Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Yenol
|
Posted - 2005.09.15 21:49:00 -
[1]
If the raven could hold 8 missile slots, would that be unbalanced? i would love the idea of an all missile spewing battleship.
Thoughts?
|
Hellraiza666
|
Posted - 2005.09.15 21:58:00 -
[2]
yes it would be VERY unbalanced, because it could have too high a DPS and also tank at the same time. People underestimate the DPS of torps with decent skills, and i feel that 6 is more than enough, especially with 5 ballistics --------------------------------------------
In War There Are No Runners Up...
Image by Denrace |
Yenol
|
Posted - 2005.09.15 22:02:00 -
[3]
aww thats a shame i love missiles more then guns, seeing the explosions and hearing the BOOOOM! i thought missiles were next to useless now? lots of people complain about them
|
Marcus Aurelius
|
Posted - 2005.09.15 22:05:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Yenol aww thats a shame i love missiles more then guns, seeing the explosions and hearing the BOOOOM! i thought missiles were next to useless now? lots of people complain about them
Lot's of people simply dont have a clue.
Sure, some work on missiles remains maybe, but the Raven in itself is better then ever.
|
Arondor
|
Posted - 2005.09.15 22:14:00 -
[5]
I'm a raven pilot and I ponied up 2 bilion for the navy raven because the extra missile slot is nice. Hurts in some ways fitting it but overall a very good ship. Missiles are great "post-patch" they just aren't the jack of all trades they used to be, but used the right way they are actually better in most cases
Arondor
|
krilliante
|
Posted - 2005.09.15 22:18:00 -
[6]
just my opinion from a month running lvl 3 kill missions in my ferrox... Light missiles pretty bad but usable in assault launchers Heavy missiles...useless for anything...crap dammage on everything (compared to assault launchers) And this is with all missiles skills at lvl 3 and 4 including the new ones.....
Tried the 5 heavy launchers 2 250 rails and it sucked ass Tried the 5 Assault launchers 2 250 rails sucked but less so and also lets me run a decent tank....
|
Turin
|
Posted - 2005.09.15 22:21:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Turin on 15/09/2005 22:21:59 as a Caldari pilot since the start of the game.
As a Missle user since the start of the game, I feel I can add a somewhat valid opinion.
Missles suck. Bad. Huge. Big time. If I could re-distribute the 4 mil SP I have in missles, I would do so in a heartbeat. Wouldnt even flinch about it, or think twice.ALL versatility was removed from missles users as well with the launcher nerf to boot.
|
Yenol
|
Posted - 2005.09.15 23:04:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Yenol on 15/09/2005 23:03:47 Wow, so black and white views, why do people say they suck? and why do they say there good?
|
DrunkenOne
|
Posted - 2005.09.15 23:22:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Yenol Edited by: Yenol on 15/09/2005 23:03:47 Wow, so black and white views, why do people say they suck? and why do they say there good?
stupid people think they suck, smart people think they are good.
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2005.09.15 23:37:00 -
[10]
If some people are very happy with them then either a) they have incredibly low expectations or b) they're getting more out of them than the people who think they suck. Or c) the people who think they suck have unrealistically high expectations. Possibly due to having been missile-exclusive for so long (read: Raven pilots, for the most part) that they've forgotten what a healthy balanced DPS is.
This post bought to you by the numbers one and four and the concept "cynicism"
More relevantly, one of the real issues you have in balance is the need to balance everything running at maximum efficiency and set up in the best way. If there is a better, more efficient way to do things than the way most people are doing them, then if it's balanced properly most people will be dissappointed because they'll be getting sub-par performance from their ships. It's not just a case of balancing "most used" setups because people will find new ways of doing things and as a balancer you have to think of them first. One example is the "passive tanking" thing. Ok, so it's not a huge deal, but what if recharge rates and base resistances were higher? Suddenly certain shield-heavy ships would be way more powerful than they should be, and there'd be imbalance. People can and do think of these things. If that was the case, and said ships were nerfed pre-emptively, there'd be a huge outcry because people wouldn't understand the reasons. Yet it has to be done otherwise, when it is twigged and publicised, you have a huge problem. Similarly with some of the Mk2 changes, like CPU increases for example, I can't help but think that the balance team have sat down for hours and hours and thought up new permutations and found new setups that require a little more CPU to be really effective. Hence quite possibly the revised Moa - everyone's saying "bah, it really needs more PG", but who has actually sat down and looked at what you can do with more CPU? You usually have to throw "conventional wisdom" out of the window in order to make any progress, mind, and that's something that many people aren't good at.
