| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
MeBiatch
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1042
   |
Posted - 2013.05.27 19:50:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Aglais wrote:>last sticky before odyssey
>haven't touched Torpedoes
I give up We're not touching torpedoes for Odyssey, we never said we were. In fact Torpedoes are nowhere near the top of our backlog, since they're very strong on stealth bombers only in their current state.
Fyp
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point?
-áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
MeBiatch
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1042
|
Posted - 2013.05.27 20:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Aglais wrote:>last sticky before odyssey
>haven't touched Torpedoes
I give up We're not touching torpedoes for Odyssey, we never said we were. In fact Torpedoes are nowhere near the top of our backlog, since they're very strong in their current state. I agree i think the problem with them is that HAMS make them look worse than they are ... same range why????? So Fozzie when are we getting the TE/TD/TC changes for missiles? And presumably a missile re-balance to go with it Things like - rocket range being too high - rocket explosion radius being far too low - HAMS battleship like range being nerfed down to cruiser range ... i.e. lasers are meant too have better range.
torps on a stealth bomber 60km
torps on a raven 30 km
torps on a phoon 20 km
to fix this i would remove the flight time bonus for torps for stealth bombers and reduce the velocity bonus to standard 10% like a raven
then i would increase the flight time of base torps so that on a phoon they shoot out to 40 km
oh and small navy boosters yay good job fozz
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point?
-áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
MeBiatch
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1042
|
Posted - 2013.05.27 21:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:yes cos 40km on an unbonused ship makes sense for a short range weapon system 
neutrons with null 31km easy 40 with te and tc
pulse with scorch 55km without te/tc
800's with barrage 42km without te/tc...
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point?
-áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
MeBiatch
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1044
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 15:03:00 -
[4] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Josilin du Guesclin wrote:MeBiatch wrote:
torps on a stealth bomber 60km
torps on a raven 30 km
torps on a phoon 20 km
to fix this i would remove the flight time bonus for torps for stealth bombers and reduce the velocity bonus to standard 10% like a raven
then i would increase the flight time of base torps so that on a phoon they shoot out to 40 km
And then they'd be in flight for 18s at maximum range, which is just far too long. I would prefer a +50% velocity increase, for 30km from a 'Phoon, 45km from a Raven, and remove the stealth bombers' flight time bonus (or half the velocity bonus) to hold their range constant. Torps are working amazingly fine a stealth bomber, please don't change the way it is working right now :D And torps work just fine against capitals, structures and battleships. Maybe not in PvE but your fault for not webbing/painting it :p
Sb range will stay the same just the bonus will be reduced to make up for more base range. Though I have no problem with torps being slow as long as they have good flight time...
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point?
-áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
MeBiatch
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1044
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 15:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Moonaura wrote:CCP Rise wrote:
It should also be mentioned that we hope to have a look at cruise missiles and torpedos in time for the summer expansion as well.
This can be found in the Minmitar Battleship changes, specifically quoted from the Typhoon changes... it's been there for weeks. We had a look at both of them, decided to change cruise and not to change torps. Moonaura wrote:Torpedos badly need fixing. They are 'terrible' at hitting below battleship size ships. They don't even do full damage against a stationary, large signature battleship. And unlike gunnery, which has tracking computers etc, there are no modules for affecting their ability to hit anything smaller. T2 Torpedos versions are far worse than faction because of the mechanics of how they work. Only really good for POS bashing.
In short, without doubt, the worst weapon platform in the game. From this I have to assume that you haven't used torps since we buffed them significantly in Retribution. Give them a try again, you'll find they are much improved since we made all skills apply to short range missiles and buffed their T2 ammo.
This makes me sad... I have no issues with damage application only range issues...
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point?
-áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
MeBiatch
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1044
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 17:47:00 -
[6] - Quote
Raven Solaris wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Providing a balanced method of disrupting missile users is still something we want to do at some point. Hey, I don't mean to derail this thread further, but can you speak as to why allowing TD on missiles with TC/TEs to counter did not provide a balanced way to disrupt missiles? I'm not saying that it wouldn't.  What about defender missiles?
i am hopping they go the way of deep space probes...
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point?
-áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
MeBiatch
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1045
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 18:30:00 -
[7] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Could you possibly get back on topic and share your reasoning for Small/medium ASB's needing a buff?
as i recall when they nerfed asb medium eneded up being shafted because there was no small navy boosters versions for them...
now that they have been added medium asb should be on par with the other sizes...
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point?
-áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
MeBiatch
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1053
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 17:04:00 -
[8] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:I think a lot of these HAM/torp range issues will be solved by the eventual introduction of missile range modules, along with tweaks to base ranges as necessary. Of course, we'll the need mysterious anti-missile ewar at the same time (not as a TD effect or script, please...).
it would take alot of work but it would be cool to see something like point defense lazors or advanced chaff...
i would take the fire wall concept but make it chance based and a mod on the ship...
so a base mod without any skills has a 15% chance to kill all incoming missiles withing a a few km radius but only works once per cycle which could be like 15 seconds.
you could have skill that increase the chance base and also reduce the cycle time. and also meta units will have a larger area of effect.
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point?
-áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
MeBiatch
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1053
|
Posted - 2013.06.01 14:57:00 -
[9] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Since when T1 ammo is base for balance? -because my hybrids ammo would like to have a talk with Fozzie and ask him what does he think about T1 projectile ammo, the number of useless T1 hybrid ammo and why the feck this or that ammo gets more or less capacitor from your ship using guns that already use cap on activation...??? WTF??
I have lobbied unsucessfully for years to have tech I ammo for hybrids looked at... (i guess its stayed on the low priority for that long)
The idea has been changed but the base part of it is to swtich the ammo to 3 base ranges -50% 0% and 60%
i would then devide the ammo damage types between 3 for 80% thermal damange and 20% kin and 3 for 80% kin and 20% therm and then two for 50/50 split of damage types.
so antimater and Iridium will both do 50/50 split kin/thermal damage and instead of a cap reduction bonus they get a damage bonus
then you have Plutonium, Thorium and Tungsten doing 80/20 thermal/kin damage and instead of a cap reduction bonus they get a tracking bonus
then you have Uranium, lead , and Iron being 80/20 kin/thermal and instead of a cap reduction bonus they get a rate of fire bonus.
i would then reduce the cap activation on all hybrid turrets by 50% (like if you had regular lead charge)
so here is a bigger break down: i use large ammo as example:
close range ammo:
-50% to optimal range
antimater: 24 kin damage 24 thermal damage 5% increase in damage multiplier
Plutonium: 38.4 thermal damage 9.6 kin damage 5% increase in tracking
Uranium: 38.4 kin damage 9.6 thermal and 5% increase in rate of fire
then mid range ammo:
0% to optimal range
Thorium: 25.6 thermal damage 6.4 and 10% bonus in tracking
lead: 25.6 kin damage and 6.4 thermal 10% bonus in rate of fire
then long range ammo:
60% increase in optimal range
Iridium: 10 kin damage, 10 thermal damage and 15% increase in damage multiplier
Tungsten: 16 thermal damage, 4 kin damage and 15% increase in tracking
iron: 16 kin damage, 4 thermal damage and 15% increase in rate of fire
this would make tech i and faction hybrid ammo really interesting you have to choose from either high burst ammo high tracking ammo or high dps ammo.
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point?
-áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
| |
|