Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 [100] 200 .. 213 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 63 post(s) |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 15:31:00 -
[2971] - Quote
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..
while you are right...from a PVE aspect, this actually would balance out the Tengu as your 4th BCS isn't giving you that much of a bonus to DPS anyway. But it will hinder the drake as most are only fitted with 2 BCS's it MIGHT balance out.
From a PVP perspective, though...IDK, I think it might be more detrimental.
From a skill perspective, are they looking at changing the skill requirements for TC's so that missiles don't have yet another support skill to train. While I think it's stupid requirements to fit T2 guns, as someone posted earlier...it does take 10 days longer to be perfect med HM's than it does to be perfect med pulse/blasters...and 10 days less than that for med ac's *or their long range counter parts. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 15:34:00 -
[2972] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:
Total Caldari 285886
Total Minmatar 284023
Total Amarr 180913
Total others. I did not do the math........
So, should the entire Minmatar race be nerfed ? I vote for a 20% reduction in base speed for all Minmatar ships.
Go back to June and tell me if the numbers are the same....from everything I'm reading, those numbers are from a war going on in the North with some Drake blobs...but I do agree...20% reduction in base speed for minmatar seeing as the minmatar ship almost always dictates whether the fight happens or not. |
Ian Wolf
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry State Section 9
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 16:08:00 -
[2973] - Quote
Tyrus Tenebros wrote:I virtually never post to eve-o forums but the missile changes are way to excessive. While I generally never join the whines of "don't make everything the same" I have to agree that the move to make missiles "more inline" with other weapon types is misguided. Missiles have always done low-ish to moderate dps in exchange for being reliable and difficult to stop barring outranging them. Shoving them in to the TE/TD paradigm dramatically affects the character of missiles. While I understand the desire to increase the use of HAMs and promote the LR/CR dichotomy, I also don't think needing HMLs in ti the ground is the way to go with that either. 1) DPS reduction is too high. 10% would be a better start. 2) Range reduction is slightly too significant. 15-20% base might be better... missiles don't have falloff and are subject to chase distance against fast targets 3) TE/TD paradigm will likely reduce DPS further as some lows are swapped to TEs. While I "get" how the reduced dps is supposed to be compensated for slightly by increased applied damage to small targets, I don't think it will play out very well. 4) TDs themselves become extremely powerful. I suggest dropping the TE/TD change entirely, there's no reason for it. As they say, if it ain't broke don't fix it.. and the balance of missile damage actually applied is fine as is, even if tweaks need to be applied there'sno need for a wholesale shift. The 10% damage nerf should be sufficient to promote the use of HAMs. Slightly increasing damage applied by HAMs would also promote their use. Edit: well played dropping the cane nerf in front of the overboard missile changes to derail the thread from that discussion.
I couldn't agree with this more TE/TD effecting missiles? What is the negative effect of using them? Atleast with ECM you have the chance they miss jams, TE/TD just became the most overpowered Electronic Warfare mods in game. PASS |
Aliventi
Southern Cross Trilogy Flying Dangerous
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 16:12:00 -
[2974] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:[quote=MIrple] 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.
If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake. I would live a mini release balancing the BCs/HACs/Commands ships. Cause Caldari HACs well.... suck. The only thing I think the drake could do with is a ROF bonus instead of a Kinetic damage bonus. Yeah cool and all. But I want more damage types that deal DPS than kinetic. If you do that then the drake should carry around more than just 1 type of ammo like all the other ships in the game. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 16:25:00 -
[2975] - Quote
Aliventi wrote: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.
If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake.
I would live a mini release balancing the BCs/HACs/Commands ships. Cause Caldari HACs well.... suck. The only thing I think the drake could do with is a ROF bonus instead of a Kinetic damage bonus. Yeah cool and all. But I want more damage types that deal DPS than kinetic. If you do that then the drake should carry around more than just 1 type of ammo like all the other ships in the game.
yes please buff the drake instead of nerfing it, as if we aren't already solving imaginary problems in this thread...
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Luscius Uta
Killers of Paranoid Souls Universal Paranoia Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 16:39:00 -
[2976] - Quote
At last, CCP no longer wants us to play Drakes & Tengus Online :)
But the question remains, should Autocannons be nerfed as well? They are not such all-round weapons like HMLs, but they still have four strong points:
-very easy to fit due to low CPU/PG requirements -consume no cap -have great faloff -can do any type of damage
Now, I don't say we should change any of the above (that would be quick and dirty, but silly way to fix the problem), but we could make some more subtle, unique changes (just so we don't end up with Hurricanes Online instead of Drakes Online). For example, since they are (from science's perspective) the most primitive, 20th century-like weapons in EVE, let's make them overheat faster than other weapons - this could be just enough to stop them being so prevalent in PvP and still won't change them drastically or make them sucky. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
123
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 16:49:00 -
[2977] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:MIrple wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:[quote=DR BiCarbonate]*looks at eve-kill stats*
Pirate - 1 Caldari - 3 Amarr - 3 Gallente - 2
Hurricane, Tornado, Maelstrom, Loki, Thrasher, Hound, Rifter, Huginn, Scimitar, Stabber Fleet Issue, Sabre....yeah...Drakes need a nerf. Lol
Its a good think nothing on the drake has changed only the HML has changed so not sure how you are saying the drake has changed in any way. Oh wow....let's grab your hand....The HML will affect 2 ships more than anything....the Drake and the Tengu, 66% of caldari PVP ships in this list here....If you were to alter projectile turrets...are you not changing the ships that fit them? Here's why I don't understand...if, in fact, the drake is so OP, why, as an Amarr/Caldari pilot, am I wishing I was minmatar instead?? Why don't these guys crying it's so OP fly drakes instead?? Why is the HML, drake and tengu so op, when 11 of the top 20 ships on this kill board are, in fact, Minmatar? To truly "balance" this....would a nerf to the Volley of arty's and increasing it's RoF be just as much a work toward's the "balance" they so desire?
Guess what I fly Drakes and I am for this change. If you cant figure out that HAMS are the short ranged versions I cant help you either. If you want to argue that HAMS need to have there fitting requirements changed to make them easier to fit to be more in line with other weapon systems I am for that. To say that a ship is now worthless because of a change to HML is just silly. Yes more people are flying Matari at the moment but there can be more factors into this then just there guns. It comes more down to the fact that they are to easier to fit then other races. Cane is getting a change. Hound and Huginn are missile ships also Scimi doesn't shoot anything. So while yes there are a few missile ships its not Projectiles that are the issue. |
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
174
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 16:49:00 -
[2978] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
I think you are seriously underestimating the effect of TE/TCs working on HAMs. Being able to extend HAM range and effectiveness vs small targets 30 - 60% may well prove to be the new FOTM. I think we should wait and see before buffing HAMs (except maybe fittings, to bring them in line with other close range weapon systems)
Obviously.
The issue then becomes how to fit TE's into the limited low slots of Caldari missile ships. The same applies to TC's -- though the Drake has enough mid slots to at least make this a possibility.
Missiles are the Caldari signature weapon system, yet looking at the situation today we see that once we move beyond rocket frigates, Caldari pilots have only one generally useful T1/T2 missile platform: the Drake. Nor will this improve with this patch, and the concern is that CCP will essentially break the only missile ship Caldari pilots have left.