(An interesting parallel here is the AGP/PCI Express thing. Faster AGP slots like the 4x and 8x ones never resulted in performance improvements. So, with the arrival of "16x" and faster PCIe the common reaction was "we never needed AGP 8x, this is dumb". In actual fact, however, the increased speed plus the duplex nature of the new interface means that there are things which can be done which weren't worth considering on AGP because it was just too slow. Conventional wisdom was that a faster interface wouldn't help, wheras actually it would help but it needed to faster still than the fastest ones around at the time. Just goes to show that once again, these things do happen, you just need to learn to go and look for them. Sure, most people won't spot them anyway, but next time you see CCP do something which looks completely and utterly bass-ackwards, instead of jumping up and down screaming, why not sit back and have a think and see where they're actually going with this one. Because, contrary to another piece of conventional wisdom, the devs aren't dumb - there are some incredibly neat pieces of design work in Eve - and if you go looking you might find something. And if you're the only one to notice that you can do some cool new and previously-unthinkable trick as a result of a subtle or bizarre change, you'll be the one laughing all the way to the killmails.)
|
|
RabbidFerret
|
Posted - 2005.09.15 23:46:00 -
[11]
Edited by: RabbidFerret on 15/09/2005 23:46:47
Originally by: Yenol If the raven could hold 8 missile slots, would that be unbalanced? i would love the idea of an all missile spewing battleship.
Thoughts?
It isnt a missile spewing battleship already???
All your ferrets are belong to us. |
Khatred
|
Posted - 2005.09.15 23:52:00 -
[12]
Raven with Siege launchers and good missile skills = ok++ at close range. Good damage and good tank Raven with Cruise launchers and good missile skills = the new jack of all trades but of course slightly weaker than his now nerfed cousin
But if you want opinios from people that fly Ravens and don't carry drones, don't fit NOSes or 2 small/medium guns and expect to blow a frig in 3 torpedoes then yeah, Ravens suck now.
________________________________________________ The narrow minded and selfish people posting on EO forums made me bitter |
Yenol
|
Posted - 2005.09.16 00:46:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Yenol on 16/09/2005 00:48:28
Originally by: RabbidFerret Edited by: RabbidFerret on 15/09/2005 23:46:47
Originally by: Yenol If the raven could hold 8 missile slots, would that be unbalanced? i would love the idea of an all missile spewing battleship.
Thoughts?
It isnt a missile spewing battleship already???
Yea, but not enough...need more Booms! and Bangs!
|
Fikia
|
Posted - 2005.09.16 01:26:00 -
[14]
Would be nice to fit 2 assault launchers there instead of nos/guns/etc.. I know I know, nos would be better for the frigs & drones can take care of frigs.. But some of us want to use a full rack of launchers, even if the last 2 are only assault or heavy launchers :b
|
Exide Battery
|
Posted - 2005.09.16 04:38:00 -
[15]
i like my raven as it is. 8 sieges or cruises would wtfpwn any other battleship.
but i would like to be able fit small launchers besides the 6 large launchers.
cos i dont want to train gunnery. i have to train missiles and EW (if i want to use the tier 1 bs of the caldari proper)
(oh and i want an assault frig missile boat )
|
Tovarishch
|
Posted - 2005.09.16 04:52:00 -
[16]
The Raven is probably the single best close range battleship killer in the game. While this sounds great... it's a very limited role. All missiles (even rockets and lights) do poor damage against small targets... cruises and torps against anything other than a BS are a complete waste.
Eight missile slots on a Raven would be very unbalanced... even though fitting eight siege launchers would be a nuisance it would create a ship capable of annihilating other battleships.
It's best to steer clear of missiles for the moment... until they get tweaked a bit... which I have faith that they will. I'm still training missile skills to 5 because I have faith in CCP.
|
Rexthor Hammerfists
|
Posted - 2005.09.16 06:58:00 -
[17]
the prob with missiles are that they are good in close range, but suck in longrange - 8 launchers would put it in line woth other bs in longrange, at least a bit, but it would b better then evevry other closerange bs. dunno how to solve this..
|
Felxia
|
Posted - 2005.09.16 08:44:00 -
[18]
missles are still overpowered imo - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I look at you with pity... |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |