as tracking disruptors are, and needs to have a similar damage reducing effect. -= Save the Gila! Fix its grid and cpu! =-
|
Maximus Krysdam
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 02:18:00 -
[48]
Simple solution to a simple problem. How bout a compromise?
1) Make a dedicated slot for defenders, However make only one type of defender. Only one is needed. If more are made however base them on ship class. For example, A bs sized defender would have faster flight speed and slighly faster ROF to combat the larger number of missles expected to attack him. The smaller versions (for frigs) would have a slower speed and ROF as they wouldnt be expected to be under such heavy bombardment. The requirements for them can be adjusted so small ships cannot use the large modules.
2) Make Defender missles not take up a missle hardpoint in the ship. Yes it goes against the idea of ship fitting in eve but it would still work with balance. This way gunships would be able to have some anti-missle capabilities.
OR
Make a defender Turret equivlant of defender missles. I always thought there should be one. they would activate and consume their own special ammo and work much like defender missles. their ROF would be slower than defenders because of flight time that defenders have. They would take up a turret slot. (and excuse to add more skillbooks??)
Keep defenders a High slot. This will take away from their gank with out severely killing their tank also.
"...It is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won,whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory..." |
Waenn Ironstaff
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 03:13:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Waenn Ironstaff on 06/05/2006 03:14:31 What about using drones for anti-missiles...?
Let's imagine some specific drones made purely for shooting down incoming missiles (perhaps sentry drones?).
How does that sound?
edit (I shouldn't really pos in this thread since I'm a heavy missile-user :P)
|
Olivin
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 03:54:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Olivin on 06/05/2006 03:54:44 Defenders? They killed me twice!! Are they still preventing you from wraping?
On a side note, it will be probably good idea to scrap the idea of defenders and make missile defence system instead, which will works like a warp-disrupting interdiction sphere.
1. You have a probe launcher. 2. You launch a probe which radiates an electromagnetic pulse which burns missile targeting chips, therefore greatly reducing missile accuracy. 3. Many different probes in various flavours: radius, time in space, etc.
Olivin
|
|
DigitalCommunist
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 04:01:00 -
[51]
How about we just get Defenders to actually kill incoming missiles and scrap the hundred obscure implementations that people want?
Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 04:03:00 -
[52]
it bothers me that the defender missile is a highslot just about any ship can fly around with a defender launcher or two and probably really gimp a missile ship (in theory, if they work right)
when you put on a tracking disruptor it takes up a valuable midslot, and to be honest its not that effectice against some setups.. especially autocannons.
i guess its okay if defenders actually worked but it would suck hard if they worked too well and everyone had them fitted and missile ships became totally worthless ------ FPDOMS MINER KILLBOARD |
DigitalCommunist
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 04:14:00 -
[53]
Wrong, not every ship can fit them, because not every ship has missile hardpoints. And high slots > medium slots > low slots, btw. Lets say that you put two on an Apoc and nuked half of the incoming missiles, you're still wasting more than someone who uses a single tracking disruptor and evades all turret fire. Missiles don't have a missile counter, and its about time they got one tbh.
Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
|
Kayl Breinhar
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 04:44:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Kayl Breinhar on 06/05/2006 04:52:09
Originally by: Tuxford Right now I'm actually thinking about dedicated defender launcher. But tbh I haven't started the actual work just yet.
What about something like this and this, Tux?
Real world examples that could *possibly* integrate somewhat easily into EVE. The CIWS for turret ships, the RAM for missile carriers.
Also, while I potentially have your ear - what would be the harm in lowering the tractor beam module's mounting to 1/1 and giving each ship the ability to mount one, preferably in a separate slot *only* earmarked for tractor beams?
I mean, it's not like they can be used for tactical benefit (other than taking up a high slot as the implementation goes now, which could actually be referred to as a tactical downside), and every "spaceship" in modern fiction has HAD one, no matter how small the ships were...
...the only real downside would be people getting ripped off actually BUYING the things instead of buying the BPO and building them from mulched loot resources.
I mean, if there's a plan for bigger beams in the future, obviously there'll need to be more strict mounting requirements...but you *should* be able to mount a "small" tractor beam with that 20km range. It *should* be built into ships by default.
|
Robotek Hybrid
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 05:32:00 -
[55]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist Wrong, not every ship can fit them, because not every ship has missile hardpoints. And high slots > medium slots > low slots, btw. Lets say that you put two on an Apoc and nuked half of the incoming missiles, you're still wasting more than someone who uses a single tracking disruptor and evades all turret fire. Missiles don't have a missile counter, and its about time they got one tbh.
laser projectile hybrid
...
point defense. People have called it other things in this thread. A gun that costs no energey to use but takes up lots of cpu space and some pg that autolocks and shoots incommming missiles with a max range of 10-15km and a rof of 2-4? seconds and a locking time of .5 seconds? maybe with different sizes
|
Wrayeth
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 06:24:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Jim Raynor it bothers me that the defender missile is a highslot just about any ship can fly around with a defender launcher or two and probably really gimp a missile ship (in theory, if they work right)
when you put on a tracking disruptor it takes up a valuable midslot, and to be honest its not that effectice against some setups.. especially autocannons.
i guess its okay if defenders actually worked but it would suck hard if they worked too well and everyone had them fitted and missile ships became totally worthless
This is exactly why I created this whine thread. -Wrayeth
"Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
Benco97
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 08:09:00 -
[57]
I don't want to throw any spanners in the works so this is just a passing comment, does anyone else remember when we used to be able to just shoot the bloody things down?
|
Virida
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 08:36:00 -
[58]
Well, defenders was somewhat usefull before the missile speeds whent haywire. Before missile changes, i was doing Level2 mishes, with an destroyer, using an cormorrant with defenders to shield for 50k mision ships, now? heh. Not used it since.
|
CaptainButts
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 08:50:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Tuxford Right now I'm actually thinking about dedicated defender launcher. But tbh I haven't started the actual work just yet.
Have you considered adding countermeasures a la Freespace 2? Midslot EWAR module with percentages of efficiency affected by A) Countermeasures Operation skill or whatever B) Size of countermeasure compared to size of missile. Sounds like it could work. I mean, obviously finding the right percentages would be important but you could always add anti-countermeasure EWAR mods to missiles, maybe some sort of on-board computer yadda yadda that reduces the change a missile will divert course to a countermeasure flare.
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 08:51:00 -
[60]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist How about we just get Defenders to actually kill incoming missiles and scrap the hundred obscure implementations that people want?
Missiles are too fast now. It would take a lot of computing to get defenders to really work.
If a Raven is right on top of you spamming 6 cruise missiles, there is no way a defender is going to be able to lock onto a missile and kill it without some serious computing time.
Its a waste, missile disruptor pls.
damn i type good for a drunk ;0 - _____
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |