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) |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
412
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 09:27:17 -
[721] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Torps on bombers is far more common than bombs. Just read the killboards. It is a fact.
10-50 bombers + a Rapier kills just about anything in just a few torp launcher cycles. Some bombers have paint, but a dual webbing+ painting Rapier means even frigates pop fast. I don't even use damage application rigs on my bombers.
You get 500DPS out of a bomber (3-4k alpha) and that is all applied to BS and still pretty well applied to cruisers and up. Oh and a +50km range.
As for the changes. Yea these mods need to be stacking penalized, but at the some time i think some buffs on stats are needed so they are worth it. To be fair, 10-50 ANYTHING + rapier kills just about anything non capital pretty damned quickly. Even projectile ships True. But bombers and rapiers can take a bridge via a covert cyno :D.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Matt Faithbringer
Red Horde Rising
7
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 09:48:00 -
[722] - Quote
Cartheron Crust wrote:Matt Faithbringer wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:Did everyone forget that devblog where the mentioned they were going to add (penalties) to ALL rigs as they reviewed them?
Stacking penalties were an inevitability based on that public statement. All rigs?? So they will make trimarks stacking penalized? ****. That will seriously **** over some fits. PS: and **** that language filter. Good. Less EHP = more stuff dies.
No, Less EHP == buffer tank less viable, dual & triple MASB shield ships will be more prominent. At least from solo/small gank perspective |
LastGunslinger Tull
Chronicles of the Angry Bomber Chronicles of the Angry Wormholers
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 12:32:08 -
[723] - Quote
Thank god, missiles are finally getting some love. But i do have to point out the obvious though, missiles dont use cap so in return they eat ALOT of CPU grid. You will have to completely re-balance either the modules to make them easier to fit on a HAM caracal like they would fit on a blaster proteus or similar. When i fit tengus, drakes, caracals or even a jackdaw for that matter, even with 40m SP and near perfect fitting skills i have problems with CPU consumption. This will only make utilizing missiles effectively for most situations an excruciating pain in the ass. It MUST be a fair comparison to other platforms. |
Dave Stark
7506
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:33:57 -
[724] - Quote
LastGunslinger Tull wrote:Thank god, missiles are finally getting some love.
where? when? |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1840
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 18:44:01 -
[725] - Quote
Cartheron Crust wrote:Matt Faithbringer wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:Did everyone forget that devblog where the mentioned they were going to add (penalties) to ALL rigs as they reviewed them?
Stacking penalties were an inevitability based on that public statement. All rigs?? So they will make trimarks stacking penalized? ****. That will seriously **** over some fits. PS: and **** that language filter. Good. Less EHP = more stuff dies. Certain attributes suffer stacking penalties, certain others do not. If CCP changes raw hitpoint amounts (shield, armor, or hull) to a stacking penalized stat that would be...interesting. I haven't seen anything indicating changes that sweeping. The penalties I heard about were specifically for the rigs that currently have no drawback.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
Vailen Sere
The Oasis Group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 02:55:03 -
[726] - Quote
Certain attributes suffer stacking penalties, certain others do not. If CCP changes raw hitpoint amounts (shield, armor, or hull) to a stacking penalized stat that would be...interesting. I haven't seen anything indicating changes that sweeping. The penalties I heard about were specifically for the rigs that currently have no drawback.[/quote]
I have to ask the question.. Was the number re-adjustment done before or after implementing the rig stacking penalties?
I have a theory that that something happened with missile coding.. and for some reason, it's extremely hard to work with.. probably after the BS (Cruise / Torp) nerf. |
Matsutatsu
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 18:27:59 -
[727] - Quote
Came back to EVE after years and what have they done to my Drake???
Surely it would make sense to boost the underused Flare rig to compensate for stacking penalties? Say, from 15% velocity boost to 20% for T1 versions.
15% increase is not equal to 15% decrease anyway, as 1 / 0.85 is not 1.15 but 1.1765.
As one parameter for missile damage equations min() function is only Rigor dependant and another is jointly Flare and Rigor dependant -
Missile damage = base damage * min(1, Rigor dependent value, Rigor and Flare dependent value).
- it would make sense for Flare to have slightly bigger effect than Rigor for joint calculation (1.2 vs 1.1765).
|
Mario Putzo
1496
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 20:23:55 -
[728] - Quote
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.) |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
378
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 20:58:00 -
[729] - 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
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
852
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 22:51:31 -
[730] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote: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.
The MGC vs TP is a bit odd. TPs are better, to a certain extent... thought, they're limited by range
There's not much difference in effect, though the difference is still there. On EFT, I took a raven fitted which precision cruise missiles at lvl 5, and had it set to target an untanked, unproped Worm at all skills 5, traveling at max speed. Without factoring resists, here's what I got.
3x PWNAGE - 138 3x MGC II - 132 2x PWNAGE 1x MGC II - 150 1x PWNAGE 2x MGC II - 148 2x PWNAGE - 120 2x MGC II - 117 1 and 1 - 122 Only 1 PWNAGE - 97 Only 1 MGC II - 96 No mods - 77
This is with no rigs. In a straight up comparison, more TPs always wins, However, the best over all is 2 TP and 1 MGC, or 1 and 1 if you're only using two modules.
I find this a bit odd. I would think that 1 MGC would be better than 1 TP, and even better on a 2 v 2 comparison, but to find that the TPs are the power unit kinda defeats the purpose. I'm cool with the 2 v 1 on a 3 mod fit, but I'd think it would be best to use 2 MGC over 2 TP. Also, this is without any enhancers.. This is pure midslot with no rigs.
IDK... seems these things need a bit of buff.
The Golem is what makes it really odd. Even with the TP bonus, 2 TP and 1 MGC is the best possible option. However, unlike the Raven (with 1TP and 1MGC being the best of a 2 mod option), the Golem is better with 2 TP.
TBH, in the case of the Golem, I'd like to see its TP bonus swapped to a bonus to the effectiveness of MGCs, seeing as how with bonus and bastion, it's supposed to be a long range system, to which TPs hinder by limiting range... Bit counter intuitive. |
|
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
295
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 01:29:54 -
[731] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote: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. The MGC vs TP is a bit odd. TPs are better, to a certain extent... thought, they're limited by range There's not much difference in effect, though the difference is still there. On EFT, I took a raven fitted which precision cruise missiles at lvl 5, and had it set to target an untanked, unproped Worm at all skills 5, traveling at max speed. Without factoring resists, here's what I got. 3x PWNAGE - 138 3x MGC II - 132 2x PWNAGE 1x MGC II - 150 1x PWNAGE 2x MGC II - 148 2x PWNAGE - 120 2x MGC II - 117 1 and 1 - 122 Only 1 PWNAGE - 97 Only 1 MGC II - 96 No mods - 77 This is with no rigs. In a straight up comparison, more TPs always wins, However, the best over all is 2 TP and 1 MGC, or 1 and 1 if you're only using two modules. I find this a bit odd. I would think that 1 MGC would be better than 1 TP, and even better on a 2 v 2 comparison, but to find that the TPs are the power unit kinda defeats the purpose. I'm cool with the 2 v 1 on a 3 mod fit, but I'd think it would be best to use 2 MGC over 2 TP. Also, this is without any enhancers.. This is pure midslot with no rigs. IDK... seems these things need a bit of buff. The Golem is what makes it really odd. Even with the TP bonus, 2 TP and 1 MGC is the best possible option. However, unlike the Raven (with 1TP and 1MGC being the best of a 2 mod option), the Golem is better with 2 TP. TBH, in the case of the Golem, I'd like to see its TP bonus swapped to a bonus to the effectiveness of MGCs, seeing as how with bonus and bastion, it's supposed to be a long range system, to which TPs hinder by limiting range... Bit counter intuitive. Edit.... Just did a bit of playing around with a web paladin vs a worm... Same scenario, only worm is taking advantage of max traversal. I threw on Fed navy multi-frequency, for the sake of factoring out t2 tracking issues. Nothing - 36 at optimal 1 t2 web - no effect 2 web - 78 at 10km (literally at 10km, DPS drops as target closes range, and obviously stops pat 10km) 3 web - 275 at 10km 1 TC T2 - 62 at optimal 2 TC - 110 at optimal 3 TC - 161 at optimal 1 web 1 TC - not worth it 2 web 1 TC - 181 at 10km 1 web 2 TC - Also not worth it So, I guess these stats make the 2 TP 1 MGC make more sense, but they differ with anything less, as maintaining range and using TCs is better in all other cases. IDK... someone else has got to make sense of this, as the stats don't make sense to me... Though, in the case of both web and TP, range is limited. Missiles also don't have the advantage of max damage on a stationary target, but that's beside the point.
