EVE Search - T2 Missiles- The Imbalance

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

T2 Missiles- The Imbalance

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
debbie harrio	Posted - 2010.12.02 17:33:00 - [31] Originally by: Kail Storm Originally by: NoNah Originally by: Kail Storm Also alot good a unprobable Tengu does for its only useful use Lvl 5`s, they will just probe down all the group of wrecks anyways if they are halfway smart/Competent. I laughed. Im glad you laughed but in reality please tell me a situation where you need a Unprobable Tengu in PVP where a Cov Ops isnt far superior? Next please explain to me, how in your Plex/Lvl 5 the enemy wont probe out the plex or the Wrecks? You can't scan wrecks for starter and most plexes have multiple acceleration gates.
Ulstan	Posted - 2010.12.02 20:12:00 - [32] There's not much wrong with rage/fury when being used by drakes/raven to shoot something larger than you. Your sig is already big as a moon so the sig increase doesn't really matter that much. It makes using those missiles a terrible idea on smaller ships though, so I think this penalty should be removed. The increased explosion radius is a sufficient drawback to keep it from being overly abused. T2 javelin is bad as long as it has a velocity penalty. That really needs to go. Also the idea of a long range 'kiting' ammo that slows you down is hilarious. T2 precision is just a pile of fail every way you look at it. If it had reduced range in exchange for hitting smaller things harder, it might have its uses, but as it is, you're likely to do as much (or more) damage to small things just by loading CN because of the lower inherent damage. If they fixed that, leaving the speed penalty might be appropriate.
Zyress	Posted - 2010.12.02 20:53:00 - [33] Originally by: Typherian personally I think its completely balanced to keep the penalties on missiles. You missile users had a huge advantage for a while. No tracking no need for a second set of damage mods. Give them a tracking enhancer equivalent and it will be fair to remove the penalties. Yes!!!! I knew there was a reason all those pvp people were dumping there AC boats for missile boats.....
Limvala Adur	Posted - 2010.12.02 21:33:00 - [34] Is this for real? Didn't CCP announce a change for the t2 missiles? I think that keeping the penalties on missiles and removing them on everything else is more then enough proof that CCP should just remove Caldari and reimburse the SP to people who trained them. I mean, missiles are already NOT used in PvP, with the only exception being the drake (but hey, you're nerfing that), so why have an useless race and an useless weapon type? Lim
Atrus Atreides	Posted - 2010.12.02 22:11:00 - [35] CCP wants to discourage the use of missiles in fleet warfare. As has been previously stated, each missile increases teh load on the server because they have hitpoints and can be destroyed. Leaving the drawbacks helps promote this.
Patri Andari Caldari Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer	Posted - 2010.12.02 23:55:00 - [36] Originally by: Wet Ferret I assume since you think missiles deserve to be nerfed if they have their drawbacks removed, then turret ammo was also nerfed when they had their drawbacks removed. Is this the case? Hardly I think that T2 missiles should have no ship drawbacks and their benefits should stay the same with the exception of Precision missiles. They should do more damage to smaller faster targets. I also think CCP does not agree. My proposals are liked to the thought that making T2 missiles worse is not as bad as keeping the ship drawbacks. Patri I'll Roshambo You For That Titan!
Cor Aidan Shore Leave	Posted - 2010.12.03 00:53:00 - [37] Originally by: Liang Nuren I've never been a fan of ship penalties, and as such would be +1 to removing them outright. -Liang I've been considering the idea that ship imbalances arise because ships get bonuses with no drawback as a tradeoff. For instance: faster ships should be lighter, and therefore always have a lower tank. Similarly, higher tank should either be slower (for armor) or lower capacitor or something (shield). Those drawbacks are typically present with modules, but not ship bonuses themselves. Adding a bonus with no tradeoff, I would argue, is mathematically impossible to balance. I think drawbacks associated with T2 ammo and rigs are conceptually correct. However, I would agree that the particular drawbacks are probably not appropriate in all cases.
colera deldios Gallente Entity. Insidious.	Posted - 2010.12.03 01:14:00 - [38] Originally by: Kail Storm Im glad you laughed but in reality please tell me a situation where you need a Unprobable Tengu in PVP where a Cov Ops isnt far superior? Next please explain to me, how in your Plex/Lvl 5 the enemy wont probe out the plex or the Wrecks? Listen to this guy he really knows what he is talking about....
Kail Storm Caldari	Posted - 2010.12.03 16:49:00 - [39] Originally by: Typherian Edited by: Typherian on 02/12/2010 17:06:26 Heh you had it better than the gallente. They had lackluster performance from their weapons and had to use a two different damage mods. Also you can't consider a drake a minority of OMG WE ONLY HAVE ONE GOOD SHIP because half of Eve uses that one ship. EDIT and I'm not saying its their time to suck. I just think that they should have some negatives to balance out the tracking disruptor immunity and lack of a second required mod. WTF are you talking about a Second DMG mod?, Gal are either Mag STab or Drone Mods not Both unless its some sort of speciality fit. You must be talking about the Phoon needing Gyro and BCS. WHat the F is a second required mod. -------------------------------------------------- "If Eve Was P*rn, It would be a Snuff film, First you get screwed then you get killed" -Me
Ulstan	Posted - 2010.12.03 16:56:00 - [40] Originally by: Atrus Atreides CCP wants to discourage the use of missiles in fleet warfare. As has been previously stated, each missile increases teh load on the server because they have hitpoints and can be destroyed. Leaving the drawbacks helps promote this. I think we need to start introducing penalties to drones too!

Trebor Whettam	Posted - 2010.12.03 16:59:00 - [41] Originally by: Kail Storm Originally by: Typherian Edited by: Typherian on 02/12/2010 17:06:26 Heh you had it better than the gallente. They had lackluster performance from their weapons and had to use a two different damage mods. Also you can't consider a drake a minority of OMG WE ONLY HAVE ONE GOOD SHIP because half of Eve uses that one ship. EDIT and I'm not saying its their time to suck. I just think that they should have some negatives to balance out the tracking disruptor immunity and lack of a second required mod. WTF are you talking about a Second DMG mod?, Gal are either Mag STab or Drone Mods not Both unless its some sort of speciality fit. You must be talking about the Phoon needing Gyro and BCS. WHat the F is a second required mod. I assumed that he meant tracking computers.
iKill Giants The David Project	Posted - 2010.12.03 17:03:00 - [42] Originally by: Kail Storm What is a second required mod. I believe he is talking about Tracking Enhancers, which are also very useful on many Minmatar fits. These are typically used to increase the falloff, and thus useful range, of blasters and autocannons. They also of course increase tracking, which most consider one of the larger faults in blasters. --------- I am here to inform, no more, no less.
Cartheron Crust Spais Of The Federation	Posted - 2010.12.03 17:15:00 - [43] Originally by: Kail Storm Originally by: NoNah Originally by: Kail Storm Also alot good a unprobable Tengu does for its only useful use Lvl 5`s, they will just probe down all the group of wrecks anyways if they are halfway smart/Competent. I laughed. Im glad you laughed but in reality please tell me a situation where you need a Unprobable Tengu in PVP where a Cov Ops isnt far superior? Next please explain to me, how in your Plex/Lvl 5 the enemy wont probe out the plex or the Wrecks? Because you cannot probe wrecks.
MarvinJeni	Posted - 2010.12.03 22:51:00 - [44] Edited by: MarvinJeni on 03/12/2010 22:51:36 Originally by: Kail Storm Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton yes lets make the unprobable tengu even better! Also alot good a unprobable Tengu does for its only useful use Lvl 5`s, they will just probe down all the group of wrecks anyways if they are halfway smart/Competent. . your lack of eve knowledge made me re tar ded.
debbie harrio	Posted - 2010.12.04 02:53:00 - [45] Originally by: Kail Storm [ WTF are you talking about a Second DMG mod?, Gal are either Mag STab or Drone Mods not Both unless its some sort of speciality fit. You must be talking about the Phoon needing Gyro and BCS. WHat the F is a second required mod. You really are stupid, pulled up on lack of knowledge once and then tumbles back into ignorance again, learn to play.
Patri Andari Caldari Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer	Posted - 2010.12.04 03:21:00 - [46] Guise, please stay on subject. T2 missiles still have ship drawbacks to ship speed and ship signature radius while T2 turret ammo has no ship drawbacks of any kind. If you think this is balanced, state so. If not, state so and offer an option on how to fix it! It's not that hard Patri I'll Roshambo You For That Titan!
Proxyyyy Caldari SniggWaffe GoonSwarm	Posted - 2010.12.04 03:34:00 - [47] Dude, Heavy assualt and Heavy Missile, t2-ammunition is pretty good. Infact; the day i heard about the ammuntion boost i asked someone, "did CCP also boost t2 missiles?". Dude was like "NO". Of course i was like "good". I mean, dudes are *****ing about the drake and now you want to blanket boost the ship, by boosting t2 heavy missiles? Does'nt make alot of sense. -Calm down and play the game
Kalana Eargon	Posted - 2010.12.04 04:17:00 - [48] Originally by: Spc One Edited by: Spc One on 02/12/2010 11:55:26 Originally by: Sidus Isaacs Actually, the Golem has an equivalent of 8 Siege Launchers, and compared to regular turret boats thats significant since most Torps boats only have 5 or 6 main launchers. Well paladin, kronos has an equivalent of 10 turrets which is 2 more than golem. Plus a paladin for example can be cap stable fit with one heatsink which gives more damage, golem can't. What the guy was trying to say is your regular missile battleships have around 6 launchers, while your regular turret battleships have around 8. So doing the math, turret boats have 33% more hardpoints than your missile boat. So now lets look at marauders, the Golem has an equivalent of 8 launchers while the others have an equivalent of 10, so doing the math the other marauders have only 25% more effective hardpoints now and that's without the bonus to damage effectiveness (explosive velocity bonus). With this said, if your 6 launchers battleships can match a 8 turret battleship then a 8 effective launcher marauder w/bonuses surpasses a 10 effective turrets. Now lets compare the Kronos and Golem with level 5 skills. Kronos is going to get 364 dps w/425mm Railguns while a Golem will get 272 dps. This is using T1 ammo, now lets look at range, 36km+30km for railguns compared to 253.1km for the cruise missile. Now lets put the T2 Long Range ammo on the railguns and the T2 short range on the cruise missiles, 243 dps at 130km+30km for the railguns and 349 at 227.8km with the cruise missiles. So turrets can get more dps, but at a MUCH shorter range also at closer ranges turrets, especially 425mm Railguns, have a hard time tracking while missiles always hit. Not to mention your able to choose ammo types with missile unlike hybrid turrets, energy turrets, and much more greater than projectile turrets. As far as your claim that the Paladin can support 1 heatsink while being cap stable and a Golem can not... I'm pretty damn sure a Golem can support 3-4x BCU easily while remaining cap stable, not to mention launchers dont use capacitor so each RoF bonus from a BCU wont hurt your cap as it would on energy or hybrid guns. Finally you need to stop relying on EFT to judge it, there are so many factors that apply into balancing and which is better in which situation the dps given from EFT simply doesn't show you much at all. p.s. use torpedoes on your Golem =)
fkingfurious	Posted - 2010.12.04 11:26:00 - [49] Tech 2 ammo is now (mostly) balanced with tech 2 missiles. Well, some of them. Tech 2 ammo was revistied because it gave NO ADVANTAGE AT ALL over faction. It didn't even do significantly more DPS (about 1.5%). Tech 2 misisles on the other hand DID have advantages. Fury/Rage is awesome and always has been WHEN ENGAGING LARGER/WELL TACKLED TARGETS. It gives an appreciable boost in damage over faction and can be efffectivly applied in the right scenarios. In point of fact Rage HAM's give the Drake a massive advantage when engaging other BC's as Rage stats are such that they have no issue hitting BC's. Javelin/Quake/Gleam are still pointless even after the removel of the ship penalties.They still have heavier penalties than faction and still don't do anymore damage. Hail/Conflag/Void are now analogous to Rage. They will do higher DPS to larger/well tackled targets. Fury is still unique in being the only ammo type that can give an appreciable damage increase with long range guns regardless of how hard it is to apply.(standards,heavies,cruise). As pointed out the turret equivalents are pointless as they have massive (weapon) penalties and don't do anymore damage anyway. Precisions ARE ** but they are also a fundamentally flawed concept. Making a wepon system more effective against smaller targets without requiring the pilot to do anything more than switch ammo type is basically impossible to balance. If precisions worked than eesentially launchers would be able to project effective damage (obviously to qualify as working precisions need to do usefull damage against small targets) against basically any target. This kinda flies in the face of balance and again there is no comparision with turrets. There is no ammo type for an turret system designed to give an immediate boost against smaller targets without requiring outside intervention (scrams, webs,painters). So what have we got? Rage and Hail/Conflag/Void are now roughly equivalent so there is a prtty strong argument for ditching the ship penalties on Rage missiiles. They certainly DO NOT need anymore bufe than that. Javelin missiles fill the same function as Barrage/Scorch/Null BUT while they have ship penalties they have NO penalties to accuracy/precision. They have reduced damage but so do the turret ammos. The turret ammo also has a tracking penalty. If you want to remove the ship penalty from Javelin missiles some kind of precision penalty will need to be applied instead, though it clearly wouldn't need to be a big one. Fury IS NOT equal to Gleam/Quake/Javelin. The tech 2 turret ammo is utterly worthless, ship penalties or not. If Fury's have any advantages at all over faction (which they do, however slight) they're already better than the turret equivalents. Precision are *** but they also have no turret equivalent and as a result attempting to balance them against turret ammo is impossible.
Billy Kidd	Posted - 2010.12.04 12:07:00 - [50] Originally by: fkingfurious Tech 2 ammo is now (mostly) balanced with tech 2 missiles. Well, some of them. Tech 2 ammo was revistied because it gave NO ADVANTAGE AT ALL over faction. It didn't even do significantly more DPS (about 1.5%). Tech 2 misisles on the other hand DID have advantages. Fury/Rage is awesome and always has been WHEN ENGAGING LARGER/WELL TACKLED TARGETS. It gives an appreciable boost in damage over faction and can be efffectivly applied in the right scenarios. In point of fact Rage HAM's give the Drake a massive advantage when engaging other BC's as Rage stats are such that they have no issue hitting BC's. Javelin/Quake/Gleam are still pointless even after the removel of the ship penalties.They still have heavier penalties than faction and still don't do anymore damage. Hail/Conflag/Void are now analogous to Rage. They will do higher DPS to larger/well tackled targets. Fury is still unique in being the only ammo type that can give an appreciable damage increase with long range guns regardless of how hard it is to apply.(standards,heavies,cruise). As pointed out the turret equivalents are pointless as they have massive (weapon) penalties and don't do anymore damage anyway. Precisions ARE ** but they are also a fundamentally flawed concept. Making a wepon system more effective against smaller targets without requiring the pilot to do anything more than switch ammo type is basically impossible to balance. If precisions worked than eesentially launchers would be able to project effective damage (obviously to qualify as working precisions need to do usefull damage against small targets) against basically any target. This kinda flies in the face of balance and again there is no comparision with turrets. There is no ammo type for an turret system designed to give an immediate boost against smaller targets without requiring outside intervention (scrams, webs,painters). So what have we got? Rage and Hail/Conflag/Void are now roughly equivalent so there is a prtty strong argument for ditching the ship penalties on Rage missiiles. They certainly DO NOT need anymore bufe than that. Javelin missiles fill the same function as Barrage/Scorch/Null BUT while they have ship penalties they have NO penalties to accuracy/precision. They have reduced damage but so do the turret ammos. The turret ammo also has a tracking penalty. If you want to remove the ship penalty from Javelin missiles some kind of precision penalty will need to be applied instead, though it clearly wouldn't need to be a big one. Fury IS NOT equal to Gleam/Quake/Javelin. The tech 2 turret ammo is utterly worthless, ship penalties or not. If Fury's have any advantages at all over faction (which they do, however slight) they're already better than the turret equivalents. Precision are *** but they also have no turret equivalent and as a result attempting to balance them against turret ammo is impossible. Totally right. I'll take a speed penalty over an accuracy penalty any day for Javelin ammo. Precision missiles are just screwed to begin with. Making them useful will make them inherently imbalanced. They need to fill a different role altogether. Maybe something like sniper ammo? 1000% bonus to missile velocity, but 75% overall range and 75% damage compared to t1 and 75% ship speed? You can get rigs to compensate for the range drawback too. That would be useful at extreme ranges where you can't afford to wait for your missiles to hit.

Lugalzagezi666	Posted - 2010.12.04 12:12:00 - [51] Originally by: Billy Kidd Totally right. I'll take a speed penalty over an accuracy penalty any day for Javelin ammo. Then you are dumb. Also javelins shouldnt get any accuracy penalty, simply because you cant increase your hit quality at range as you can do with turrets.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.12.04 13:02:00 - [52] Edited by: Gypsio III on 04/12/2010 13:02:12 Originally by: Billy Kidd Originally by: fkingfurious Precisions ARE **** but they are also a fundamentally flawed concept. Making a wepon system more effective against smaller targets without requiring the pilot to do anything more than switch ammo type is basically impossible to balance. If precisions worked than eesentially launchers would be able to project effective damage (obviously to qualify as working precisions need to do usefull damage against small targets) against basically any target. This kinda flies in the face of balance and again there is no comparision with turrets. There is no ammo type for an turret system designed to give an immediate boost against smaller targets without requiring outside intervention (scrams, webs,painters). Precision missiles are just screwed to begin with. Making them useful will make them inherently imbalanced. They need to fill a different role altogether. Maybe something like sniper ammo? 1000% bonus to missile velocity, but 75% overall range and 75% damage compared to t1 and 75% ship speed? You can get rigs to compensate for the range drawback too. That would be useful at extreme ranges where you can't afford to wait for your missiles to hit. Some very good points, although I ought to point out that the midrange projectile ammos have a tracking bonus that makes them more effective against small stuff. Frankly, Precisions are a bad idea. A high-speed missile instead is an interesting idea - 1000% velocity is silly, but 100% more would be sensible, at a cost of raw damage and missile "tracking", I expect.
Cearain Caldari The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION	Posted - 2010.12.04 14:04:00 - [53] CCP did a good job balancing the t2 non-launcher ammo they can do the same for missiles. IÆm not sure op's suggestions are good but he is right they could use a buff. Currently the signature bloom and speed disadvantage makes no sense. Why if I carrry long range missiles in my cargo can I go faster than if I load them in a launcher? Note I do not even have to be shooting the missiles to get the speed nerf. Immersion aside, the reason you would use most long range ammo is so that you can kite people. Just like vagabonds, cynabals, rifters and slicers do with their long range ammo. Ask the pilots of these ships how they would like it if barrage and scorch gimped their speed again and again for each and every turret they loaded that ammo in. The tracking penalty doesnÆt really effect scorch or barrage much because you should have some distance on your opponent when you are using it. Although I admit I havenÆt flown a slicer so IÆm not 100% sure on this for that ship. Ok and before everyone whines about the drake, its only one ship. If it needs a nerf that should be looked at separately. Right now t2 missiles at least for pvp suck and could use a buff like the turret t2 ammo got. -Cearain Make fw occupancy pvp instead of pve: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1329906
PureMurder	Posted - 2010.12.04 14:47:00 - [54] Just a thought... if you had 3 bays and loaded them with 3 different types of T2 missiles, would you suffer all three drawbacks?
Soon Shin	Posted - 2010.12.05 09:39:00 - [55] Edited by: Soon Shin on 05/12/2010 09:39:59 You know the golem would be made better if they changed some of the bonus, instead of having bonus for both cruise and torpedoes it should be just torpedoes. We already have the Raven Navy issue for cruise. This: Caldari Battleship Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to cruise missile and torpedo velocity and 5% bonus to cruise missile and torpedo explosion velocity per level to this: 10% bonus to torpedo explosion velocity and flight time per level 20% bonus to torpedo velocity per level
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2010.12.05 10:49:00 - [56] Originally by: PureMurder Just a thought... if you had 3 bays and loaded them with 3 different types of T2 missiles, would you suffer all three drawbacks? Yes. Worse than that, the drawback is cumulative - each launcher you have loaded with javelin ammo, slows you down a bit more. Anyway, T2 missiles: Rage/Fury are ok. I don't think losing their signature penalty would hurt though. Javelins are mediocre, because range ammo that slows you down is worthless. 50% more range, when you're slower and will spend 10s swapping ammo is not worth it. Lose the speed penalty, and it'll be ok. Precisions suck, and are never worth using over faction. The only time they do more damage than faction, is when the damage of both is already negligable. But being able to trash smaller ships isn't necessarily a good thing. I'd suggest instead - put their explosion radius up, and their explosion velocity up more. And their damage to sensible levels, for shooting 'normal' targets. So they do a credible amount of damage to fast moving targets, but not necessarily smaller ships. Or just scrap the concept entirely, and do something else with 'precision'.


Pages: 1 [2] :: 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.