|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
353
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 20:36:39 -
[1] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:If they're going to use the same skills/bonuses as Tracking Disruptors, why not just use missile disruption scripts for the existing Tracking Disruptors instead of a new module? As always ( ), my thinking here is geared toward small gang, who while roaming are not going to know if they're going to be facing turret ships or missile ships until they're facing them.
cause that would make them op as hell and the got to mod for every spare mid |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
353
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 23:04:07 -
[2] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:I leave you for a few hours and what do I get when I come back?
Dear CCP Fozzie, I have a couple or Navy buddies that owe me a favour and they are willing to give you are free of charge demonstration on how missiles work.
And if someone else needs a free of charge rocket demonstration, like Harvey does, I am willing to show you why you are mistaken.
What comes to mind at first? NO. Double NO. And of course HELL NO.
It is fine that you do not know the game mechanics quite as good as I do, you haven't been here long enough to see the error of your ways.
Let me elaborate. AGAIN.
When you finally give missiles back the application they once had, it will apply to all missiles. For the very, very slow, this means that defender missiles will recieve the biggest buff in the history of mankind.
If you find yourself a small missile ship gang, you can form your anti-missile gang with the same ships, just not as many and shoot most of the missiles down with rocket launcher (again for the very, very slow, you put the now freshly buffed and very, very useful defender missiles into the rocket launchers and press FONE) Caracal's.
Funny sidenote, the "friend or foe" missile has a very different name in the Air Force. They call them "fire and forget" missiles.
Now 80% of said missile gang in destroyed before the rest of your gang with beam Omens start working on them (or Zealots if you have them.)
Opponents Caracals disarmed. Fight lost.
For the capsuleers that believe something is overpowered, they should definately re-read of the definition of "overpowered". CCP made it very clear how they define something as overpowered.
A not funny sidenote, the energy neutralizer module fits into this category.
Now for the last time, missiles need to be taken seriously before you start throwing more unnecessary counters to them in the box.
And no I will not respond in kind. I hate to repeat myself over and over and over again.
You can read my esseys again if you want, I gave an explanation often enough.
On the ECM thing for Caldari there is a tiny error in the description of the ECM, which is the Caldari only sometimes get ECM. Everyone always get their ewar.
this is comedy gold |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
353
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 10:07:22 -
[3] - Quote
Asuna Crossbreed wrote:So there is a lot of arguments for having missiles just be affected by tracking disruptors and not have their own module. I happen to agree with this. but I think the scripts that focus on missiles should still added for the weapon disruptors. Also like damps and jams before them the base module needs a small nerf and then the bonus buffed on the bonused hulls.
The reasons for this.
Ships that fit Weapon disruptors don't have very many mids, that in combination with scripts and the redundancy that is present in damps and ecm would be lost making fitting them a gamble at best.
The reason for the nerf is to make these ships both more necessary and powerful, because as of now weapon disruption is a joke on these hulls, not because of the bonuses, but because they have few mids and limited effect where the WDs can be spread throughout the fleet.
Thats true if tds could only be fitted to bonused hulls. In reality you are going to throw them in every spare midslot, which is going to be effective vs the majority of ships roaming atm. Dual td condor bringing up memories? |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
353
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 11:56:02 -
[4] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:It makes me laugh when some greasy neckbeard acts like he has all the answers and calls everyone else an idiot... Get down of your high horse kid. A counter? They will be countered the same way ECM & damps are... Oh and good luck co-ordinating you Ishtar fleet to disrupts every ship in the enemy fleet. Weapon desruption should be viewed exactly the same as damps. You only need one damp and you can affect any ships target time/range, and I don't think weapon description should be any different.
But most ships can say whatever at 1 unbonused damp, however most turret ships are screwed even by just 1 unbonused td. Take the frigate meta, trapfits with ab/scram/web/td do well, and they only work vs turret ships. No other ewar is as effective as the td on a unbonused hull, the weakness of those td scram kiters are misisles and drones, with the same mod beeing able to be used vs missiles it gets truely lame in anything not drone fit.
Just remember the old td hookbill and how strong it was, it would just get stronger. It also would massively screw over any smaller entity upengaging, as a range reduction is very hard to counter.
This is all targeted at the 1 mod, different scrips idea. While i think its a truely bad mod to be added (it is a boring td copy, stop taking the lazy way out @ccp and balance missiles properly) it doesnt screw over the meta to much in a unheathly way. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
355
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 16:46:46 -
[5] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
At the same time, we're planning on making a slight buff pass on the Missile Guidance modules that were introduced in Aegis. Their range bonuses don't need any more improvements, but we are currently planning on buffing their explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses by ~10%. We'd then observe how that change is received on TQ and decide if we want to go farther or not.!
You were told a hundred times in the AEGIS feed back thread that your new modules were ****, and you didn't listen. You added stacking penalties to rigs so the net affect of your change was a missile nerf, so there is no need for this ewar to compensate because you didn't buff anything in aegis.
Mgcs prenerf were retardidly broken, and still are very good, just shows how much bs ccp has to wade through in feedback theads. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
355
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 18:05:10 -
[6] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Fourteen Maken wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
At the same time, we're planning on making a slight buff pass on the Missile Guidance modules that were introduced in Aegis. Their range bonuses don't need any more improvements, but we are currently planning on buffing their explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses by ~10%. We'd then observe how that change is received on TQ and decide if we want to go farther or not.!
You were told a hundred times in the AEGIS feed back thread that your new modules were ****, and you didn't listen. You added stacking penalties to rigs so the net affect of your change was a missile nerf, so there is no need for this ewar to compensate because you didn't buff anything in aegis. Mgcs prenerf were retardidly broken, and still are very good, just shows how much bs ccp has to wade through in feedback theads. pre aegis rigs and target painters were better in just about every way, how do you reach the conclusion they are "very good" ? Apart from a very few fringe cases they are worse than what we had before.
cause its one mod? |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
355
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 18:21:42 -
[7] - Quote
rlmls are great with mgcs, hams can be great, rhmls are great. The rest sucks anyways. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
355
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 20:07:17 -
[8] - Quote
cause they are intended to stack, and if they wouldnt it would be totally broken. MGCs are fine 100%. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
355
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 08:48:54 -
[9] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Mgcs prenerf were retardidly broken, and still are very good, just shows how much bs ccp has to wade through in feedback theads. Please stop, my belly can't handle your cute attempts of comprehension. Let's the grownups talk.
Post with your main if you want to be rude, otherwise lol. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
355
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 11:44:37 -
[10] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Fozzie, do you not think a better idea would be to hold back with these missile modules and then release then as part of a wider missile rebalance?
At the moment there are some circumstances in which missiles are borderline OP, and some which a practically worthless. We need a missile tiericide much like we had ship tiericide. Missiles are in such a state at the moment that it would be foolish for us to throw numbers forward without a wide and comprehensive look at the whole picture.
As for this module I would suggest a tracking disruption module which effects missiles and turrets. Mid slots are the most valuable slots in PvP for most ships and so fitting one of each for missiles and turrets is impractical; even fitting one is a big compromise for most ships.
Also it would be better to have a module that soft counters both weapon systems than one which hard counters one of the other. Soft counters make for more interesting PvP as with hard counters the fight is decided before you even engage.
|
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
356
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 16:11:16 -
[11] - Quote
I think tds, and these new missile tds, have some fundamental flaws. No matter what people say, tds are absurdly broken if used right (i.e bonused hull, max skills, with info links), you are looking at 0.0 + 0.1 km ranges on battleships like the machariel which will always take it out of the game, no matter the piloting. However, damps (and ecm to some degree) are always effective, tds while extremely powerfull just dont have any use vs specific damage types and always lose to damps.
Tds and missile tds can go 2 ways, either no one fits them as they are to niche to use (sort of like eccm) or they get to the damp level.
And lastly, ewar is **** for the game, we need less of it, not more of it!! |
|
|
|