Not trying to defend it, but to make another observation:
It's true TPs outperform here. But MGC have additional flexibility in that they can be scripted in and out for range when needed. You also don't need to target or cycle them onto targets as they die, so that's a small bonus. Another would be that if a target is already painted by someone else, TP automatically falls behind from stacking.
Of course the counter argument is that TP benefits the whole fleet, instead of just your ship. They're also easier to fit and I believe get a larger overheat bonus than MGC does.
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
852
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 02:17:15 -
[732] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:
Not trying to defend it, but to make another observation:
It's true TPs outperform here. But MGC have additional flexibility in that they can be scripted in and out for range when needed. You also don't need to target or cycle them onto targets as they die, so that's a small bonus. Another would be that if a target is already painted by someone else, TP automatically falls behind from stacking.
Of course the counter argument is that TP benefits the whole fleet, instead of just your ship. They're also easier to fit and I believe get a larger overheat bonus than MGC does.
Yeah... I was thinking the same, but then I compared it to webs, as they're the closest thing to TPs in the turret world. It seemed that 3 webs was better, but extremely limiting.
That said though, TCs were more effective in most cases. Not saying it's the same comparison, but I'd imagine that a TC is better than anything else you could use in general, up to a certain number of modules.
In the case of the MGC, I would expect 2 and 1 TP on a Raven to be the best suitable combination. I don't know... I may be rambling, but it just seems that MGCs, and my nature of less effective value MGEs, to be a bit lackluster. It's hard to compare their effectiveness to TCs and TEs though, as it's hard to compare tracking to missile exp velocity and radius.
I wonder though... In the case of the application bonus, would it be better to use just exp radius as the bonus? |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1266
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 06:39:46 -
[733] - Quote
Webs benefit missiles even more, the short range is just usually the issue.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Derren Zelway
Crazy Bird Inc. Templis CALSF
6
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 12:20:57 -
[734] - Quote
Although the "Missile Guidance Enhancer" and "Missile Guidance Computers" are a good idea they seem to be a bit lackluster at this moment in time compared with the "equivalents" in gunnery. After playing around with PYFA for a few hours I was woefully unimpressed at what they brought to the table and only found two fits that were helpedGÇösomewhatGÇöby the "Missile Guidance Enhancer." Namely the Heavy Missile Drake and the Torpedo Raven.
With some tweaking I hope they can be worked into better shape because they are mostly eclipsed by target painters for damage application and the bonus to missile velocity is kind of marginal to sacrifice a precious mid/low slot.
I found that, outside of lobbing cruise missiles at extreme range (velocity bonused heavies are in reasonably effective TP falloff) the benefit of fitting a target painter far outweighs the "Missile Guidance Computers" because you are benefitting the damage application of yourself and everyone else who is shooting that target.
Because of this, and of course in my opinion, there should be a larger focus on missile velocity in exchange for flight time and a general increase in damage application for both of these modules so that the situations they become valuable in are more apparent.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
196
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 16:59:40 -
[735] - Quote
looks like i can push 15km more range out of my FW bomber and they will apply. whether the application is actually better I shall have to see in eve. So over all good mods please buff them somemore. |
Telinchei
EVE University Ivy League
8
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 04:34:30 -
[736] - Quote
Hi all I am satisfied with the modules themselves, but the icon you have provided is inconsistent with other icons in the game, which are all either isometric or orthogonal (eg, http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rfW4n_6mlTU/VKzsk-51vmI/AAAAAAAALfA/6bxrnZlNuSk/s1600/heat15-2.jpg ). The current icon has the flat face of the radar/antenna sloping down *and* away from the viewer - and no other icon (apart from the conical/circular objects such as prop mods and autocannons, where this effect is impossible to remove in an isometric perspective).
Can you please make it so the stand is flat on the bottom of the icon, and the radar leans back into the plane of the screen? I realise it is a passive module and I hardly have to view it apart from the fitting window, but it is still inconsistent and a source of irritation. Thanks in advance Telinchei |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1745
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 16:11:36 -
[737] - Quote
LastGunslinger Tull wrote:Thank god, missiles are finally getting some love.
Please do not confuse promises with truth.
Promising to take your girlfriend out for a meal, doesn't do you much good when she is pissed with you for eating her meal in the restaurant, and shoving a cactus up her bum when you get home.
I love you, honest, just doesn't cut it.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
174
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 16:47:07 -
[738] - Quote
Quote:Yeah... I was thinking the same, but then I compared it to webs, as they're the closest thing to TPs in the turret world.
Actually, TPs are the closest thing to TPs in the turret world. Sig radius (divided by the turret's sig resolution) is a direct multiplier to effective tracking for turrets. If you increase sig by 30%, you've effectively increased tracking by 30%.
The difference is that webs can't be negated out of the equation for turrets like they can missiles. For missiles, once the sig factor in the min function is the lowest value, reducing the target's speed does nothing for the missile's damage. Basically, increasing the target's sig radius always increases missile damage (up to maximum damage), while reducing speed doesn't always. Both always work (again, up to maximum hit chance) for turrets. Since a 60% web has the same effect on turret hit chance as increasing the target's sig by 150%, webs are almost always the superior option, if range isn't an issue.
But TPs still affect turrets just as well as they do missiles. In fact, they affect turrets slightly better, since turret average damage increases as hit chance increases. A 30% increase to sig radius is never more than a 30% increase to missile damage. It can be and often is more than 30% for turrets.
The real problem we run into with the new modules is two-fold. First off, they are simply less powerful than TPs until TPs reach substantial stacking penalties. For the mid-slots scripted for application, this requires 2-3 TPs to already be applied before that MGC becomes a superior option.
The other issue is that the application bonus for MGCs is split between explosion radius and explosion velocity. As highlighted above, there is a very commonly reached point where additional explosion velocity doesn't do squat for the damage of missiles.
For example, a Phoenix often shoots down-class at battleships, which are essentially always sig-capped for the missile equations. A MGC scripted for application grants +15% explosion velocity and -15% explosion radius. Against a battleship, the explosion velocity is irrelevant. Beyond that, the MGC would be stacking penalized with the 3 Rigor rigs, meaning it is sitting at only 28.3% of normal effectiveness, or all of a 4.24% reduction in explosion radius (+4.43% effective target sig).
A meta4 TP with 4/5 Signature Focusing (+36% sig) would need to by at its 5th stacking penalty before the MGC becomes a better option than another TP for application. Against a hostile dread or an MWDing BS), it's a bit better, since the explosion velocity actually factors in (MGC becomes better after 3 TPs are applied, rather than 4), but it's still far down the list.
Even if we negate out the Rigor rigs and pretend we're shooting at something where both velocity and sig radius matter, the first MGC, baseline, is only 94% as effective as the first TP, and the TP applies to everyone else shooting (and take 30% less CPU to fit).
Basically, the modules are simply undertuned right now. If they provided 100% of their benefit to just Explosion Radius rather than split between Explosion Radius and Explosion Velocity, they'd be in a LOT better spot, since -30% Explosion Radius would be roughly 15% more potent than a max-skill meta4 (or T2, same bonus) TP.
That, or they could just junk that archaic sig-radius-only factor in the missile damage equation. If a Megathron can hit a stationary pod for full damage, a Raven should be able to as well. |
Lady Nadra
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 16:55:03 -
[739] - Quote
Tried out the new guidance computer modules on my tengu. Very disappointed.
With 3 rigors the explo radius of my ham rage missiles is 103m now which is.. worse then it used to be at iirc 87m! Thanks for the stacking penalty.
And.. the new guidance computer modules stack against the rigors for a double nerf right off the bat! With 3 rigors + 3 tech two application scripted guidance computers the explo radius is now at.. wait for it.. 97m !
I can't even get back to the old explosion radius I used to have, with the new modules!
The only nice part about it is you can get more range, but what I was really looking forward to was being able to actually apply the damage. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
3813
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 18:34:37 -
[740] - Quote
Since the new modules have been released, I feel HMLs are now in a worse place than ever due to the increased capabilities of HAMs. Please buff HML DPS and range by 25%.
Oh god.
|
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
735
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 19:40:03 -
[741] - Quote
Telinchei wrote:Hi all I am satisfied with the modules themselves...
You seem to be the first.
NOBODY ELSE IS.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Mario Putzo
1501
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 19:52:13 -
[742] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Telinchei wrote:Hi all I am satisfied with the modules themselves... You seem to be the first. NOBODY ELSE IS.
For missile range, they rock....sadly the problems with missiles were never about range. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
735
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 21:04:47 -
[743] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:elitatwo wrote:Telinchei wrote:Hi all I am satisfied with the modules themselves... You seem to be the first. NOBODY ELSE IS. For missile range, they rock....sadly the problems with missiles were never about range.
Yeah I know but that was one of the reasons the unstoppable Drake was nerfed, wasn't it? I mean, how dare a long range weapon have long range, right?
I just had another idea to even this out. Since we can all ditch the idea of damage application, how about missiles get wrecking damage instead? One or two warheads of each volley have a chance of doing 2000% damage at let's say 95% range?
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
GreyGryphon
The Spartains
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 00:13:19 -
[744] - Quote
Lady Nadra wrote:Tried out the new guidance computer modules on my tengu. Very disappointed. With 3 rigors the explo radius of my ham rage missiles is 103m now which is.. worse then it used to be at iirc 87m! Thanks for the stacking penalty. And.. the new guidance computer modules stack against the rigors for a double nerf right off the bat! With 3 rigors + 3 tech two application scripted guidance computers the explo radius is now at.. wait for it.. 97m ! I can't even get back to the old explosion radius I used to have, with the new modules! The only nice part about it is you can get more range, but what I was really looking forward to was being able to actually apply the damage. I think that range bonus played a big role in the new modules being nerfed, and it seems that most people did not have a problem with the range nerf. However the combination of stacking penalties and the reduction in application stats has made the new modules inferior to all other options for application. The stacking penalties really hurt a lot of missile fits that used rigors, and overall this was probably a nerf to all missiles except maybe heavies because of the 5% damage bonus. Rigor rig fits lost about 10% of their application, so I would think even some heavy missile fits were hurt some. I think the only fits that might have benefited from this change are for battleships because of the long range of cruise missiles and spare slots.
It would be really nice if anyone would explain what the goals of these changes were.
Missile Rebalance
|
Telinchei
EVE University Ivy League
9
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 02:18:22 -
[745] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Telinchei wrote:Hi all I am satisfied with the modules themselves... You seem to be the first. NOBODY ELSE IS.
I don't use missiles on my main atm, that's why. :) |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
115
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 04:07:33 -
[746] - Quote
The 5% bonus to HMLs was a nice start, but the dps still feels slightly underwhelming . I think another 5% boost to their DPS and they should be in a better place. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
3817
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 05:25:51 -
[747] - Quote
GreyGryphon wrote:It would be really nice if anyone would explain what the goals of these changes were. To **** us all over, of course.
Oh god.
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
491
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 05:59:43 -
[748] - Quote
Telinchei wrote:elitatwo wrote:Telinchei wrote:Hi all I am satisfied with the modules themselves... You seem to be the first. NOBODY ELSE IS. I don't use missiles on my main atm, that's why. :)
Ah, well that would make sense then. Touche, good sir!
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
575
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 08:29:13 -
[749] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:The 5% bonus to HMLs was a nice start, but the dps still feels slightly underwhelming . I think another 5% boost to their DPS and they should be in a better place.
HML are really more about volley than raw DPS. I've found the changes to be adequate in a number of scenarios particularly when shooting sleepers or running 3/10s with my cerb. Also it's worth noting that lowsec caracal fleets vs armour doctrines haven't been explored yet where 1 TP fleet painter and 1x MGC per ship could be useful. These modules haven't been considered for large scales yet either.
Take something uncommon like the navy drake. I'll update my pyfa to Aegis and run some hypotheticals then report here.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
575
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 09:30:23 -
[750] - Quote
And here is a cerberus fit. It's just a sample, not to be taken literally.
[Cerberus, Cerberus ASB HML]
Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Power Diagnostic System II
Large Shield Booster II Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script Limited 'Anointed' EM Ward Field Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800 50MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst II
I'd still really like the cerb to get another mid, even at the sacrifice of a high if necessary. The cerb has got very good damage but an awkward slot layout and that makes it hard to want to use.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |