Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Onslaughtor
Occult National Security Phoenix Naval Systems
152
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:26:48 -
[31] - Quote
For the sake of opinion and such, I would prefer to see missile disruption added to weapon disruptor rather than having them be their own module. Tweaks to the base weapon disruptor's would be needed along with buffs to bonused hulls so that they remain strong on bonused ships but weaker on unbonused hulls. Similar to what happened with damps and jams in the past.
Also I like the missile changes, think torps and Hams could use a tad more range but we can see. |
Womyn Power
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
103
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:30:33 -
[32] - Quote
im glad it was u rise
but you shouldve done this a long time ago |
Valkin Mordirc
1129
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:31:01 -
[33] - Quote
I'd personally would be very very happy if the kinetic lock to Caldari ships would be removed, and to see the CPU for Caldari ship (Or missile cpu brought down) increased slightly as shield/missiles make for a headache in fitting but on the contrary Blasters/Armor and a Gallente ship allow for plenty of fitting room.
Overall though, I am happy to see this, ^..^
#DeleteTheWeak
|
El Space Mariachi
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
197
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:31:48 -
[34] - Quote
looks a little strong, the few armor tanked missile ships are going to be disgustingly good with these changes. heaven knows missiles need some love though, glad something is being done about it.
gay gamers for jesus
|
Xavier Azabu
Fluid Motion Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
17
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:38:18 -
[35] - Quote
For all the people crying for ewar you have the options of smartbombs to mitigate damage or damps on range for kiters already if you're concerned about that.
Good luck to future tacklers. You gon' get alpha'd! |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1423
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:38:46 -
[36] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote: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.
Yes but gunboats are not (really) CPU bound. Most missile boats are. Exceptions exist, of course, but in general terms it holds.
A lot of missile ships run painters - swapping a painter out for these mods means:
Significantly more resource needed (CPU) Slight improvement over said PWNAGE Loss of boost to fleet due to dropping said PWNAGE.
That feels a little...off kilter. Tbh the CPU should probably be swapped given one is a gang helper, but that's obviously a mad change which screws with things all over the place but for me - gang assist should be a higher "cost" than "self assist". |
Rob Kashuken
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
79
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:40:51 -
[37] - Quote
Drakefleet will rise again!
I'd agree that CPU requirements are going to be a little tight, but that can usually be worked around.
Add me to the list of people suggesting that the Caldari-Kinetic lock should be broken, we'd like more choices to be enabled.
And, as an Ewar specialist, could the Crucifier's Tracking disruptors be made to be applied (either through a module application redesign (preferred), or a new script) to affect missile ships? Caldari can jam everything (given chance), Gallente can damp everything effectively, Minmatar's TP bonuses work across the board, but the Amarr primary ewar option only affects turret ships - it is completely useless against missile and neuting ships. |
stoicfaux
5922
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:43:24 -
[38] - Quote
El Space Mariachi wrote:looks a little strong, the few armor tanked missile ships are going to be disgustingly good with these changes. heaven knows missiles need some love though, glad something is being done about it. Yes, they're a bit strong because, IMHO, missile ships are "required" to fit as many damage application modules as possibles (e.g. Rigors and TPs,) whereas gunships can manage transversal to land big guns on small ships. (Yes, I know guns/missiles are still an apples and oranges situation.) In theory, a strong MGC would allow PvP missile ships to free up rig slots. OTOH, it could lead to big missiles blapping little ships.
However, on the PvE side, the MGC is a bit overpowered.
Except for the Mission Golem. I will still use Cruise missiles on my Golem despite the torp buff and MGC, but I should be able to use Warp Speed rigs instead of Rigors and compensate by running a mix of TPs and MGCs. However, my Vargur will still outperform the Golem for mission running.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
TinkerHell
Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory.
157
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:46:32 -
[39] - Quote
I dont even get why these are needed. Why are missiles now being made the same as guns?
The same...yet not effected by TDs or an equivalent ewar.
I see this going well. |
EVE-Lotteries
EVE-Lotteries Corporation
15
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:47:07 -
[40] - Quote
Makes the actual TD works on that please.
You miss blink ? Come and play with us at EVE-Lotteries.com !
|
|
Kadesh Priestess
This Game Is Terrible Warlords of the Deep
470
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:47:26 -
[41] - Quote
When do you plan to have these on singularity? Will there be remote missile enhancers (like remote tracking computers) and bonused ships for these? |
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
794
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:47:32 -
[42] - Quote
I take that the computer will have scripts?
RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
|
Alexander McKeon
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
94
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:48:20 -
[43] - Quote
When can we expect to see these on SISI for testing? Hopefully soon, given how near we are to the release window. |
stoicfaux
5922
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:54:37 -
[44] - Quote
TinkerHell wrote:I dont even get why these are needed. Why are missiles now being made the same as guns?
The same...yet not effected by TDs or an equivalent ewar.
I see this going well. Missile Spam + MGCs providing updates to missiles in flight + TD affecting missiles + TiDi = increased cardiovascular related reductions in Hamster resources
Worst case, I tell my kids their hamsters died suddenly in the night, and I ship them[1] off to the London data center.
[1] The hamsters, not the kids. The kids get shipped in the Fall.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
El Liptonez
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
31
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:56:03 -
[45] - Quote
Any chance of a m-¦ reduction on heavy missiles as well? 4 damage types x 3 ammo types (faction, precision, fury) makes for 12 sets of missiles that one should carry in PVP. Especially in a RHML boat the amount of cargo required for heavy missiles is extraordinary compared to the other ammo types. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1424
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:56:10 -
[46] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:However, on the PvE side, the MGC is a bit overpowered. *cough* Typhoon? *cough*
Believe me, armor phoon with RHML is going to be a beast in PvP.
It might even be strong enough to upset the cruiser meta applecart.
[Oh god get it off me, Typhoon] Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II 1600mm Steel Plates II Armor Explosive Hardener II
Large Micro Jump Drive 500MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive Tracking Computer II Tracking Computer II Tracking Computer II
Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Missile Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Large Anti-Explosive Pump I Large Anti-Kinetic Pump I Large Trimark Armor Pump I |
Credacom
Aperture Harmonics K162
47
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:56:31 -
[47] - Quote
Really cool stuff but we will need better counter options and be ready to make some quick changes to RMLs of both types. Stuff is going to get crazy real fast.
Legions .... |
Tonrak awesomesauce
Imploding Turtles Rising in Outerspace Gravity Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:56:35 -
[48] - Quote
Is there any news regarding torpedoes? They are really bad currently, both lacking range and damage application |
Capitol One
Snuff Box Snuffed Out
185
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:02:56 -
[49] - Quote
Can you also please reduce the volume of cruise missiles? |
Kiddoomer
ScrewWork Inc.
61
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:03:57 -
[50] - Quote
Tonrak awesomesauce wrote:Is there any news regarding torpedoes? They are really bad currently, both lacking range and damage application
I agree, I really would like to use them the same way than HAM but they just don't do it for missile BS.
The modules seem fine, and glad to see finally a buff to HM, my drake will be happy to finally undock , but wonder why people ask for a ewar, b'cause ECM and Dampener do the job fine.
A survey scanner tweak and new mining methods: interactive mining
|
|
Claud Tiberius
118
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:05:01 -
[51] - Quote
Can CCP or someone else please explain why there's going to be this missile balance package. Is their an issue with the current system? Is the package just designed to add more variety to missile combat?
Once upon a time the Golem had a Raven hull and it looked good. Then it transformed into a plataduck. The end.
|
Eridon Hermetz
Ghosts'n Stuff Drama Sutra
34
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:05:05 -
[52] - Quote
Tonrak awesomesauce wrote:Is there any news regarding torpedoes? They are really bad currently, both lacking range and damage application
and fitting issue .... |
Matt Faithbringer
The Scope Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:06:30 -
[53] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote: Missile Spam + MGCs providing updates to missiles in flight + TD affecting missiles
Honestly I cannot imagine designing it like this from software standpoint.. IMHO it's more probably the MGC boost and TD will be calculated when launching the missile and tweak it's stats. Recalculating it on the fly each server tick would be idiotic, too taxing on the hw
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1097
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:10:39 -
[54] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:rockets could do with lower volume
torps need better fitting and range (rockets 10km, hams 20km, torps 20km, what?)
and as always, missiles will always be garbage while skirmish links are around. missile damage is basically determined by speed:sig. you can't improve speed:sig by ~80% and still expect missiles to work. I don't know about the Rocket Volume thing, but your point on Torps is right on. They have absurd low range for a battleship weapon system, almost as bad as Blasters though with the right ammo you can reach out with falloff at least. Your point about Skirmish Links does not really hold water, considering Armor and Siege links work pretty good for mitigating damage too.
tank links are broken for sure, but they don't affect damage mitigation. |
Gunnsmoke
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:11:26 -
[55] - Quote
El Space Mariachi wrote:looks a little strong, the few armor tanked missile ships are going to be disgustingly good with these changes. heaven knows missiles need some love though, glad something is being done about it.
The Prophecy
This does not suck
|
Phaade
Perimeter Defense Systems
358
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:12:52 -
[56] - Quote
First, removing Caldari Kinetic lock is a necessity. The Cerberus will always be 3/4's as good as it can be, or less due to Gallente bias (Ishtar lol) and kinetic resists, because of this ancient ship bonus. Missile specialists would not lock themselves into using one particular missile, while drone specialists utilize all drone types, and projectile specialists use all types of ammunition. It makes no sense.
Second, why are you not increasing the range / application on torpedoes? They will continue to languish in uselessness, many battleships cannot sacrifice that many low slots to make them worthwhile, except perhaps Minmatar. Buffing a battleship weapon system at this point is a good idea.
Third, Heavy Missiles still need application buffs. 5% damage increase will effectively do almost nothing as you never apply your paper dps anyway. A Cerberus only has 4 low slots. In pvp, you pretty much require a damage control, so realistically you only have 3 (you might be able to get away with a nano instead of DC if you are running a sniper fleet). Two need to be BCU's to make the damage worthwhile, the third would probably be a guidance enhancer which comes at the cost of speed on an already horribly slow ship. If you sacrifice a mid, you lose an application Ewar module like a web or painter, for an application module....(?) or you sacrifice tank.
A small step in the right direction, but it will still be drones (ishtars) online. |
DFA200
Hard vs Soft
14
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:14:42 -
[57] - Quote
So you are buffing the the weapon system that is basically invulnerable. I think missiles might need something, but they also need a counter. Tracking disruptors should affect missiles in some way. Until that happens, I can't support these changes. |
Canenald
Jump Drive Appreciation Society Test Alliance Please Ignore
75
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:17:18 -
[58] - Quote
How about you fix fofos and make defender missiles not useless while you are at it? Thanks. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2534
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:17:45 -
[59] - Quote
What ever happened to the 5% heavy missile buff mentioned in the o7 show |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1750
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:20:10 -
[60] - Quote
I find it interesting that the missile versions of TCs and TEs have the same CPU requirements as their turret counterparts, yet BCUs require more CPU than turret damage mods.
For a dev: did you chose the level of buffage of the new mods to be lower than the turret counterparts to accommodate the equal CPU usage, or are you just giving missiles a free ride on this one? Is it safe to assume that the bonuses from these new modules are stacking penalized like their turret counterparts?
Please note that I am not complaining. I am simply curious and am rather excited to see how these play out. I do have to say though, a Phoenix with 3x midslot missile mods will be...interesting....
My Many Misadventures
I seek to create content, not become content.
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |