|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
325
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:18:52 -
[1] - Quote
afkalt wrote:CPU feels high for missile boats which are CPU limited - especially given the cost of a PWNAGE by compare.
Are these stacking penalised? Are rigs now stacking penalised? (I believe they are not atm) What wins the priority battle give them above?
Have you considered speeding up all missile precision variants (with a corresponding flight time decrease to maintain range) in order to have a better chance of making contact with the expected target (which is obviously small and fast relative to the launcher hull size)
Are you going to look at the phoon(s)? They the one hull class I'm worried about abusing these mods. It'll be a murder machine of little compare.
Its the same cpu requirement for these mods as TE/TC. If you swap a bcu for an MTE then youll have MORE available CPU. I dont foresee fitting being an issue. I fly caldari/missile boats quite often, should be fine.
Good changes IMO, and the mods dont seem overly strong, but enough to consider them useful in certain fits.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
325
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 15:55:12 -
[2] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote: As long as any eventual missile EWAR only effects missiles at the time they're launched there shouldn't be any more server load than there is currently. If CCP tries to apply missile EWAR to missiles in flight though, that could potentially become burdensome. Of course. Ive often wondered whether my missiles are getting the effect of a painter if its activated after the missiles were already in flight. That is, does the server calculate the explosion effects on launch and just apply them when they reach the target or does it do a recalculation on impact. Turning these missile tracking enhancing mods on after launch could then also become problematical for the server. While I hate ecm and what it does currently. It would not be a fix to change it to what you suggest. ECM has a valid use as a counter to logi and remote effects. TD makes more sense since the TD boats are not used much anyway..
Where have you been? TD ships like sentinels, crucifiers and arbitrators/curse are friggin everywhere. Makes my sleip, nado, pest, any arty boat cry a river of tears when theyre around. They completely neuter turret ships (as intended). Really dont want one module affecting 2 completely different weapon systems. A sentinel is countered by missiles and a cap booster. If its TD bonus applies to missile disruption now, it can fly with impunity. The sentinel is already borderline OP for an EWAR ship, with its speeds/neuts/TD/drones.
Modifying sensor damps might make more sense. Since it would be a gal counter to caldari weapon. Plus sensor dampening would make more sense against missiles than "tracking disruption". Damped sensors cant guide missiles as efficiently. Maybe an added script.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
327
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 16:44:44 -
[3] - Quote
Baali Tekitsu wrote:Chance Ravinne wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:HMs do not need a direct damage increase.
They need you to revert the 12% reduction in explosion radius done in 2012 sometime. Thats it.
Presently even with application mods in Rigs, HMs are losing nearly 40% of their DPS in application vs Turrets who lose only around 30% (arties 35%) using only 1 Tracking Comp + Tracking Speed.
Just remove the explosion radius change, so HMs can hit similar application numbers. Their peak DPS and Alpha are fine.
The new application modules will specifically help address this issue, as long as you are willing to fit at least one. They need it ontop of the new mods, ship speeds have almost doubled in some cases, what was balanced once is trash now.
QFT.
The only heavies ill continue to use are RHML. Since BS have the space for the mods. Maybe not the full 12% since we have these mods now, but 5-8% could help along with the dmg buff.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
327
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 18:15:09 -
[4] - Quote
Gugl1 Molou wrote:I sense armor phoenix's or low-tank shield phoenix's will be a thing after these changes. Imagine a double Missile Guidance Computer II fit to a phoenix to blap subcaps...
Bring it on. Outside of web range and having an ab should still be enough to speed tank them. Then counter drop a dread, profit.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
370
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 17:51:31 -
[5] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Oh dear God! Could we please just once, when a bonus is offered, not have it taken back with both hands? It was nice to see 5% on heavy missiles, but no, not to be, lets stack missile application Rigs to make the things even more bloody useless. The trolling from CCP is getting way beyond a joke!
Maybe this is CCP's way of saying they can not make a missile TD. So they're purposely dumbing down the new mods and fixing the stacking penalty.
Then in a couple months, there will be no new announcements on missile TD, and it will be forgotten. Which tbh is fine. Damps/ECM are already effective counters. Yes there are FoF missiles, but they are hilariously ineffective unless there is only a single griffin/maulus on field hugging you, with no drones out. Dont even get me started on needing to reload to FoF on a rapid launcher.
Face it, missiles are not immune to the same fitting/stacking penalties as turrets and their rigs. And its easy insurance to prevent HML spam from making a comeback by having a 3 rigor drake with some MTE's in its lows and not having stacking penalties in the rigs.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
378
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 20:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:Application bonus is kind of lack luster...I think that it should scale from 8% T1 > 10%T2. The range bonus is solid, maybe even a bit to strong, time will tell but I can for see some interesting "brawling" missile ships with Javelins out to 44KM+ (depending if you have native range bonus or not).
Anyhow, its obvious why these were pre-nerfed. Having the increase to absolute range attached to application modding is pretty ********.
(Oh and PSA for yall...Heavy Missiles still suck.)
I tinkered with a few missile fits last night. Kind of discouraged to use the MTC with precision script when TP is better. Unless youre missile sniping. Which is kind of futile. Although MJD cruise missile BS can get some massive alpha from doubling up vollies. launching a couple vollies and then MJD on target to apply scram/webs and having 4-6 vollies hit in rapid succession. I cant get out of my desk when that happens. What with the raging thorax in my pants.
I also made a few HML fits, still terrible. Think we gained 100 alpha. Although my RHML phoon FI is now pushing almost 900dps in just missiles. Soo.. thx for RHML buff CCP.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
|
|
|