| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 25 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Gimme more Cynos
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
2
   |
Posted - 2013.04.16 19:38:00 -
[151] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:These changes look extremely promising, but I have to confess that my excitement level spiked high enough that it rang the "may be OP" bell in my head.
-Liang So it's not just me. I was mooting that the 15% mentioned in other threads risked being OTT (in PvE). 30%....on a properly fit CNR is going to be nothing short of hilarious. I'm not sure it enough for PvP, but certainly for PvE the raven pilots are going to be laughing their way to the bank. Edit: Don't get me wrong I like it but....damnit, it's a BIG boost. I suppose to compensate they could take away your drone bay.  Done bay is really good for pushing EFT warrior numbers up  I was thinking more about the forum comedy that would generate. "Great, now my Raven rocks in missions... unless there are frigates and cruisers... which eat me alive and there isn't a thing I can do about them."
It wouldn't produce such comments, as they would just load precisions and kill them in a few volleys ;D |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3953
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 19:44:00 -
[152] - Quote
I never found Precision Cruise to be all that effective against frigates.
Then again, it's been a looooong time since I did missions, especially with missile BS.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors.
If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
242
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 19:45:00 -
[153] - Quote
They got a healthy buff recently |
Gimme more Cynos
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 19:47:00 -
[154] - Quote
And they are pretty ok tbh. They do work and it's reasonable to switch to them in a lot of cases. With 30% moar dmg, they will be able to kill even the nastiest mission frig in 2 volley's I would guess. |
jiaulina
Bad Security.
Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 20:11:00 -
[155] - Quote
wonderful, putting the raven back into the PVP scene!
now i have to see torps getting a slight explosion velocity buff or smaller explo radius and i can get drunk.
GÖÑ you Rise |
Arec Bardwin
943
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 20:12:00 -
[156] - Quote
While you are at it; could you PLEASE reduce the cycle time of target painters, and adjust cap use accordingly? |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
White Mountain Coalition
117
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 20:17:00 -
[157] - Quote
MainDrain wrote:Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Righty, one by one:
5% increased rate of fire for all Cruise Missile Launchers
25% increase in base damage for all Cruise Missiles
Way more than I expected, tbh. Only problem I see: Rof means a rof bonused ship will go through cargo even faster and missiles are pretty large to carry around in the first place. Perhaps consider reducing the size of missiles?
Figure that has to be a key comment, with the Rate of Fire increasing its got to be a must to reduce the size, as well as the mineral requirements for building them. It shouldnt become more expensive (albeit slightly) to kill a target as a result of these changes, it should remain identical.
Everything has to get more expensive these days, ccp are desperately trying to build more isk sinks into the game in order to rebalance the economy. It also means that mission rewards are slightly nerfed as it costs more to kill rats making the remaining isk more precious. |
Marcus Walkuris
Pro Synergy
Frozen Shipyards
6
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 20:39:00 -
[158] - Quote
I don't quite get all the cheering people.
Now at the bright side it has been mentioned that there will be more options added to improve explosion velocity/lower explosion radius in "the future".
But Large missiles being used mostly for PvE what will this add?
More then anything faster BS killing potential and this category in and of itself is not the mayor chunk dictating mission completion time.
30% increased damage yesh hello hurray, but the 10% decrease in "tracking" is only going to grow exponentially when sig radius go smaller.
Okay elite cruisers and frigs is what you have drones for, but in the end drones rly don't do that much dps without a dedicated hull, rather fragile too... Especially with the wonderful new AI in combination with elite rats and hitting return means MWD away in a straight line getting them single shot.
Bottom line 2 steps forward 1 step backward, but that one step backward... The unmodified difference in applied damage through "tracking penalties" against anything but an abandoned BS....
Kinda scary, no Im not a number cruncher but the "BIGGER" problem concerning Cruise missiles actually took a step backward looking at it by itself, since the dps buff was plain horribly overdue independent of tracking.
|
Dunkler Imperator
N.F.H.P.
SQUEE.
27
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 20:42:00 -
[159] - Quote
could you please take a look at f.o.f missiles while you are at it?
Right now there is next to no reason to use them except for lol fit's. |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
353
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 20:48:00 -
[160] - Quote
Marcus Walkuris wrote:I don't quite get all the cheering people.
Now at the bright side it has been mentioned that there will be more options added to improve explosion velocity/lower explosion radius in "the future".
But Large missiles being used mostly for PvE what will this add?
More then anything faster BS killing potential and this category in and of itself is not the mayor chunk dictating mission completion time.
30% increased damage yesh hello hurray, but the 10% decrease in "tracking" is only going to grow exponentially when sig radius go smaller.
Okay elite cruisers and frigs is what you have drones for, but in the end drones rly don't do that much dps without a dedicated hull, rather fragile too... Especially with the wonderful new AI in combination with elite rats and hitting return means MWD away in a straight line getting them single shot.
Bottom line 2 steps forward 1 step backward, but that one step backward... The unmodified difference in applied damage through "tracking penalties" against anything but an abandoned BS....
Kinda scary, no Im not a number cruncher but the "BIGGER" problem concerning Cruise missiles actually took a step backward looking at it by itself, since the dps buff was plain horribly overdue independent of tracking.
Breaking news: we don't balance modules in this PvP game around their effect in PvE. That tail doesn't wag this dog. As examples of where PvE rates might get plain nerfed for the benefit of the game, see recent HM nerf, upcoming TE nerf (that probably should be a Mach+tier3 BCs nerf). |
|
|
Edey
27
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 21:32:00 -
[161] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:Breaking news: we don't balance modules in this PvP game around their effect in PvE. That tail doesn't wag this dog. As examples of where PvE rates might get plain nerfed for the benefit of the game, see recent HM nerf, upcoming TE nerf (that probably should be a Mach+tier3 BCs nerf).
Breaking news: right now Cruises suck very hard at PvE compared to AC/Blasters/Pulses.
Those who say cruises will be OP just never flew any Gun ship and have no idea how bad their CNRs/Ravens/Golems are.
So even with this 30% damage buff missiles (cruises) won't be as good as ACs or Blasters: there are still Painters, AB rats, Defenders and overdamage. Those 4 things will keep missiles inefficient.
Now I want to see a Torp changes. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
Atrocitas
3342
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 21:35:00 -
[162] - Quote
Edey wrote:Daneel Trevize wrote:Breaking news: we don't balance modules in this PvP game around their effect in PvE. That tail doesn't wag this dog. As examples of where PvE rates might get plain nerfed for the benefit of the game, see recent HM nerf, upcoming TE nerf (that probably should be a Mach+tier3 BCs nerf). Breaking news: right now Cruises suck very hard at PvE compared to AC/Blasters/Pulses. Those who say cruises will be OP just never flew any Gun ship and have no idea how bad their CNRs/Ravens/Golems are. So even with this 30% damage buff missiles (cruises) won't be as good as ACs or Blasters: there are still Painters, AB rats, Defenders and overdamage. Those 4 things will keep missiles inefficient. Now I want to see a Torp changes.
Turrets are pretty great, I agree. But honestly I've flown a great many kinds of ships and cruise is pretty damn good at PVE - especially with 30% more damage. You sound like someone that doesn't know how to fit a missile ship TBH.
-Liang
Ed: Protip: filling your lows with CPRs is Doing It Wrong.
Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)
Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com
PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos
Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Callduron
194
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 21:46:00 -
[163] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Destoya wrote:Seems like a very big buff and a significant step towards making cruises viable weapons outside of L4 missions
I do already have some concerns over the relative strength of the turtle-tanking Golem teams that have been used very frequently in the past alliance tournaments and the SCL, but if we can see people start to use fleet comps like ravens or navy scorpions in "real EVE" the benefits far outweigh a change in the AT meta We're not going to ignore the effect this has on the AT meta, don't worry.
The poster was over-stating the power of the cruise golems though. They were useful only because by that stage in the tournament most teams were kite. Cruise Golems are almost a guaranteed loss against any up close and personal comp. |
Edey
27
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 21:49:00 -
[164] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Edey wrote:Daneel Trevize wrote:Breaking news: we don't balance modules in this PvP game around their effect in PvE. That tail doesn't wag this dog. As examples of where PvE rates might get plain nerfed for the benefit of the game, see recent HM nerf, upcoming TE nerf (that probably should be a Mach+tier3 BCs nerf). Breaking news: right now Cruises suck very hard at PvE compared to AC/Blasters/Pulses. Those who say cruises will be OP just never flew any Gun ship and have no idea how bad their CNRs/Ravens/Golems are. So even with this 30% damage buff missiles (cruises) won't be as good as ACs or Blasters: there are still Painters, AB rats, Defenders and overdamage. Those 4 things will keep missiles inefficient. Now I want to see a Torp changes. Turrets are pretty great, I agree. But honestly I've flown a great many kinds of ships and cruise is pretty damn good at PVE - especially with 30% more damage. You sound like someone that doesn't know how to fit a missile ship TBH. -Liang Ed: Protip: filling your lows with CPRs is Doing It Wrong.
You should define your "damn good" because I have no idea how to measure it.
If you're just a EFT warrior than I know what your good means.
If not, you should describe what is good for you. Is it some "good" when you are able kill a rat or is it when you kill that rat within 15 sec?
I've been doing PvE since 06 and believe me I know how to fit ships.
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
640
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 21:50:00 -
[165] - Quote
Edey wrote:
Breaking news: right now Cruises suck very hard at PvE compared to AC/Blasters/Pulses.
Breaking news: comparing a long-range weapon with three short-range ones is unlikely to give useful information. You probably thought that HMLs didn't need nerfing because they had much lower DPS than medium blasters too. |
Marcus Walkuris
Pro Synergy
Frozen Shipyards
6
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 21:52:00 -
[166] - Quote
[/quote]Breaking news: we don't balance modules in this PvP game around their effect in PvE. That tail doesn't wag this dog. As examples of where PvE rates might get plain nerfed for the benefit of the game, see recent HM nerf, upcoming TE nerf (that probably should be a Mach+tier3 BCs nerf).[/quote]
All fine and dandy, but balancing missiles has been an Achilles heel for quite some time now, excuse me for staying skeptical until the cat is actually in the bag.
And please don't call it a pvp game I understand the need to be seen as "Hardcore" in EvE but PvE is the basis of it all just as in real life we exist by the grace of the environment not just stealing each others lunch money.
That said cruise missiles were delegated completely to the realm of PvE so expect to get some PvE responses.
As I am fully aware of the PvP content, and would love to see more viability for flying smaller hulls instead of large gun turret=everything shenanigans.
I would love to actually hear WHERE we can expect large missiles to stand compared to large guns with their different respective mechanics of course.
Not saying CCP can't do anything right but having a fail weapon system for a long time can get tedious and make one wonder if the end of the tunnel is in sight.
Wouldn't be too bad to know what to que up next, pretty invested into missiles but gunnery still takes like a fraction of missile SP while adding support skills for 3 weapon types minimally depending on how you look at it. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3954
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 21:53:00 -
[167] - Quote
I take it that no one see's the extra fitting requirements as being too big a hurdle to overcome?
Just gathering opinion...
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors.
If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
642
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 21:58:00 -
[168] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:I take it that no one see's the extra fitting requirements as being too big a hurdle to overcome?
Just gathering opinion...
Fitting cruise on a Raven was never a problem. The new Raven is getting 1875 PG and 62.5 CPU, so the 1080 PG for 6x CMLs won't even cover the extra. The Typhoon has even more PG, it'll be peachy. |
Edey
27
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 22:01:00 -
[169] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Edey wrote:
Breaking news: right now Cruises suck very hard at PvE compared to AC/Blasters/Pulses.
Breaking news: comparing a long-range weapon with three short-range ones is unlikely to give useful information. You probably thought that HMLs didn't need nerfing because they had much lower DPS than medium blasters too.
Who cares if it's a long range weapon or a short one? In PvE performance matters only. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3954
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 22:03:00 -
[170] - Quote
Quote:I've been doing PvE since 06 and believe me I know how to fit ships.
I really am a terrible person, and I'm really sorry, but this made me bite my lip. 
I know, I know, take it in context with the coversation.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors.
If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
642
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 22:06:00 -
[171] - Quote
Edey wrote:Who cares if it's a long range weapon or a short one? In PvE performance matters only.
It matters when formulating sensible expectations of weapons' abilities. |
FourierTransformer
14
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 22:26:00 -
[172] - Quote
Edey wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Edey wrote:
Breaking news: right now Cruises suck very hard at PvE compared to AC/Blasters/Pulses.
Breaking news: comparing a long-range weapon with three short-range ones is unlikely to give useful information. You probably thought that HMLs didn't need nerfing because they had much lower DPS than medium blasters too. Who cares if it's a long range weapon or a short one? In PvE performance matters only.
Tbh you kinda sound like an EFT warrior here. In many missions, exploration sites, and anoms, there are independent groups of enemies that can be more than a 100km apart.
With cruise, you warp in and start shooting, hit approach on the acceleration gate, and that's it. With blasters, you warp in, burn over to one group, start shooting, burn to the second group, start shooting, burn to the third group, start shooting, burn to the fourth....etc. etc. ad nauseoum and then you have to burn back to the acceleration gate.
In practice, the time you save getting in range by using cruise works out to a much higher isk/hour. The only turrets that can really compare well to cruise in this regard are lasers, and they have their own limitations.
However, none of this affects pvp. The issue of hitting moving targets in pvp is what really gimps the larger missiles. A cruise missile will do significantly reduced damage to a target moving at 400m/s at 100k. Arty, Rails, and Beams will have no trouble hitting said target for full damage, instantaneously. Unless this changes, cruise will always be an exclusively pve platform. |
MeBiatch
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
916
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 22:45:00 -
[173] - Quote
hmm 750 dps raven is looking pretty kickass tbh
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point?
-áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Marcus Walkuris
Pro Synergy
Frozen Shipyards
6
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 22:49:00 -
[174] - Quote
FourierTransformer wrote:
Tbh you kinda sound like an EFT warrior here. In many missions, exploration sites, and anoms, there are independent groups of enemies that can be more than a 100km apart.
With cruise, you warp in and start shooting, hit approach on the acceleration gate, and that's it. With blasters, you warp in, burn over to one group, start shooting, burn to the second group, start shooting, burn to the third group, start shooting, burn to the fourth....etc. etc. ad nauseoum and then you have to burn back to the acceleration gate.
In practice, the time you save getting in range by using cruise works out to a much higher isk/hour. The only turrets that can really compare well to cruise in this regard are lasers, and they have their own limitations.
Well actually it is quite easy to make things come to you, just fire at something outside of actual range.
With the proper ammo large autocannons will fire out to 60-80km not too familiar with pulse lasers but all these factors combined really make for a non-argument.
I would look into that again because that is half the problem with missiles you really don't do anything special with a LOT of drawbacks. |
Steve Spooner
Mordu's Military Industrial Command
Circle-Of-Two
39
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 22:58:00 -
[175] - Quote
Pedo Torps Pedo Torps because I shouldn't have to fit 2 target painters to hit a battleship for full damage. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
Atrocitas
3342
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 23:12:00 -
[176] - Quote
Edey wrote:
You should define your "damn good" because I have no idea how to measure it.
If you're just a EFT warrior than I know what your good means.
If not, you should describe what is good for you. Is it some "good" when you are able kill a rat or is it when you kill that rat within 15 sec?
I've been doing PvE since 06 and believe me I know how to fit ships.
You can probably find some of my old mission efficiency e-peen warrioring threads if you like.
-Liang
Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)
Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com
PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos
Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries
Sick N' Twisted
464
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 23:17:00 -
[177] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Hakan MacTrew wrote:On paper, yes, but not for applied dps. Unless of course, when CCP Rise refered to Scan Resolution on the weapons, he meant explosion velocity. I believe he meant explosion radius though, which would mean it would be harder to apply damage to a target. Especially so without painters.
All in all though, I think these cangese will be a good start. Can't wait to try them on SiSi. Oh god ! Your raven isn't a soloBBQroflstompPWNmobile ? I'm sad for you... You know about huggin/rapier right ? Oh, and the Raven just got a 7th mid slot.
Wow. Did you get out of bed on the wrong side of bed this morning?
Feel free to point out exactly where I was complaining in my post. Also, feel free to point out where I mentioned the word 'Raven'.
Until you can do that, I suggest you take a big dose of 'ChillTheFuckOut' and re-read what I wrote, in context.
MODULAR DRONES
MORE ORE SHIPS |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries
Sick N' Twisted
464
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 23:18:00 -
[178] - Quote
Steve Spooner wrote:Pedo Torps Pedo Torps because I shouldn't have to fit 2 target painters to hit a battleship for full damage.
Don't forget that Many BS's are getting a Sig.Rad. Increase with the rebalance.
MODULAR DRONES
MORE ORE SHIPS |
CaptainFalcon07
Caucasian Culture Club
Transmission Lost
124
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 23:24:00 -
[179] - Quote
As a player with caldari bs V and cruise missiles V  I welcome this change.
Any chance on looking at Torpedoes?
Because right now the only significant use they have in PVP are on stealth bombers with massive increase in range and explosion velocity.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
Whores in space
151
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 23:38:00 -
[180] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Edey wrote:
You should define your "damn good" because I have no idea how to measure it.
If you're just a EFT warrior than I know what your good means.
If not, you should describe what is good for you. Is it some "good" when you are able kill a rat or is it when you kill that rat within 15 sec?
I've been doing PvE since 06 and believe me I know how to fit ships.
You can probably find some of my old mission efficiency e-peen warrioring threads if you like. -Liang
And on those threads are one of the few were Liang argument is damm impressive :P |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 25 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |