EVE Search - Sticky:[Odyssey] Small Navy Cap Boosters

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Odyssey] Small Navy Cap Boosters

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 6 post(s)
Gypsio III Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 740	Posted - 2013.05.28 13:07:00 - [61] - Quote 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. Hmmm. This is technically true for the Typhoon: sig 330 m, torp explosion radius 337.5 m. But are you really complaining that you lose 2% damage against a single BS? Moonaura wrote: And unlike gunnery, which has tracking computers etc, there are no modules for affecting their ability to hit anything smaller. Er, painters? Seriously, torps' problems aren't to do with damage application against other BS. They're more to do with the existence of future cruise, too-short range and the excessive importance of webbing to their damage application, IMO.
Moonaura The Dead Rabbit Society 285	Posted - 2013.05.28 13:55:00 - [62] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: 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. Hmmm. This is technically true for the Typhoon: sig 330 m, torp explosion radius 337.5 m. But are you really complaining that you lose 2% damage against a single BS? Moonaura wrote: And unlike gunnery, which has tracking computers etc, there are no modules for affecting their ability to hit anything smaller. Er, painters? Seriously, torps' problems aren't to do with damage application against other BS. They're more to do with the existence of future cruise, too-short range and the excessive importance of webbing to their damage application, IMO. The point of my post was two fold. Firstly, the balancing team have said that torpedos were being looked at - something they are denying now. But there it is in writing. They DID say it would be looked at for Odyssey. Painters. Well. Really? If you all think Torpedos are so awesome with a painter slapped on, why is hardly anyone using them? Painters will only get you so far in terms of damage increase (Which isn't far), and on an un-bonused ship do not have anything like the same effect a tracking computer does. I'm not booting up my PC to take a look, but which torpedo's explosion radius are you referring too? The main issue is with the T2 Rages, which only get a little more damage at the top end, for reduced range, and terrible ability to hit moving and sub battleship targets, and yes, do pretty awful damage against battleships. They don't tend to sit still. I know I know... picky of me :) And saying 'Just use Cruise Missiles' is not a valid response sorry, not that you did, but somebody earlier in the thread. Either way, this is all off topic. I only posted it as somebody else mentioned about torpedos and Fozzie said they never said, when they have said... see I said. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 http://www.thedeadrabbitsociety.com
Deerin Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy 174	Posted - 2013.05.28 14:03:00 - [63] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: Seriously, torps' problems aren't to do with damage application against other BS. They're more to do with the existence of future cruise, too-short range and the excessive importance of webbing to their damage application, IMO. This. 1 TP and you'll be doing almost full damage to BC and up 1 TP and 1 web, you'll be doing about 50%-60% of your total damage (Which is still a LOT) to Cruisers and up. The hard part is to get that web on. Having friends helps a lot :P
MeBiatch Republic University Minmatar Republic 1044	Posted - 2013.05.28 15:03:00 - [64] - 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...

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 6122	Posted - 2013.05.28 15:35:00 - [65] - Quote 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. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie

Jonas Sukarala Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 208	Posted - 2013.05.28 15:45:00 - [66] - 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. Fozzie Any time scale on missiles rebalance for TD's etc? And please tell me you will nerf HAM range after looking at torps? 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?-á ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 6122	Posted - 2013.05.28 15:52:00 - [67] - Quote Jonas Sukarala wrote: 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. Fozzie Any time scale on missiles rebalance for TD's etc? And please tell me you will nerf HAM range after looking at torps? In an attempt to avoid misunderstanding, I'm generally going to decline to give timeframes for anything that isn't committed to a specific development sprint schedule. So all I'll say is that: There are no plans to change the relationship between Ewar and missiles or change HAMs in Odyssey Providing a balanced method of disrupting missile users is still something we want to do at some point The exceptional performance of certain missile systems (most notably HAMs and Rockets) stand out among the things we'll need to look closely at when we next tweak those weapon systems Sorry for the diplo answers but as this thread proves, it's easy for miscommunication to occur if we're not careful. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie

MeBiatch Republic University Minmatar Republic 1044	Posted - 2013.05.28 15:57:00 - [68] - 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...
Jonas Sukarala Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 208	Posted - 2013.05.28 15:58:00 - [69] - Quote Fozzie Nice to know you have noticed rockets and HAMS need a nerf .. but why when i pointed this out when you did the missile rebalance last time did you not nerf them then? 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?-á ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high
Maximus Andendare Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 208	Posted - 2013.05.28 16:10:00 - [70] - Quote 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?

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 6122	Posted - 2013.05.28 16:23:00 - [71] - Quote 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. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie

Raven Solaris The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 198	Posted - 2013.05.28 16:26:00 - [72] - Quote 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?
Gypsio III Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 740	Posted - 2013.05.28 16:26:00 - [73] - Quote Moonaura wrote: Painters. Well. Really? If you all think Torpedos are so awesome with a painter slapped on, why is hardly anyone using them? IMO - mainly because of deficiencies in their launch platforms and range. Odyssey won't change this much, because ABCs are so much better than ABS. Moonaura wrote: Painters will only get you so far in terms of damage increase (Which isn't far), and on an un-bonused ship do not have anything like the same effect a tracking computer does. Wrong way round, a skilled painter aids tracking by considerably more than a scripted TC. A skilled-to-4 painter gives a 36% increase to sig, while a tracking-scripted tracking computer gives a 30% increase to turret tracking. Of course, the painter doesn't give the range option, but you're not criticising torp range. Moonaura wrote: I'm not booting up my PC to take a look, but which torpedo's explosion radius are you referring too? The main issue is with the T2 Rages, which only get a little more damage at the top end, for reduced range, and terrible ability to hit moving and sub battleship targets, and yes, do pretty awful damage against battleships. They don't tend to sit still. I know I know... picky of me :) CN torps of course. Using the correct ammo tends to give better results. Just because it's T2 doesn't mean that it's better in all situations, just like turret T2 ammo.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 158	Posted - 2013.05.28 16:43:00 - [74] - Quote Grunnax Aurelius wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote: ASB isn't properly nerfed until you can only put one of them on a ship. So long as you can bypass the reload just by mounting a second one, they are stupid. QQ more just ask CCP to not limit the amount of AAR's on a ship solved. Not remotely. They stated that they would not make AAR work like the ASB because they didn't want to add anymore tanking that was immune to 'player interaction' by which they meant neuts. By design, Shield systems are supposed to be less cap efficient than armor, with the tradeoff that they regen on their own over time allowing fits that produce a substantial passive tank. That passive tank still comes at the cost of a lot of cap, but only indirectly by slowing down cap regen with Shield Power Relays, and remaining immune to cap warfare. ASB breaks this whole concept so long as you can have 2 on your ship. When I first saw it I thought I had finally seen the first real answer to the disparity between PvE and PvP fits---a module that allows extreme burst tanking similar in practice to having a large buffer that was not immediately vunerable to the more common PvP tactics used against PvE pilots in active tanked ships. As things stand now, the limited amount of boosters you can carry in your hold only limits the modules use in PvE style endurance fights. The fact that you can put 2 on your ship makes the long reload pointless, and you can carry sufficient boosters to see you through most small engagements---larger ones will usually use buffer tanking and logistics anyway. The problem of the ASB allowing extreme levels of tanking while being immune to cap warfare is only made worse by the fact that both primary shield using races also use weapon systems that are immune to cap warfare. It exceptionally compounded on Minmatar ships with the active tank bonus that takes the already excellent raw output of the ASB to ridonculous levels. The fact that they are so good that you commonly see ASB shield Brutix and Myrmidon should be all you need to know about the OP nature of the things. While limiting the AAR to one module per ship is annoying, the thing really holding it back is it's continued vulnerability to cap warfare. The same is true of the new Reactive Hardener as well. They help, though they are both breaking the idea of armor being the cap efficient alternative. I don't speak for engagements between 2 PvP oriented pilots, but the purpose of something like this on a PvE ship should have been an emergency module to allow a reasonable chance of victory in an ambush situation instead of having to run the second a hostile appears in system because PvE ships are not compatible with PvP warfare tactics. Had it been me, I would have gone in 2 directions: 1. Make the Ancillary module be Ancillary... something you activate along side a standard booster or repairer. Loaded with whatever ammo you prefer, it provides a massive boost to the repair amount of the standard booster/repairer so long as it's ammo lasts. Thus it functions as an emergency system to produce extreme performance while leaving the ship as venerable as it ever was to alternative warfare types other than Pewpew. Done this way it scales with skills, Faction/Officer/Deadspace modules, and anything else you got going on affecting your ability to active tank 2. Time limited immunity to Cap Warfare. With this you have what I would call an Active Extender/Plate. It gives a large boost to raw HP in the same fashion as an extender or plate, but can be activated with a negligible cap activation cost to completely repair itself on a long cycle timer. This version is more useful in fleet fights where buffer and logistics rule, as well as being superior on passively shielded ships. While not totally immune to cap warfare, the nature of it makes it much less vunerable as it only cycles infrequently and it would be trivial to activate a Cap Injector and then start the cycle over before you neut out again. Balance it with Booster charges or paste if you like, the actual performance of the thing will likely not extend beyond a cycle or 2 in any case. Either way, do it such that there is parity between shield and armor tanking. They don't have to be the same, but they should maintain a check and balance with eachother. Currently the ASB holds every advantage other than longevity, which is not a PvP concern in any case.
Maximus Andendare Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 208	Posted - 2013.05.28 16:43:00 - [75] - Quote 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. Clever. :) I guess what I was asking is since you seemingly had a solution for missile ewar, and it was pulled due to the other missile changes being made at that time, isn't it just a matter now of implementing that solution? I mean, it's not like you have any other work to do. :P
Moonaura The Dead Rabbit Society 285	Posted - 2013.05.28 16:52:00 - [76] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: CN torps of course. Using the correct ammo tends to give better results. Just because it's T2 doesn't mean that it's better in all situations, just like turret T2 ammo. Well, CCP Fozzie asked the question earlier if I'd used them since Retribution, and indeed I created fits and used them in anger, on a very specific, kind of cool, and very expensive local tank small gang battleship fleet - the likes of which you don't see to often these days (Due to the increase in hot dropping and easing of gate gun mechanics). The tanking numbers were very high indeed, and we used drug boosters for it all, including the missile buff standard drugs, as well as lots and lots of blue pills. The bulk of the gang was made up of Rokh's, but I also created fits for Navy Scorpions, and we had one attend the gang. Ask me if I'd take the Rokh or the Navy Scorpion? Yeah... we wanted everyone in Rokh's really. The Scorpion has several advantages however, but more around it's tanking numbers and capacitor benefits, it was handy to have in the gang, as we hoped - and expected - it to be primary, and therefore take more damage. But because of the issues highlighted here - time to target, range, and yes, ability to hit smaller than battleship targets if need be, using Torpedos was more limiting than using Hybrids. As it happens we came across a small gang similar to ours with a single battleship, some T3 cruisers and T2 cruisers as well. The primary was an old corp mate in his Navy Phoon, and part of the way we were setup and tanking meant that we had to stay close together, without letting our pointer and webbing ships get to far from the gang. Shame as he was going down, and was double webbed initially. He was going down, but skilled as he is, burned out of range in his well fit ship. We also diced with a legion, but the same issue, he burned out of range. The only thing that, strangely, decided to stay close when all his friends had burned off. http://rbbts.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=16146912 Before we took out this gang I spent a long time looking at the Torps and how we could improve them. On my ship I did indeed bring a target painter, and we had a dedicated dual webbing ship in the form of the Loki. Faction Torpedos were the only way to go. Not only do they have more range, but could actually hit targets smaller than battleship with reasonable drop off in damage, akin to the guns. T2 Torpedos were pointless. With a 10 second reload time it's painful to change mid-fight, and T2 Rages, can only hit a POS decently. And herein lies the issue. For a small increase in damage, you end up with something utterly useless. The fact that the only way to fly with them is to use faction ammo, points to the fact that they need fixing. All torpedos need 15-20% more range, a reduction in damage, but improving them with explosion and velocity damage mechanics so they hit better. If I had to fit it out today, I'd absolutely fit it with Cruises, in a heart beat. The only reason to do so before, was their terrible DPS, which is now fixed. And this will be what will happen, which all points to the fact, Torpedos need some tweaks. Lastly, CCP Fozzie, thanks for replying and monitoring the thread. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 http://www.thedeadrabbitsociety.com
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 262	Posted - 2013.05.28 17:35:00 - [77] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: The exceptional performance of certain missile systems (most notably HAMs and Rockets) stand out among the things we'll need to look closely at when we next tweak those weapon systems You said you were going to nerf light missile kiting, ages ago, but then nothing happened.
MeBiatch Republic University Minmatar Republic 1044	Posted - 2013.05.28 17:47:00 - [78] - 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...
Sergeant Acht Scultz School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 759	Posted - 2013.05.28 18:00:00 - [79] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hey guys, I expect this will be the last sticky I place there for Odyssey 1.0. Smaller change, although I couldn't find anywhere better to put it. We're making some changes to the availability of Navy Cap boosters, adding Navy versions of all the remaining cap booster sizes and slightly adjusting the costs of the 100s and 150s to bring them into line with the rest. We're adding Navy 25, 50 and 75 boosters available in all the FW LP stores. These should be especially useful for users of small and medium ASBs. We are also increasing the LP and isk costs of the 100 and 150 sizes, with 100s rising from 100LP and 100000isk to 250LP and 250000isk, and 150s rising from 250LP and 250000isk to 375LP and 375000isk. This change brings them in line with the scaling applied to the costs of the other Navy cap boosters. All of these changes are on SISI now. YAY !! 25's 50's !! Thank you very much sir ! removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Jonas Sukarala Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 208	Posted - 2013.05.28 18:07:00 - [80] - Quote MeBiatch wrote: 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... There are many things that should be deleted... tons of meta 0 modules for the same module make no sense ... micro anything is waste of space. 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?-á ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high
Sergeant Acht Scultz School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 759	Posted - 2013.05.28 18:07:00 - [81] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: The exceptional performance of certain missile systems (most notably HAMs and Rockets) stand out among the things we'll need to look closely at when we next tweak those weapon systems Sorry for the diplo answers but as this thread proves, it's easy for miscommunication to occur if we're not careful. Aren't these exceptional performances the effect of some cause like ships bonus rather than missile it self? Just a thought because seems HAM's are mostly performing well in some hulls with specific bonus that might be a bit high, and by this I specially think at T1 ships level. This needs attention even more closely because of many misconceptions about ships bonus tiers skills and whatnot, Tengu being the most visible prove of many of these misconceptions/understanding. removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Jonas Sukarala Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 208	Posted - 2013.05.28 18:13:00 - [82] - Quote Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: The exceptional performance of certain missile systems (most notably HAMs and Rockets) stand out among the things we'll need to look closely at when we next tweak those weapon systems Sorry for the diplo answers but as this thread proves, it's easy for miscommunication to occur if we're not careful. Aren't these exceptional performances the effect of some cause like ships bonus rather than missile it self? Just a thought because seems HAM's are mostly performing well in some hulls with specific bonus that might be a bit high, and by this I specially think at T1 ships level. This needs attention even more closely because of many misconceptions about ships bonus tiers skills and whatnot, Tengu being the most visible prove of many of these misconceptions/understanding. No what he means is why in the hell do HAMS have the same range as Torps??? and rockets occupy the space where HAMS should be closer to. 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?-á ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high
Garviel Tarrant Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 941	Posted - 2013.05.28 18:22:00 - [83] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Jonas Sukarala wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Moonaura wrote: 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. Fozzie Any time scale on missiles rebalance for TD's etc? And please tell me you will nerf HAM range after looking at torps? In an attempt to avoid misunderstanding, I'm generally going to decline to give timeframes for anything that isn't committed to a specific development sprint schedule. So all I'll say is that: There are no plans to change the relationship between Ewar and missiles or change HAMs in Odyssey Providing a balanced method of disrupting missile users is still something we want to do at some point The exceptional performance of certain missile systems (most notably HAMs and Rockets) stand out among the things we'll need to look closely at when we next tweak those weapon systems Sorry for the diplo answers but as this thread proves, it's easy for miscommunication to occur if we're not careful. Could you possibly get back on topic and share your reasoning for Small/medium ASB's needing a buff? BYDI (Shadow cartel) Recruitment open!
MeBiatch Republic University Minmatar Republic 1045	Posted - 2013.05.28 18:30:00 - [84] - 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...
Garviel Tarrant Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 942	Posted - 2013.05.28 18:59:00 - [85] - Quote MeBiatch wrote: 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... They really aren't bad... BYDI (Shadow cartel) Recruitment open!
Alticus C Bear University of Caille Gallente Federation 152	Posted - 2013.05.28 21:38:00 - [86] - Quote I can see how you think this rounds out cap boosters and fair enough Navy 25 will benefit the under used SASB, but this change is really all about the Navy 50 booster and is basically an unneeded buff to MASB. By my calculations over heated unrigged MASB is now better than overheated SAAR + 2x Nano pumps for around 38 seconds (basically the whole of a frigate fight). Overheated unrigged MASB is not far away from providing the same Hitpoint boost as a MSE or a 400RT plate plus one of their respective extending rig. Those figures are based on raw hitpoints and so do not even account for the fact that ASB fits normally fit resist rigs providing even better EHP boosts. Feels like we are back at armour tanking 1.25. Breacher and Hookbill are even getting EHP buffs, I did not even think the merlin resist nerf was really required before, now it very much is.
Colt Blackhawk The Amarrian Expendables 154	Posted - 2013.05.28 22:14:00 - [87] - Quote Well this is at least a massive Hawk and Breacher buff. We really needed those cap boosters. But maybe we should adjust also the ships who mostly benefit from it first?!
Sergeant Acht Scultz School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 759	Posted - 2013.05.28 22:22:00 - [88] - Quote Jonas Sukarala wrote: No what he means is why in the hell do HAMS have the same range as Torps??? and rockets occupy the space where HAMS should be closer to. It's a medium size weapon system and as such is rather in line with other weapons systems except medium rails being exceptionally terrible. Missiles use BCU's and...BCU's+rigs, other weapon systems use DMG mods+tracking enhancers+rigs, thus is balanced from my point of view since I can and use all of those. Now for the main point, being the exceptional performances in terms of ships used and using those there are several causes to this, from number of players already skilled for Drakes and Drake new bonus. However the considered so "exceptional " performance is not even on the TOP20, thus doesn't need that much of tweaks. Cerberus can spew those at stupid ranges but again it's normal it's a T2 specialized ship that actually has not that much dps or overall very good, Tengus benefit quite well from these bonus but again for a T3 ship it's normal and rather balanced. On topic: yay again to navy cap boosters. Some concerns about AAR and ASB unbalance at S and M size with this small but so important change that will very probably make my armor frigates and cruisers fit shield more than ever. CCP needs to make sure those AAR's are getting in line quite fast. removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Vaihto Ehto 18	Posted - 2013.05.29 10:34:00 - [89] - Quote I can't but agree with those who wonder why on earth need MASB setups be buffed? Stuff like dual MASB Hawks are already way too strong, imho. OT: Garviel Tarrant wrote: EDIT: Also you should have used your time to nerf long range ammo.. scorch is mentally handicapped (Stupid profanity filter) Scorch is very good. Pulse lasers as a whole, even with Scorch, are far from OP and easily crippled by neuts/TDs. T1 long range ammo obviously needs fixing, though. Why would you not use an alt to post on the forums?
Sal Landry School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 66	Posted - 2013.05.29 11:47:00 - [90] - Quote Jonas Sukarala wrote: No what he means is why in the hell do HAMS have the same range as Torps??? and rockets occupy the space where HAMS should be closer to. I've been playing for about two years and have seen the "Why do HAMs and torps have the same range" question many times, and this thread is the first time I've ever seen someone say that the way to fix this was to nerf HAM range.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.