EVE Search - Feedback on Rocket Changes

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Feedback on Rocket Changes

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)
Buzz Cutter	Posted - 2010.10.19 01:37:00 - [331] Edited by: Buzz Cutter on 19/10/2010 01:42:44 Hi All o/ just my 2 cents but you all seem to be fitting you hawks with MWD i dont, i use an AB when fighting anthing frigate size, i find that they 90% of the time they scramble your MWD?? This is my fit, it all fits on with no fitting mods, There is however a spare high slot but with 1% more CPU and 6% or so more PG can fit a meta 4 nuet! this i would say is a kick ass AF (once the bigger bounses come in) [Hawk, Med sheild] Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Warp Scrambler II 1MN Afterburner II X5 Prototype I Engine Enervator Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket [empty high slot] Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Small Core Defence Field Extender I
Kazzzi Amarr Minmatar Ship Construction Services Damu'Khonde	Posted - 2010.10.19 04:09:00 - [332] Current rocket fix plan looks pretty good. Overall damage boost, exp velocity boost and increase in clip size. It looks like you been reading my notes. CCP, I applaud Kaz
Gecko O'Bac H A V O C Cascade Imminent	Posted - 2010.10.19 10:12:00 - [333] Originally by: Buzz Cutter Edited by: Buzz Cutter on 19/10/2010 01:42:44 Hi All o/ just my 2 cents but you all seem to be fitting you hawks with MWD i dont, i use an AB when fighting anthing frigate size, i find that they 90% of the time they scramble your MWD?? There is a reason... While in hisec wars/lowsec pirating AB may be completely fine, it is not in 0.0 most of the time, not on its own at least. The reason is simple... While you're ABing even a mwding battlecruiser can keep you pointed for long enough to kill you. And if you encounter a vagabond you won't EVER be able to outrun him. Another important case is bubbles: either fixed or hictor/dictor versions... If you get caught in one with an AB only fit you will have a much harder time getting out of them before getting jumped by the attackers. Since in 0.0 pvp you often need to travel a lot before finding targets, you're much more likely to encounter enemy camps or just roaming enemies. An AB only fit means you're screwed most of the time. This is also why dual prop fits are good... IE: you can make a perfectly fine jaguar dual prop fit. The drawback is it loses the webber and a gyrostab, but you gain survivability and flexibility.
Prometheus Exenthal Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2010.10.20 02:04:00 - [334] Edited by: Prometheus Exenthal on 20/10/2010 02:09:57 Just restating a couple things. Rocket based AFs are alright now. Perhaps a slight increase in rocket rof is in order, but otherwise rockets are just fine. AFs in general still need a 4th bonus T1 Frigates are alright except for the Breacher & Inquisitor since they only have 2 mids and will suffer against frigate sized targets sporting an afterburner. Interceptors are also alright except for the Malediction. It's ludicrously low on cpu as well as damage. Before any chimes in to say that the Malediction is a tackle ceptor good for nothing but tackle; incorrect. I have Ares & Raptors cruising around at 200+ dps, and a Stiletto humming along with 110 w/ a sizable buffer. The only way to make the Malediction do any damage is to fit anything except rockets to it. Interdictors need work. Rockets are fine for them, but the reasoning for them is a little flawed. The Sabre is the only Interdictor that retains all of its original bonuses. It's also the only one that can do well over 300 dps, fit a tank, and fit a bubble. The Flycatcher is the next closest to meeting that requirement. That doesn't make the Flycatcher good per se, but it makes it better than the Eris & Heretic. Rockets on the Heretic aren't bad or anything, it's just really tight on CPU, and if you want to do any decent amount of damage you pretty much have to remove any resemblance to a tank (unlike the Eris). All that really needs to be done is to boost its natural damage bonus so it can compete with a Sabre. The same goes for the Flycatcher. -------------- The Eris has a different problem. It uses nearly 54% of its cpu to fit a damage control and a bubble launcher. By comparison, the Sabre uses around 45%. That may not seem like a big difference, but then you look at the other things that factor into this. The Eris has to fit a propulsion mod, and a tackling mod. The most practical is a scrambler and mwd which brings the cpu up to 72%. This problem crops up with the Heretic as well, but on the Eris it's much more pronounced. That is ridiculous when you consider that you have yet to fit a tank (or rep), and have not fit a single offensive weapon. Also consider that CCP has recommended you train for rockets & blasters to use on the ship; two of the highest cpu weapons. It is impossible to match the performance of any of the other ships, leaving the ONLY options for it as super cheap suicide bubbler and a maximum dps gank ship that doesn't use a bubble at all With that said the latter of the two choices suits ME just fine, but for the rest of the EVE populace who would like to use the ship for its intended role, balance is a little too heavily skewed into the Sabres direction. The Sabre has the highest usuable dps, best tracking, best tank, most agility, most speed, most fitting ability and more scan resolution than any of its competitors. There is literally nothing that the others do better - MY LATEST VIDEO - DO IT ALONE COWARD
Herring Caldari Fork In Your Face LTD	Posted - 2010.10.20 10:36:00 - [335] Originally by: Mashie Saldana I have no idea what fit you had in mind that would require more PG on the Hawk, added CPU on the other hand would be really useful. This. All my hawk fits are leaving me with a sad face for cpu at 99.7 - 100% of cpu used, grid around 88-90%. What you really meant to say was, we're increasing CPU for the hawk.
Shingorash Caldari F L I P M O D E	Posted - 2010.10.20 13:25:00 - [336] Edited by: Shingorash on 20/10/2010 13:27:17 What are these changes going to do when it comes to shooting at drones? And yes the speed reduction on all missile types for long range ammo is just stupid. All guns have a tracking reduction, why not just change long range missiles to have some other drawback which isnt crippling... -------------------------------------------------- I'm in your space, eating your ships!
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.10.21 04:31:00 - [337] Hey, uhhh.... please increase the CPU on the Hawk. In fact, increase the fittings on most frigs - there's no reason that you should have to use 30M ISK meta 4 items to get a half decent fit on it. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter Blog
Tsubutai The Tuskers	Posted - 2010.10.21 07:37:00 - [338] Originally by: Liang Nuren Hey, uhhh.... please increase the CPU on the Hawk. In fact, increase the fittings on most frigs - there's no reason that you should have to use 30M ISK meta 4 items to get a half decent fit on it. -Liang Meta 3 (or meta 2 in the case of damage controls) gives 95% of the performance of meta 4 for 5% of the price, and is generally even easier on the CPU. Really not seeing a problem here.
Duchess Starbuckington	Posted - 2010.10.21 11:25:00 - [339] The Hookbill has less CPU than the Hawk... and has 5 mids. Getting a decent SML fit on is pretty much impossible and it really struggles without low-CPU metas all over the place. _________________________________ ROCKET STATUS: FIX IN PROGRESS...
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.10.21 17:15:00 - [340] Originally by: Tsubutai Meta 3 (or meta 2 in the case of damage controls) gives 95% of the performance of meta 4 for 5% of the price, and is generally even easier on the CPU. Really not seeing a problem here. So that's true for shield boosters and neuts, but it's certainly not generically true. T2 fits should be absolutely standard in balancing. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter Blog

Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.10.21 23:29:00 - [341] There's a new mirror on Sisi, so the rocket changes from page 1 are not currently on Sisi.
Tsubutai The Tuskers	Posted - 2010.10.22 01:22:00 - [342] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Tsubutai Meta 3 (or meta 2 in the case of damage controls) gives 95% of the performance of meta 4 for 5% of the price, and is generally even easier on the CPU. Really not seeing a problem here. So that's true for shield boosters and neuts, but it's certainly not generically true. T2 fits should be absolutely standard in balancing. -Liang It's also true for webs, scrams, MSEs, prop mods, most ewar... in fact, for almost everything aside from maybe ballistic control systems, shield boost amps, and a few other odds and ends.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.10.22 06:34:00 - [343] Originally by: Tsubutai It's also true for webs, scrams, MSEs, prop mods, most ewar... in fact, for almost everything aside from maybe ballistic control systems, shield boost amps, and a few other odds and ends. Webs: 52.5% vs 60% Scrams: 9km vs 7.8km Ewar in general: Less optimal, falloff, strength, more cap use, worse fittings Plates: ~20% less HP, ~30% more mass Yeah, you're totally right. A mere 5% performance difference. The simple fact of the matter is that most T1 ships are horribly gimped in the fitting department for no good reason. There's a lot of roles out there that could be filled if only the ships didn't unnecessarily suck - just because nobody at CCP had ever gone through and decided what should reasonably fit on it as the game changed. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter Blog
Tsubutai The Tuskers	Posted - 2010.10.22 07:50:00 - [344] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Tsubutai It's also true for webs, scrams, MSEs, prop mods, most ewar... in fact, for almost everything aside from maybe ballistic control systems, shield boost amps, and a few other odds and ends. Webs: 52.5% vs 60% Scrams: 9km vs 7.8km Ewar in general: Less optimal, falloff, strength, more cap use, worse fittings Plates: ~20% less HP, ~30% more mass Yeah, you're totally right. A mere 5% performance difference. The simple fact of the matter is that most T1 ships are horribly gimped in the fitting department for no good reason. There's a lot of roles out there that could be filled if only the ships didn't unnecessarily suck - just because nobody at CCP had ever gone through and decided what should reasonably fit on it as the game changed. -Liang Uh... what? Meta 3 webs are 57.5% (so 95% as strong as T2/meta 4); meta 3 scrams are 8.6 km (so have 95% of the range of T2/meta 4). A DDO tracking disruptor has 95% of the optimal and falloff and 97% of the strength of a Balmer/T2. A meta 3 MSE provides 95% as much EHP as an F-S9. Plates are stupid to complain about because meta 4 is dirt cheap unless you're looking at 1600mm, which is irrelevant for a frigate. What on earth are you talking about?
Jason Dunham	Posted - 2010.10.23 19:54:00 - [345] While the rockets are much better then they were, I still don't believe they're effective enough to be used as anything more then telling drones what to aggro. Rockets are very comparable to blasters, while the standard missiles could be compared to rail-guns. The short range variant should do more damage then the mid-to-long range variant. Torps and cruises follow this pattern, as well as HAMS and heavies, but Rockets and standards go against the norm. So while this is an improvement, I fail to see how it will change anything in reality. But honestly, caldari ships are generally fail for pvp anyway, and usually other races use other weapons, so I'm not really all that upset about it. Jason Dunham
Duchess Starbuckington	Posted - 2010.10.23 21:09:00 - [346] Originally by: Jason Dunham While the rockets are much better then they were, I still don't believe they're effective enough to be used as anything more then telling drones what to aggro. Rockets are very comparable to blasters, while the standard missiles could be compared to rail-guns. The short range variant should do more damage then the mid-to-long range variant. Torps and cruises follow this pattern, as well as HAMS and heavies, but Rockets and standards go against the norm. So while this is an improvement, I fail to see how it will change anything in reality. But honestly, caldari ships are generally fail for pvp anyway, and usually other races use other weapons, so I'm not really all that upset about it. Jason Dunham Wow. I'm impressed you managed to pack that much idiocy into one post. _________________________________ ROCKET STATUS: FIX IN PROGRESS...
Major Graft	Posted - 2010.10.28 02:16:00 - [347] are the rockets on sisi right now the old ones? I hope so.....
Apollo Gabriel Brotherhood Of Fallen Angels Etherium Cartel	Posted - 2010.10.28 22:54:00 - [348] Caveat: I have not read all 12 pages of this thread. CCP: thank you for working on Rockets and the Hawk. Could you please add two more bonuses to the Assault Frigates, as all T2 ships have. Best, Apollo =============================== \|\| Don't let the Trolls keep you from your goals. \|\| ===============================

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2010.10.29 10:56:00 - [349] Originally by: Apollo Gabriel Caveat: I have not read all 12 pages of this thread. CCP: thank you for working on Rockets and the Hawk. Could you please add two more bonuses to the Assault Frigates, as all T2 ships have. Best, Apollo EAF & AF are next up on our list for a future release, and that will probably also include renaming assault ships to frigates, been bugging us for a while that they were called ships for some reason.

Duchess Starbuckington	Posted - 2010.10.29 11:11:00 - [350] Quote: EAF & AF are next up on our list for a future release, and that will probably also include renaming assault ships to frigates, been bugging us for a while that they were called ships for some reason. Awesome Seriously thanks for letting us know you're working on this stuff. It's fixes like this that are exactly what the game needs right now. More viable ships is always good. _________________________________ ROCKET STATUS: FIX IN PROGRESS...

Caldariftw123	Posted - 2010.10.29 13:49:00 - [351] Edited by: Caldariftw123 on 29/10/2010 13:52:09 Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Apollo Gabriel Caveat: I have not read all 12 pages of this thread. CCP: thank you for working on Rockets and the Hawk. Could you please add two more bonuses to the Assault Frigates, as all T2 ships have. Best, Apollo EAF & AF are next up on our list for a future release, and that will probably also include renaming assault ships to frigates, been bugging us for a while that they were called ships for some reason. Am curious about something here, why don't CCP release many smaller patches for things like this rather as opposed to having to wait for the next big release? A fix like just changing the name to Assault Frigates, when you actually do get chance to do it, could be released as a mini update/patch along with a couple other small things, done throughout the year. You don't do this, despite it seeming to be the obvious choice (balancing a little but often all year through) so I figure there must be a reason. What is it? I think a lot of people feel it'd make more sense to do this, so more understanding of the process that goes into releasing even small updates to the game would be pretty awesome and would perhaps help people understand why what is seemingly a small thing to do ("Just change the explosion velocity in database it takes 2minutes!") can take long enough to not justify doing too often for small fixes. (and this isn't a covert whine :P I just want to understand what goes on :))
Gecko O'Bac H A V O C Cascade Imminent	Posted - 2010.10.29 20:25:00 - [352] Edited by: Gecko O''Bac on 29/10/2010 20:30:05 Edited by: Gecko O''Bac on 29/10/2010 20:29:51 Edited by: Gecko O''Bac on 29/10/2010 20:27:46 Originally by: Caldariftw123 Edited by: Caldariftw123 on 29/10/2010 13:52:09 Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Apollo Gabriel Caveat: I have not read all 12 pages of this thread. CCP: thank you for working on Rockets and the Hawk. Could you please add two more bonuses to the Assault Frigates, as all T2 ships have. Best, Apollo EAF & AF are next up on our list for a future release, and that will probably also include renaming assault ships to frigates, been bugging us for a while that they were called ships for some reason. Am curious about something here, why don't CCP release many smaller patches for things like this rather as opposed to having to wait for the next big release? A fix like just changing the name to Assault Frigates, when you actually do get chance to do it, could be released as a mini update/patch along with a couple other small things, done throughout the year. You don't do this, despite it seeming to be the obvious choice (balancing a little but often all year through) so I figure there must be a reason. What is it? I think a lot of people feel it'd make more sense to do this, so more understanding of the process that goes into releasing even small updates to the game would be pretty awesome and would perhaps help people understand why what is seemingly a small thing to do ("Just change the explosion velocity in database it takes 2minutes!") can take long enough to not justify doing too often for small fixes. (and this isn't a covert whine :P I just want to understand what goes on :)) It's mostly due to how their teams work. Look HERE for reference. But basically it means that when they are developing the new expansion (and releasing 2 expansions per year is one of the tenets of their belief) they work in cycles over a set of features that are prioritized. This means that (in theory) they are able to tackle to core issues of an expansion and deliver it no matter what, while other, less crucial tasks fall behind. So, in practice, unless the job is very simple or done by a particular team that has no other work to do at that moment (like a new model for ship since the art team often doesn't have THAT much to do, lately at least), the core teams will often postpone doing such changes. Bug fixes are NOT included in this since they have their own development schedule (and in fact are most often released in hot fixes and dot patches). Sadly balancing ships is quite an effort and thus it's hard to spare time for it unless it becomes one of the "must" feature of a certain release. [EDIT: Disclaimer. I obviously don't work for CCP (although, one can wish... :D), but that's how I understood their working pipeline. It probably isn't 100% accurate and of course nobody is stopping developers from doing certain changes in their "free time" though of course unless they are very minimal it'll take them several lifes to tackle all the "fringe" issues in that way]
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2010.10.30 19:14:00 - [353] Originally by: CCP Chronotis EAF & AF are next up on our list for a future release, and that will probably also include renaming assault ships to frigates, been bugging us for a while that they were called ships for some reason. It's a bit disappointing to see Assault Frigates pushed back again though. Players have consistently wanted work on them to be done for some years now.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.10.31 07:39:00 - [354] Originally by: Elaron It's a bit disappointing to see Assault Frigates pushed back again though. Players have consistently wanted work on them to be done for some years now. They did try with the aborted AB change, guess they realised that throwing what seems to be a small pebble into the pod can create some great big waves and want them to be more than just pwn-boats .. at least that is what I tell myself :D
Duchess Starbuckington	Posted - 2010.10.31 18:16:00 - [355] Quote: They did try with the aborted AB change Yeah tbh it's better the changes are delayed than the disaster of the AB bonus going through. _________________________________ ROCKET STATUS: FIX IN PROGRESS...
Gecko O'Bac H A V O C Cascade Imminent	Posted - 2010.10.31 22:08:00 - [356] Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington Quote: They did try with the aborted AB change Yeah tbh it's better the changes are delayed than the disaster of the AB bonus going through. I have to agree. In my online gaming career I've faced a lot of rushed "fixes" that were worse than the original problem... We have a saying in my country "the patch was worse than the hole" which translates very nicely into english and our situation although the original speaks of the "textile" patch, of course.
Yankunytjatjara Amarr Blue Republic	Posted - 2010.11.01 11:40:00 - [357] RE: The hawk and 3 grid more I have a question. What are the 3 grid more for? Now you could upgrade, with more grid, the following: - t2 AB: very helpful - t2 neut: NOPE, needs 2 cpu more - t2 shield booster: NOPE, needs lol 18 cpu more So 2 grid would be wasted. Not even faction boosters can be used, they need more cpu. I therefore suggest: Add 2 grid and 18 cpu instead of 3 grid. This will give the ability to upgrage the AB and either go tanky with the t2 booster, or ganky with the t2 neut and missile damage rigs (that, let's not forget, cost CPU). The currently possible fit for reference: [Hawk, boost] 4x Rocket Launcher II (Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket) 5W Infectious Power System Malfunction Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters Medium Clarity Ward Booster I Small Capacitor Booster II (Navy Cap Booster 400) Initiated Harmonic Warp Scrambler I Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Small Core Defence Capacitor safeguard I Small Core Defence Operational Solidifier I 225/225 cpu with all V. And don't forget the tactical overview option for solo/small gangs: Ship Velocity Vectors
helmut cheddar	Posted - 2010.11.01 13:00:00 - [358] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida - Malediction is not going to be much better than it is currently, if it goes for tackle/tank it has no damage/speed and vice versa .. you can kill them with practically all the t1 frigates - T2/faction frigs just makes it a foregone conclusion. Never understood this almost universally tacit assumption that the malediction should be viable as a combat ceptor. If we came on here saying that change X was not going to make the Raptor, Ares or Stilleto viable as a combat ceptor, people would just point to the fact they are tackle ceptor and say STFU, why are Amarr assumed to devserve 2 viable combat ceptors and everyone else just one ?
Helicity Boson Amarr The Python Cartel. The Jerk Cartel	Posted - 2010.11.01 15:57:00 - [359] Originally by: helmut cheddar Originally by: Hirana Yoshida - Malediction is not going to be much better than it is currently, if it goes for tackle/tank it has no damage/speed and vice versa .. you can kill them with practically all the t1 frigates - T2/faction frigs just makes it a foregone conclusion. Never understood this almost universally tacit assumption that the malediction should be viable as a combat ceptor. If we came on here saying that change X was not going to make the Raptor, Ares or Stilleto viable as a combat ceptor, people would just point to the fact they are tackle ceptor and say STFU, why are Amarr assumed to devserve 2 viable combat ceptors and everyone else just one ? Because it gets a bonus to a short range weapon type.
helmut cheddar	Posted - 2010.11.01 16:41:00 - [360] Edited by: helmut cheddar on 01/11/2010 16:43:20 Originally by: Helicity Boson Originally by: helmut cheddar Originally by: Hirana Yoshida - Malediction is not going to be much better than it is currently, if it goes for tackle/tank it has no damage/speed and vice versa .. you can kill them with practically all the t1 frigates - T2/faction frigs just makes it a foregone conclusion. Never understood this almost universally tacit assumption that the malediction should be viable as a combat ceptor. If we came on here saying that change X was not going to make the Raptor, Ares or Stilleto viable as a combat ceptor, people would just point to the fact they are tackle ceptor and say STFU, why are Amarr assumed to devserve 2 viable combat ceptors and everyone else just one ? Because it gets a bonus to a short range weapon type. Still doesn' explain why Amarr get 2 combat capable ceptors (and still a tackle ceptor) and everyone else just one .. or at least Caldari WILL have one when the changes go thru. Besides, to be a combat ceptor a stilleto, for example, is going to have to fit short range weapons too. If I come here saying "change X to autos isn't going to make my stilleto viable as a combat ceptor", ppl will still point out that it's a tackle ceptor and need not be considered. The fact that it can fit bonused arty is irrelevant when you consider that DPS is so irrelevant to it's role it wwill typically fit autos and RLs...it is there to TACKLE that is it's role. The Malediction should be considered in this light or the Raptor Ares and Stilleto should be buffed to combat capability.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.