EVE Search - Feedback on Rocket Changes

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)
venariel Caldari Empire Intrigue	Posted - 2010.09.30 21:00:00 - [91] I just had more fun in a Hawk on SiSi than I've ever had in one on TQ. Can't wait to fight with it again looking at some numbers this time.
Lake The Praxis Initiative Majesta Empire	Posted - 2010.09.30 21:08:00 - [92] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Helicity Boson That explosive velocity is still laughably low for a frigate weapon, firing that against an ABing ship doing around a kilometer a second will still be terrible. Explosion velocity is not directly translated to target velocity for damage scaling. ...snip... You're right (of course), it isn't. But it's actually worse. I imagine Chronotis is aware of this aspect of the missile damage formula, but because it hasn't been brought up in this discussion and I think it's an important aspect of balancing missiles: I've played with the full formula extensively but for the purposes of this point we can use the very simplified: *dmgMod = max(sigRadiusEffect, 1.0) max(velocityEffect, 1.0) Which means even a titan (or more practically, a +sig MSE Frigate with its MWD on) can almost completely mitigate rocket damage if it's going fast enough ('fast enough' used to be attainable in cruisers before the speed-nerf, but it still in the realm of possibility with frigates). Incidentally this "double cap" is different to how turret tracking works. Again very simplified: dmgMod = max(trackingEffect * sigEffect, 1.0)**. This is why you can focus on sig-tanking or speed-tanking individually for missiles, but must take them both in balance for turrets. -- Founder of The Praxis Initiative Operator of eve-mail.net
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.09.30 22:35:00 - [93] Originally by: Lake This is why you can focus on sig-tanking or speed-tanking individually for missiles, but must take them both in balance for turrets. This is a very confusing explanation that makes you look like you don't understand missiles.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.09.30 22:48:00 - [94] Originally by: Lake This is why you can focus on sig-tanking or speed-tanking individually for missiles, but must take them both in balance for turrets. What you are describing has nothing to do with signature and everything to do with speed/range. Rockets are pretty damn slow (-40% compared to lights) and with their low range they tend to burn out rather quickly against fast targets. Double/triple speed and problem is solved
Lake The Praxis Initiative Majesta Empire	Posted - 2010.10.01 03:45:00 - [95] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Originally by: Lake This is why you can focus on sig-tanking or speed-tanking individually for missiles, but must take them both in balance for turrets. What you are describing has nothing to do with signature and everything to do with speed/range. Rockets are pretty damn slow (-40% compared to lights) and with their low range they tend to burn out rather quickly against fast targets. Double/triple speed and problem is solved :facepalm: -- Founder of The Praxis Initiative Operator of eve-mail.net
Professor Villinghopper	Posted - 2010.10.01 05:29:00 - [96] Edited by: Professor Villinghopper on 01/10/2010 05:35:51 Edited by: Professor Villinghopper on 01/10/2010 05:32:46 My initial thoughts are, the changes look nice, maybe a little less than I had hoped for but still good. I would like to see some cpu added(to the hawk), either in addition to the small pg boost, or in place of. Could use like 10-15 extra TF. Or a resist bonus in place of the shield boost bonus. Have a hard time fitting active tank due to cpu, have a hard time fitting active or buffer, or much of anything really on a standard missile fit due to the same. Though I'm sure CCP has their own idea of how the ship should be fit and stats it accordingly. In short, only the long range fits truly NEEDS more powergrid, while the short range and long range both needed more cpu. Thats counter-intuitive to have cpu problems on the race that generally has the most cpu. Can't wait to see what, if anything, you guys have in store for the Vengeance, Flycatcher, Eris, and Heretic. Now, off to setup the test server so I can try out the Hawk for real.
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2010.10.01 07:34:00 - [97] Originally by: Professor Villinghopper Edited by: Professor Villinghopper on 01/10/2010 05:35:51 Edited by: Professor Villinghopper on 01/10/2010 05:32:46 My initial thoughts are, the changes look nice, maybe a little less than I had hoped for but still good. I would like to see some cpu added(to the hawk), either in addition to the small pg boost, or in place of. Could use like 10-15 extra TF. Or a resist bonus in place of the shield boost bonus. Have a hard time fitting active tank due to cpu, have a hard time fitting active or buffer, or much of anything really on a standard missile fit due to the same. Though I'm sure CCP has their own idea of how the ship should be fit and stats it accordingly. In short, only the long range fits truly NEEDS more powergrid, while the short range and long range both needed more cpu. Thats counter-intuitive to have cpu problems on the race that generally has the most cpu. Can't wait to see what, if anything, you guys have in store for the Vengeance, Flycatcher, Eris, and Heretic. Now, off to setup the test server so I can try out the Hawk for real. Well, all caldari missile frigs got a CPU issue really. But imo most notisable on the hookbill. Having to consistently rely on named MSEs and named DCs (that are overpriced... :( ) is not fun, not to mention the 40 CPU needed if you want a BCU ;). As a samll note; the capacity along with ROF reduction is a very good change! I have often found I empty my launchers far too early in a small fight and loose becuase I need to reload while the other frig still got tons in the guns magazine. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.10.01 08:24:00 - [98] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Mona X Originally by: CCP Chronotis longer to get round to everyone and that might slow me down from moving through some tech 2 ammo changes! You're nerfing Scorch or fixing short range versions? Possibly both, most likely the latter but nothing definite yet. Jav rockets give a velocity penalty. Why not bring Scorch and Barrage into line with Jav rockets, and give them a velocity penalty also? :evilgrin:
Duchess Starbuckington	Posted - 2010.10.01 08:59:00 - [99] Quote: Well, all caldari missile frigs got a CPU issue really. But imo most notisable on the hookbill. Having to consistently rely on named MSEs and named DCs (that are overpriced... :( ) is not fun, not to mention the 40 CPU needed if you want a BCU ;). This. What exactly were CCP thinking giving a 5-mid missile frigate CPU that laughably awful? _________________________________ ROCKET STATUS: NOT FIXED
Intigo Amarr Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2010.10.01 09:11:00 - [100] Edited by: Intigo on 01/10/2010 09:15:27 Hookbill's CPU issues doesn't change the fact that it's already a quite lethal ship. If rockets are boosted too hard then it will easily be completely overpowered. And it's still possible to fit it even with the limited CPU, just ask Zach. ;) ___________________
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.10.01 10:16:00 - [101] Edited by: Gypsio III on 01/10/2010 10:17:51 With fixed rockets, the Hookbill will be a very impressive frigate - good speed, and the range-dictation offered by dual-web or web/scram/dual-prop combined with good DPS at range. But webs are fairly light on CPU to fit - I think people complaining about its CPU are focusing on SML/ewar support fits, with SMLs, a T2 disruptor and TDs requiring much more CPU than rockets, a scambler and webs. For example: [Caldari Navy Hookbill, SML] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters Warp Disruptor II Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron Small Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 25 Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile Small Ancillary Current Router I [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] That just leaves 13.25 CPU for two lowslots - less if you start adding missile rigs. IF you drop the painter for another TD, then you're already out of CPU! Okay, fitting nanos in those two lows would be useful, but would it really be so terrible if this fit could fit one nano and one BCS? Or a Damage Control? I suppose a counter argument to this is that ewar should belong on the T1/T2 ewar frigates - but it's straightforward to fit up a Caracal hull with HMLs and ewar.
Darth Felin	Posted - 2010.10.01 10:34:00 - [102] Changes are pretty good, I like them very much. But cpu is often the problem for sure. Can it be deacreased by 1 or 2 for Rockets? 2 will be awesome but even 1 will have many setups.
Vokradacka	Posted - 2010.10.01 12:45:00 - [103] The biggest problem is still cpu req. for T2 rocket launchers ... 17 cpu is simply too much. i have some nice rocket fits ,but ony with "arbalests" launchers .... 2M each
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2010.10.01 12:55:00 - [104] Originally by: Zach Donnell and look into why active shield tanking on small ships is not as practical currently as buffer fits. Or more generally, why any sort of active tanking is worse than buffer fits, on pretty much any sub-capital ship, even ones with a repper/booster bonus. There are lots of issues affecting this: - plates and extenders tend to be easier to fit than active reppers - the boost given by active reppers is too meager, even on ships with bonus - (related) the active repper ship bonuses are too small - deadspace shield boosters are much too good, and no comparative armor reppers exist. Also, crystal implant set vs no such for armor. As a result, people tend to fit buffer tanks even on ships with a repper bonus. ...and CCP is unwilling to boost active repping in general, since deadspace shield boosters + crystal sets would become even more broken. If I had my way, I'd: a) boost repper bonuses on ships that have them b) slightly reduce armor repper fitting costs, maybe same for shield boosters c) slightly reduce armor repper and shield booster cap use d) slightly increase shield extender and armor plate negative values (sig increase, mass) e) balance high-end (deadspace) armor reppers and shield boosters. In practice this would mean nerfing deadspace shield modules. Am I likely to see any of that? Hell no. :)
White Tree	Posted - 2010.10.01 13:02:00 - [105] Originally by: CCP Chronotis cont. Possibly both, most likely the latter but nothing definite yet. Got a few hoops we have to jump through first but it would be nice to get them in the release. Ohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgod hybridfixhybridfixhybridfixhybridfixhybridfixhybridfixhybridfix :fap::fap::fap::fap::fap::fap::fap::fap::fap::fap::fap::fap::fap:
To mare Amarr Ministry of War	Posted - 2010.10.01 13:41:00 - [106] Originally by: Gypsio III Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Mona X Originally by: CCP Chronotis longer to get round to everyone and that might slow me down from moving through some tech 2 ammo changes! You're nerfing Scorch or fixing short range versions? Possibly both, most likely the latter but nothing definite yet. Jav rockets give a velocity penalty. Why not bring Scorch and Barrage into line with Jav rockets, and give them a velocity penalty also? :evilgrin: because javelin ammo increase missile "tracking" and range while barrage and scorch increase range and nerf tracking. so the solution are 2: -remove from javelin missile the bonus to "tracking" and the speed penalty -give T2 long range ammo a speed penalty but a tracking boost (wich in the case of barrage it go against everything that minmatar is)
Vrabac Zawa's Fan Club	Posted - 2010.10.01 14:13:00 - [107] Originally by: Gypsio III Taranisii Jesus christ man adding random -iiiiii at or around the end of the word doesnt make latin pluraliiiiilisiissiiiiiii
Vokradacka	Posted - 2010.10.01 14:52:00 - [108] Edited by: Vokradacka on 01/10/2010 14:54:10 Edited by: Vokradacka on 01/10/2010 14:52:59 Originally by: To mare because javelin ammo increase missile "tracking" and range while barrage and scorch increase range and nerf tracking. Javelins have same "tracking" ie.(expl. radius/expl. velocity) as normal missiles = no bonus
Duchess Starbuckington	Posted - 2010.10.01 16:03:00 - [109] Quote: Quote: Quote:hookbill is a very good ride already. No, it really isn't. Even with a rocket boost (and hopefully a bit more dps), the Hookbill is impossible to fit (at least without expensive faction modules). It doesn't have even close to enough grid for a proper buffer tank or long-range fit, and it doesn't have even close to enough CPU to fill its mid slots properly. This. The fitting on that thing is ridiculously awful. I've said it before and I'll say it again: a 5 mid missile frigate with 206 CPU at max skills is a ****ing joke. _________________________________ ROCKET STATUS: NOT FIXED
Kai Yuen	Posted - 2010.10.01 16:18:00 - [110] Someone has still yet to explain to me why we can't increase rocket velocity. Frigate are all about velocity so if rockets can't move at a superior speed then they'll never even hit their intended target, to say nothing about explosion velocity and damage. Can't we at least double their speed and halve their flight time, or maybe even triple it?
Meeko Atari	Posted - 2010.10.01 17:03:00 - [111] The Hookbill works as a rocket platform only in my opinion...and barley has enough CPU to do it. [Caldari Navy Hookbill, HookBill] Ballistic Control System II Overdrive Injector System II Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Stasis Webifier II Stasis Webifier II Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Small Core Defence Field Extender I Small Core Defence Field Extender I And you still stuck using an afterburner. Not a lot of "wiggle" room for setups on this ship
Kaltooth Amarr	Posted - 2010.10.01 17:21:00 - [112] So, who all has actually played around with them on SISI and not just napkin warrior the changes? From what I played with last night, I'd say its a good pass. I'll admit to not using rockets till now as I knew of the fail of them. Thus, I can only say from mentions elsewhere and compare. For example, while testing with my ceo in a retribution using explosive (yeah, bad damage type, but variance completely died), it was found that a single web was about all you needed. I was flying a vengeance in this instance. Damage was 6.8 to shields, 6.1 to armor per rocket. With two webs, the damage didn't change at all. Switching to rage with one web increased damage to 7.8. Web and no ab didn't change the damage. Web and target painter was also a fail. Sticking to a single web will probably be just fine now. I need to test with no web as I sort of forgot for some reason. Prior to the testing, I took a similarly fit vengeance against an ishkur in ffa and we both ended up in deep structure before I finally popped (I forgot to turn on the ab till late). So all in all, I'm happy with what I saw. A full tackle vengeance setup (web and scram) looks to work well at making some ships be worried. Also testing against a more lol fit crusader that was set up to be pure speed and didn't survive long against the veng. I'll try out a hawk tonight and see how that goes, but the vengeance looks pretty good with the change.
Zach Donnell Ghost-Busters	Posted - 2010.10.01 17:54:00 - [113] Originally by: Alex Harumichi Originally by: Zach Donnell and look into why active shield tanking on small ships is not as practical currently as buffer fits. Or more generally, why any sort of active tanking is worse than buffer fits, on pretty much any sub-capital ship, even ones with a repper/booster bonus. There are lots of issues affecting this: - plates and extenders tend to be easier to fit than active reppers - the boost given by active reppers is too meager, even on ships with bonus - (related) the active repper ship bonuses are too small - deadspace shield boosters are much too good, and no comparative armor reppers exist. Also, crystal implant set vs no such for armor. As a result, people tend to fit buffer tanks even on ships with a repper bonus. ...and CCP is unwilling to boost active repping in general, since deadspace shield boosters + crystal sets would become even more broken. If I had my way, I'd: a) boost repper bonuses on ships that have them b) slightly reduce armor repper fitting costs, maybe same for shield boosters c) slightly reduce armor repper and shield booster cap use d) slightly increase shield extender and armor plate negative values (sig increase, mass) e) balance high-end (deadspace) armor reppers and shield boosters. In practice this would mean nerfing deadspace shield modules. Am I likely to see any of that? Hell no. :) IMO, Small armor reps are not a problem, its the small shield boosters. Somewhere down the line (before I found eve), something got screwed up with booster sizes. For example, a T2 small Shield booster is usually completely worthless. And a while a medium can give some nice stats, you need a cap booster to even make it plausible, killing another precious mid slot. I don't think small armor reps need a change, mainly because they are often able to be used in conjunction with a plate or EANM on frigs. Where as a shield booster can't as easily justify this (MSE + Shield Booster) because you kill your mid slots / tackle. But I don't want to derail too much as this is a rockets thread after all :) ------------------------------------------------- "Bustin' makes me feel good!"
Tub Chil	Posted - 2010.10.01 18:37:00 - [114] I played with rockets a bit, invested reward SP into t2 launchers (rockets are the only missile launchers that I can't use t2) They are better, than they used to be, but still, my rocket hawk is far from awesomeness. compared to drake at least If you compare those two missile boats, (I compare rocket hawk to HAM drake here) you will see how much better drake is. solid missile platform capable to do pretty nice damage. maybe not crazy EFT numbers, but still good. Point is that drake can Apply damage to other BC-s very well. No BC can speed tank them. Yes nanocane gets damage reduction, but not so much. even smaller targets like cruisers get considerable damage, actually only nano cruisers can speed tank about 20% of faction ammo damage. (check HAM drake vs ruppie with 2 nano) Actually, missiles with their delayed damage are good for a reason that they can apply damage well. to the same sized target of course. if you check heavy missiles vs Heavy assault, Cruise missiles vs Torpedoes, you will see that short range ones have more exp. velocity and more radius. in case of torps, difference in velocity is negligible, but it is still there. So what is a reason of breaking general missiles rule? why don't you give rockets exp. vel. like 320 and explosion radius 50-60? if a man is dying and needs 10 pills to survive, what is a point in giving him 5 pills? Most important thing is that rockets didn't even get considerable damage boost. if they would have facemelting damage like blasters do, their poor damage projection would be ok, but they still have poor damage and inability to apply damage well. every ship should have a purpose, something that makes it good. Hawk and caldari rocket boats are still bad. compare Hawk with Jaguar for example, it also has poor damage and does not receive tracking or falloff bonus, (damage projection) but it's still epic for obvious reasons. you say that you don't want to overpower kestrel, crow and so on, but what is so wrong in powerful caldari boat? rifter for example is overpowered compared to other races t1 frigs, but I Won't whine about it, I don't envy good ships of other races, just want equally good ship for me, without crosstraining to other race. So if kestrel becomes a powerful t1 PVP option there is NOTHING wrong about it.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.10.01 19:28:00 - [115] Test 001 Rocket Kestrel. Hull-tanked gank fit. 4x Rocket II with CN Thorn, MWD, web, scrambler, DC and BCS. Bay loading Acc I rig, 2x Aux thruster I rigs. Relevant skills mostly V except Rocket Spec IV. Implants - none. In EFT: 146 DPS (no reloading), 2098 EHP (lol), 2800 m/s. Target - AB Taranis. Pilot from 2005. Result - I tried to kite the Taranis, but after a couple of passes it was able to keep a scrambler on me and it closed to blaster range. I died when Taranis was entering hull. Conclusions - what did you expect to happen?
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.10.01 19:38:00 - [116] Test 002 Same Rocket Kestrel as 001. Target - Crucifier Result - Comedy civilian-fit neut Crucifier died. Conclusion - Again, what did you expect...?
Shak'Rah The Unforgettables Talos Coalition	Posted - 2010.10.01 21:26:00 - [117] Originally by: Vrabac Originally by: Gypsio III Taranisii Jesus christ man adding random -iiiiii at or around the end of the word doesnt make latin pluraliiiiilisiissiiiiiii proper latin would mean that the word would be Taranii, however since i'm not aware of any latin words with a stem taran- this wouldn't make sense since it probably doesn't exist. the proper way to say it would be in english, and that would be Taranis' sorry for the derail i just hate people misusing latin because they think it's cool --- Imperfection is beauty, madness is genius, and it is better to be absolutely ridiculous than absolutely boring.
OT Smithers	Posted - 2010.10.01 22:34:00 - [118] Originally by: Tub Chil I don't envy good ships of other races, just want equally good ship for me, without crosstraining to other race. So if kestrel becomes a powerful t1 PVP option there is NOTHING wrong about it. If CCP wanted Caldari ships to be balanced for PvP then they would do so.
OT Smithers	Posted - 2010.10.01 22:41:00 - [119] Edited by: OT Smithers on 01/10/2010 22:42:54
Aedron F.R.E.E. Explorer The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.10.02 00:57:00 - [120] CCP need to be really careful here, First point I will make is I dislike balance. Balance has destroyed many online games over the years. To begin with you have a more "rock, paper, scissors" aproch which enables more tactics and strategy in weapon/ship choice where by one race is better at doing one thing than another and each has their own sector which beats the other races, this works REALLY well for eve as long time players can train alternative races and recive multiple race bonuses. Balancing everything in a game means there is little point to switching it up and removes counter tactics and ultimatly depth of the gameplay. Alot of the people here are basically looking for rockets to fill the same role as standard missles which should not happen. Missles fill a current role, however if your going to change them then enhance or adapt their role within the game. Make them extreamly effective at destroying drones for example or buff their use with defender missles to be able to counter a full wave of missles (which would be handy for a heavy tackle going up VS a drake army for example). I dont want to see an eve where the races and the weapons used are only for asthetics. Please be careful and add to the game aposed to equalizing the damage/range of weapons ingame and therfore reducing game content.

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.