|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 63 post(s) |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 05:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
Any good reasoning behind making track ench / track dis work for missles? Bringing the weapon "in-line" is a bad reason, we dont want all weapons to be the same. Missles has always been a special case, let it remain so.
If the reason is to validate support / anti-support tactics for missle ships - that is a good one. But considering we still want missles to be special - make a separate set of modules that only affect missles. Besides, that is a solution of over-powering track dis.
I do acknowledge that a new set of modules is a bit more ambitious task, and would take more time and efforts. But imo, that is the right way and I urge to follow it. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 09:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
Katharina B wrote:CCP abandon the daft idea that TD affecting missiles! Fix defenders or let it be! You nerf a whole weapon system and race because you are unable to bring DEFENDERS and TWO SINGLE ships in line! Good job CCP! You have an already existing option to destroy incoming missiles. Your problem if it causes lag or you are unable to do the right codings! Why not to have 2 options for anti-missle defence? Like DPS could be brought by guns AND drones, same is here. The only problem is to avoid that uber-trackdis that everyone would fit. The solution could be to make a special module "missile-dis" or at least a special script. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 09:51:00 -
[3] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:kalbrak Jr wrote:I would like to see new modules for missiles that increase flight time, explosion radius and explosion velocity.
What's wrong with TEs and TCs affecting those stats? Simple question - do TEs and TCs affect drones? Why? |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:28:00 -
[4] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Ark Anhammar wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yes there is a substantive reason. It's called "balance". "Balance" as in my friends who fly Legions and Loki in gangs have to put up with the same TD as a Proteus does? Or is it "balance" in that "I need special modules made *juuuuust* for my missile ship"? That kind of balance? Yeah, that's really balanced. And everyone saying that TDs "need to be balanced" by having different modules: TDs are currently NOT balanced in that they don't affect missiles at all. Having them affect missile launchers, and giving missile launchers a way to combat TDs with allowing TCs and TEs to affect them *IS* balancing them. Get over yourselves and learn to deal with the same problems the rest of us have had to deal with since we started playing. Then just need to revamp missile mechanics to be in line with guns. That will solve everything. It's not about balance. It's about diversity. We dont want all guns to be the same, only having diffirent names. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 17:55:00 -
[5] - Quote
The idea for missile TD: "Launcher sequence disruptor". When applied on a ship, induces some probability that a missile would not activate on launch - i.e. it just disappears, without hurting anyone. That way, missile ships still can dictate the range - but now they could be countered. Should be more interesting than just copy-pasting trackdis and naming it "missile-dis". And at least it sounds like it has something to do with the real world. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 09:21:00 -
[6] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Like I have said, I really don't care if they nerf the Drake. I don't care if they delete it from the game altogether -- I don't fly it. And the Tengu, well, that thing with the 100mn AB is downright ridiculous. But CCP needs to leave Caldari missile pilots something. If CCP decided to obliterate the Cane, I would be annoyed, but I have fifty other great ships I can fly. If they break the Drake missile pilots will have basically nothing. In my opinion that's a bad idea. Indeed, leaving no caldari pilots with no viable ship is a mistake. I suppose the revamp should be made step-by-step. First, reduce damage on HML and buff HAML. Then, rebalance missle ships. After that - reduce base range of HML, introduce TE/TC and TD. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 09:33:00 -
[7] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Imagine if instead of changing the Canes fitting, they just ramped up the fitting requirements of the projectiles across the board? Because that's analogous to this. In fact they do ;-) PG fitting requirements are reduced for arty. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 17:05:00 -
[8] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically. Battlecruisers: - projectiles: 3 - lasers: 3 - drones: 1 and 1/2 (Harbinger) - hybrids: 4 - missiles: 1 (one!)
At least 1 more missile BC is desperately needed. I think it could be... Cyclone! Just switch it to 5/5 layout for turrets and missiles, and give it the following bonuses: 7.5% shield boost, 5% projectiles damage, 5% missiles ROF; and make it possible to fit 5 HAML + 3 autocannons with decent tank.
This way we'll have Drake for long range, being best with HML, and Cyclone for close range brawl. Gladly, "battlecruisers" is not race-specific skill, so caldari players can easily start flying it (ironically, CCP wants to change it, which I disagree - but who cares). Well it looks very much the same as Typhoon - but it's only at first glance. Typhoon is much more versatile as it is now, and mostly armor-tanked, with all the consequences. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 17:38:00 -
[9] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:I really can't believe noone is noticing the phantom buff thats in TE's...
Its going to change entirely how missile boats are fitted.. We noticed. Caldari Missile boats don't have the low slots to make this matter. For mixed weapon ships like the Cyclone it will be insane, but for Caldari? Not so much. How come? Drake = 4 low slots, Cyclone = 4 low slots. As for Typhoon - yes, "insane" could be the right word ;-)
|
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 05:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:Ok, being serious. If you do the -20% to heavy missile damage, all heavy missile boats will become unless. I mean look at the DPS on a drake, on my main I have heavy missiles to 5, heavy missile spec to 5, BC to 5, and perfect missile skills and I still get just 437.7 DPS, for a BC that is terrible, the Cerberus isn't much better, the Onyx is even worse, and even a well fitted Tengi isn't much over 700 DPS usually. So if you take away it's damage, which really there is no reason to, because HAMs do better DPS on any of those ships fitted with HAMs, then you will completely make heavy missiles and half of the Caldari ships worthless. Also taking away the range doesn't make a whole lot of since either. Heavy Missiles are the range missiles of medium missiles, hints why they shoot slower. So why take their range away? On the Drake it only goes 86Km, standard missiles in a Hawk fire out to 65Km, so you are going to make small missiles able to shoot out further than medium missiles, again that makes no sense. Tengu can shoot to around 117km, and they are T3s and I believe should be able to shoot further because they are T3s and cost an arm and leg to buy and make. I really hope you rethink the heavy missile nerf, or you will have a lot of upset EVE players, so many people have put so much in Tengus and other missiles boats. I personally don't believe any nerfs are needed anymore. Maybe just a bit of a faction frig bonus, and T3 frigs be cool to see haha. So, Drake = 438 DPS @ 86 km, Tengu = 700 DPS @ 117 km. Nuff said. And the words like "it's just", "it's only", "that's terrible" show us how spoiled people could be. Cant blame them though, it's hard to fight the temptation which was posed by CCP for so damn long. What can I say to cheer you up? Well - real man HAML Drake! |
|
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
19
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 08:01:00 -
[11] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Crazy Nymphora wrote: But as they said from the start, this is for the sake of balance, being honest or not, they do have the responsibility of at least making it "sound" fair, right? How about we vote for a "Heavy missile related skill points remap", or "Drake/Tengu/Nighthawk related skill points remap"?
I'm going to have to agree with this. What about compensation for none-HML pilots then? All this time that heavy missiles were OP, they were fighting unfair battle. Some of them (maybe most in fact) even knew their weapon system was inferior, but refused to make yet some more contribution into turning EVE Online into Drake&Tengu Online. They deserve encouragement, dont you think?
But seriously, folks. You now have a chance to open a new chapter in your way in EVE. And you want to skrew it with SP reimbursement? Do you really think that if you manage to train for new ship and/or weapon in easy-mode, it will make you happy? Only through struggle gain we strength. So dont be lazy, stop whining - and adapt. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
19
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 09:00:00 -
[12] - Quote
Would you stop this Drake/Cane hollywar, please? This is pathetic. |
|
|
|