I don't object to nerfing the Drake but in my opinion CCP needs to hold off on this until they are ready to fix the Caldari ships that are currently broken. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 17:05:00 -
[2979] - 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. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
248
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 17:12:00 -
[2980] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:MIrple wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:[quote=DR BiCarbonate]*looks at eve-kill stats*
Pirate - 1 Caldari - 3 Amarr - 3 Gallente - 2
Hurricane, Tornado, Maelstrom, Loki, Thrasher, Hound, Rifter, Huginn, Scimitar, Stabber Fleet Issue, Sabre....yeah...Drakes need a nerf. Lol
Its a good think nothing on the drake has changed only the HML has changed so not sure how you are saying the drake has changed in any way. Oh wow....let's grab your hand....The HML will affect 2 ships more than anything....the Drake and the Tengu, 66% of caldari PVP ships in this list here....If you were to alter projectile turrets...are you not changing the ships that fit them? Here's why I don't understand...if, in fact, the drake is so OP, why, as an Amarr/Caldari pilot, am I wishing I was minmatar instead?? Why don't these guys crying it's so OP fly drakes instead?? Why is the HML, drake and tengu so op, when 11 of the top 20 ships on this kill board are, in fact, Minmatar? To truly "balance" this....would a nerf to the Volley of arty's and increasing it's RoF be just as much a work toward's the "balance" they so desire? Guess what I fly Drakes and I am for this change. If you cant figure out that HAMS are the short ranged versions I cant help you either. If you want to argue that HAMS need to have there fitting requirements changed to make them easier to fit to be more in line with other weapon systems I am for that. To say that a ship is now worthless because of a change to HML is just silly. Yes more people are flying Matari at the moment but there can be more factors into this then just there guns. It comes more down to the fact that they are to easier to fit then other races. Cane is getting a change. Hound and Huginn are missile ships also Scimi doesn't shoot anything. So while yes there are a few missile ships its not Projectiles that are the issue.
Did I mention anywhere anything about HAM's or short range guns....no. Yes, I do think they need to adjust fitting requirements of both HAM's and Torps.
And while you can argue it's not just the guns....bottom line is when you're a sniper fit, you look for alpha...now you show me any weapon system that rivals that of the Arty? Maelstrom, Tornado Fleets? Beams and Hybrids MAY be able to keep up on dps, but it's because of a faster firing rate....their alpha blows...and have you EVER seen a Cruise alpha ship? lmao |
|
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
174
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 17:29:00 -
[2981] - Quote
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.
Here's a better one: What effect do you suppose the TD's affecting missiles change will have on Caldari rocket frigates that are only doing a hundred or so DPS today? |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 17:38:00 -
[2982] - 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 ;-)
|
Dhuras
The Classy Gentlemans Corporation Moist.
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 17:43:00 -
[2983] - Quote
AS is the drake bonuses are fine, it makes it a good noob ship, survivable, but not damagey enough for them to wreck everything in sight. I can see that heavy missiles needed a bit of a debuff but this is over the top. way less range, way less damage, and vulnerable to TD's. heavy missiles will be practically useless except as an ancilliary weapon system as used on cyclones. These nerfs would be okay if they were reduced in severity. make the damage nerf 10% instead of 20 and the range nerf 15-20%. |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
50
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 18:29:00 -
[2984] - Quote
Yayyy! Let's make sure every weapon is "balanced" (aka works the same, is affected by the same modules, has the same range and damage outputs)! Down with diversity and using different strategies! |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 18:52:00 -
[2985] - Quote
Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:Down with diversity and using different strategies!
But when that diversity and different strategies mean everyone using Drakes and Tengus... |
LtauSTinpoWErs
Mafia Redux
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 19:21:00 -
[2986] - Quote
CCP Fozzie,
Can you also adjust the fitting requirements for Torpedo Launchers compared to Cruise Missile Launchers?
As I showed for Heavy Assault Missile Launcher IIs, they are the only close range weapon for cruiser sized ships that have a greater demand on fitting requirements compared to their long range counterpart, the Heavy Missile Launcher II.
It is the same story for battleship sized weapons: All long range weapons (projectile, hybrid, and laser) require greater power grid and CPU compared to their close range sisters. However, Torpedo Launchers require 1838 PG and 88 CPU where Cruise Missile Launchers only need 1313 PG and 66 CPU. Hopefully you will consider fixing this as well. Thank you. |
Hirimatsu Yamamoto
Bunnie Slayers Redrum Fleet
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 20:03:00 -
[2987] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote: Tier 3s were in my opinion a bad idea to begin with so no comment.
I love you.
Ditto. ^_^ |
Athina Alarei
SHUN THE NON BELIEVER JINN.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 20:12:00 -
[2988] - Quote
Are you saying my newly acquired Tengu mission beasting machine is no longer going to be a mission beasting machine? (Legitimate question, I'm wondering how hard this is going to hit the Tengu lvl 4 mission capability) |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
123
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 20:28:00 -
[2989] - Quote
Athina Alarei wrote:Are you saying my newly acquired Tengu mission beasting machine is no longer going to be a mission beasting machine? (Legitimate question, I'm wondering how hard this is going to hit the Tengu lvl 4 mission capability)
Train now for HAMS and you will be probably better then you were before. |
Athina Alarei
SHUN THE NON BELIEVER JINN.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 20:30:00 -
[2990] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Athina Alarei wrote:Are you saying my newly acquired Tengu mission beasting machine is no longer going to be a mission beasting machine? (Legitimate question, I'm wondering how hard this is going to hit the Tengu lvl 4 mission capability) Train now for HAMS and you will be probably better then you were before.
I literally JUST finished HM spec lvl 3 :( lol |
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
231
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 20:30:00 -
[2991] - Quote
Athina Alarei wrote:Are you saying my newly acquired Tengu mission beasting machine is no longer going to be a mission beasting machine? (Legitimate question, I'm wondering how hard this is going to hit the Tengu lvl 4 mission capability)
You will do a bit less dps at a bit less range but you will be able to fit tracking enhancers/computers if you want to boost effectiveness against smaller stuff and precisions will no longer suck. oh and you will loose less volleys thanks to velocity. basically you wont be as good against bs (extra volley?) but will be better against frigs. there will be a few missions where the range nerf might hurt you but not many tbh. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
123
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 20:41:00 -
[2992] - Quote
Athina Alarei wrote:MIrple wrote:Athina Alarei wrote:Are you saying my newly acquired Tengu mission beasting machine is no longer going to be a mission beasting machine? (Legitimate question, I'm wondering how hard this is going to hit the Tengu lvl 4 mission capability) Train now for HAMS and you will be probably better then you were before. I literally JUST finished HM spec lvl 3 :( lol
This will not come out till Mid December so you have plenty of time to train for HAMS if/when you need to. Think it is only 15 day train for level 5. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
231
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 20:43:00 -
[2993] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:At last, CCP no longer wants us to play Drakes & Tengus Online :)
But the question remains, should Autocannons be nerfed as well? They are not such all-round weapons like HMLs, but they still have four strong points:
-very easy to fit due to low CPU/PG requirements -consume no cap -have great faloff -can do any type of damage
Now, I don't say we should change any of the above (that would be quick and dirty, but silly way to fix the problem), but we could make some more subtle, unique changes (just so we don't end up with Hurricanes Online instead of Drakes Online). For example, since they are (from science's perspective) the most primitive, 20th century-like weapons in EVE, let's make them overheat faster than other weapons - this could be just enough to stop them being so prevalent in PvP and still won't change them drastically or make them sucky.
To be honest two of those or not that important. Thier great fall off comes at the expense of great optimal. The damage type thing is a red herring, its far less useful than missile damage as its not pure (you are always doing some dps in the wrong damage type) and limited by range. T2 close range and long range only do exp/kin, medium range/high trackng has no em. Sure will never get caught out with totally the wrong damage types like amarr, but its not great.
Consuming no cap is an advantage, but one shared with all missiles.
So really its the fitting and the thing you didn't mention - the tracking, which seems excessively good at times.
|
OlRotGut
34
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 20:52:00 -
[2994] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:MIrple wrote:CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop. I would absolutely love to, but there's no way we'd be able to get them done for this release. 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. If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake.
I think the kinetic bonus is very lame, it should be 10% ROF or 5% damage increase to all missile types. Specially if you go ahead and nerf the missiles to hell and back.
I implore you to not think "what would change our opinion of your balance proposal" and instead take some of our ideas to heart and create something of a new proposal. Something a little deeper than what you've initially thought of. No offense, but the current balance proposal is like shooting from the hip.
If you're going to do Lights & HML's; take the time to do it right and do ALL the missiles and ordinance. |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
50
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 21:01:00 -
[2995] - Quote
How about instead of going the very boring route of making everything the same...
I like the idea of a mid or low-slot "Point Defense Gatling Gun" system. Has a % chance of destroying each incoming missile - and has a better chance of destroying a larger missile than a small missile. Perhaps a better chance of destroying either guided or unguided missiles as well for game balance reasons, although I'm not sure that would make much logical sense.
There - now you have a better version of the defender missile with a chance based result that ships can equip. The PDS would need to apply only to the missiles targeting that ship so you couldn't just sit 50 ships on top of each of other and make sure no missiles get through (e.g. a firewall).
Alternatively, maybe you create a similar module that goes in the mid or low slot that any ship (or maybe even just a capital ship?) can equip and that has a 5km or so range for taking out missiles, but has a reload time and can only shoot down 1 missile at a time. Then, even if you have a fleet doctrine with 200 ships carrying 2 of the modules, you can wipe out 400 missiles per salvo. Say the salvo is 5 seconds, if the enemy is firing a ton of HMLs at you, you can only neuter the dps of about 80 drakes with those 200 ships.
Also, I really like the idea of the minimum arming range for guided missiles.. not for unguided missiles.. which gives unguided missiles another advantage. |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
50
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 21:04:00 -
[2996] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:Down with diversity and using different strategies! But when that diversity and different strategies mean everyone using Drakes and Tengus...
Really? I don't see everybody using Drakes and Tengus. I see all kinds of different ships being used out there. And when I go on PVP roams, nobody seems to get upset if I don't show up in a drake or tengu.
In fact, I use neither for either PVP or PVE. I use a domi/ishtar for PVE and all sorts of ships for PVP. Haven't flown a drake in a long time. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
252
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 21:13:00 -
[2997] - Quote
Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:How about instead of going the very boring route of making everything the same...
I like the idea of a mid or low-slot "Point Defense Gatling Gun" system. Has a % chance of destroying each incoming missile - and has a better chance of destroying a larger missile than a small missile. Perhaps a better chance of destroying either guided or unguided missiles as well for game balance reasons, although I'm not sure that would make much logical sense.
There - now you have a better version of the defender missile with a chance based result that ships can equip. The PDS would need to apply only to the missiles targeting that ship so you couldn't just sit 50 ships on top of each of other and make sure no missiles get through (e.g. a firewall).
Alternatively, maybe you create a similar module that goes in the mid or low slot that any ship (or maybe even just a capital ship?) can equip and that has a 5km or so range for taking out missiles, but has a reload time and can only shoot down 1 missile at a time. Then, even if you have a fleet doctrine with 200 ships carrying 2 of the modules, you can wipe out 400 missiles per salvo. Say the salvo is 5 seconds, if the enemy is firing a ton of HMLs at you, you can only neuter the dps of about 80 drakes with those 200 ships.
Also, I really like the idea of the minimum arming range for guided missiles.. not for unguided missiles.. which gives unguided missiles another advantage.
As cool as that last part sounds, my fear is a) it would increase lag time due to calculations of several volleys in the air and b) now instead of any dps....it now negates it entirely. Say what you will arty people...you still have those volleys that do hit.
I've been racking my brain trying to figure out how to balance it out a little more, but short of must making missiles hit like guns and therefore negating all weapons systems down to a turret *which would then favor turret/missile combo ships* it's really difficult to find a viable solution, even if some people who EFT warrior everything and fail to see actual missile damage. and how it's rare do you ever see a full volley on anything other than a PoS with no resists....
As far as the cane...I would rather see them remove a high slot and make it a low or mid rather than nerf the PG as it severely hampers those that are shooting for a decent tank on it |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 21:31:00 -
[2998] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:Also, I really like the idea of the minimum arming range for guided missiles.. not for unguided missiles.. which gives unguided missiles another advantage. As cool as that last part sounds, my fear is a) it would increase lag time due to calculations of several volleys in the air and b) now instead of any dps....it now negates it entirely. Say what you will arty people...you still have those volleys that do hit.....also, c) it would negate any effectiveness of precisions *unless those aren't included* however....and finally d) since only T2 can load those, what would you do about people with T1 only? Believe it or not, there are some people out there without the training to fit T2 on all their missiles and it's not like they would have close range ammo.....? I've been racking my brain trying to figure out how to balance it out a little more, but short of just making missiles hit like guns and therefore negating all weapons systems down to a turret *which would then favor turret/missile combo ships* it's really difficult to find a viable solution, even if some people who EFT warrior everything and fail to see actual missile damage. and how it's rare do you ever see a full volley on anything other than a PoS with no resists.... As far as the cane...I would rather see them remove a high slot and make it a low or mid rather than nerf the PG as it severely hampers those that are shooting for a decent tank on it
I feel the Hurricane changes are fine. Artillery are receiving a PG reduction across the board so long-range fits will probably be even easier than they are now. Remember that the Harbinger has no chance in hell of fitting a 1600mm plate tank, a rack of largest tier guns, and a medium neut (much less two), and the Myrmidon... well, it's special. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 21:32:00 -
[2999] - Quote
OlRotGut wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:MIrple wrote:CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop. I would absolutely love to, but there's no way we'd be able to get them done for this release. 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. If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake. I think the kinetic bonus is very lame, it should be 10% ROF or 5% damage increase to all missile types. Specially if you go ahead and nerf the missiles to hell and back. I implore you to not think "what would change our opinion of your balance proposal" and instead take some of our ideas to heart and create something of a new proposal. Something a little deeper than what you've initially thought of. No offense, but the current balance proposal is like shooting from the hip. If you're going to do Lights & HML's; take the time to do it right and do ALL the missiles and ordinance.
They're not going to nerf missiles to hell and back, they're going to nerf heavy missiles to hell and boost the rest of them. After thinking on this for a while I'm fine with it. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
252
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 22:02:00 -
[3000] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:Also, I really like the idea of the minimum arming range for guided missiles.. not for unguided missiles.. which gives unguided missiles another advantage. As cool as that last part sounds, my fear is a) it would increase lag time due to calculations of several volleys in the air and b) now instead of any dps....it now negates it entirely. Say what you will arty people...you still have those volleys that do hit.....also, c) it would negate any effectiveness of precisions *unless those aren't included* however....and finally d) since only T2 can load those, what would you do about people with T1 only? Believe it or not, there are some people out there without the training to fit T2 on all their missiles and it's not like they would have close range ammo.....? I've been racking my brain trying to figure out how to balance it out a little more, but short of just making missiles hit like guns and therefore negating all weapons systems down to a turret *which would then favor turret/missile combo ships* it's really difficult to find a viable solution, even if some people who EFT warrior everything and fail to see actual missile damage. and how it's rare do you ever see a full volley on anything other than a PoS with no resists.... As far as the cane...I would rather see them remove a high slot and make it a low or mid rather than nerf the PG as it severely hampers those that are shooting for a decent tank on it I feel the Hurricane changes are fine. Artillery are receiving a PG reduction across the board so long-range fits will probably be even easier than they are now. Remember that the Harbinger has no chance in hell of fitting a 1600mm plate tank, a rack of largest tier guns, and a medium neut (much less two), and the Myrmidon... well, it's special.
Lol....I can't say I've ever seen a myrm fleet! So yeah, it's special and it doesn't even get a helmet. I think it's sad that most ships can't fit the largest teir guns....my poor little harby that I was I so geeked to get into....collecting dust after just a few mission attempts before going to a BS..... :( |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 [100] 200 .. 213 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |