| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
The Wizz117
   |
Posted - 2005.11.06 15:11:00 -
[1]
thx, i have bin waiting for this long time :)
missiles still need alot of tweaking..
|
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 15:45:00 -
[2]
Edited by: The Wizz117 on 06/11/2005 15:45:47
maybe you could also look in:
-missile implants?
-damage mods: missile speed/sig radius upgrades for the med slots like tracking computers,
( i belive target painters are designed for turrets and not that effective on missiles)
-cargo hold m3? its cinda anoying when ur friends in his apoc etc have to wait until u jumped back to the 4th gate of angel extravaganza lvl4, even with cruise.
|
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 15:52:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Archonon
Quote:
Explosion Velocity & the damage fall off based on exceeding velocity for all missiles will be looked at in the near future.
Nerf or positive changes ?
i think it can not be nerfed much more 
|
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.11.07 20:03:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Grey Area
I had an interesting idea for defenders, not sure if it will fly, so just going to throw it in the air and see if someone swats it...
Currently, defenders target missiles. What if it was the other way around? What if a defender launched a decoy that drew incoming missile fire towards it? If it had a certain number of HP, then it would draw (example) six small missiles before being destroyed, but only one torpedo...missiles in flight after the decoy was destroyed would reaquire their original target.
Obviously the fire rate would not be as prodigious as currently, and I would suggest HUGE ammo size and long reloading times so that players could not just sit there spamming them out all day.
It would have the advanatge of working at all ranges from 0km to max range.
(for anyone who ever played Star Fleet Battles, I'm basically talking about a Wild Weasel shuttle)
Comments?
 Did I really just propose an uber anti-missile weapon?
they would have to decrease the rof of the defenders alot and 1 defender defending 6 misils is not good at all.
and what u have with all the defenders? why fit defenders in pvp?
just fit torp launchers on those slots if u all think they deal so much damage etc.
|
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.11.08 09:18:00 -
[5]
Edited by: The Wizz117 on 08/11/2005 09:19:47
yesterday i was doing this lvl4 mission with a friend in a scorp and we started to shoot the big ange-station on the 5th gate.
first my cruise missiles hit it for 168 damage and then we put 14 T2 target painters (6 on my raven 8 on the scorp of my friend) on him and then my cruise missiles hit fo 445.5 damage points
was pretty funny
|
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 10:01:00 -
[6]
Originally by: MrBadidea
Originally by: TomB
Missile Volume
Few missile types (Torpedoes in particular) take up to much space and will get improved.
ALL HAIL THE TomB! 
he should have done it at the 1e cold-war-caldari-over-nerf-patch
|
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 19:34:00 -
[7]
Edited by: The Wizz117 on 13/11/2005 19:34:44
Originally by: Grey Area
Edited by: Grey Area on 13/11/2005 18:33:30
I just realised the flaw in my logic. Rather than trying to compare the BASE line damage, we should be looking at the ultimate gank setup, and what damage they are capable of. That means
Missile setups
As many BCU II's as you can fit
The best launchers you can fit
Skills fully trained.
Turrets setups
As many Tech II damage mods as you can fit*
As many Tech II low slot tracking mods as you can fit*
Medium slots given over to Tech II tracking computers
The best named guns you can buy
Skills fully trained
The best implants included.
* there's a conflict here of course...they both use low slots...someone needs to figure out the best split of damage mods vs tracking mods to get the best DPS.
And then simply quote the best DPS that it is possible to achieve against a range of different sig radius targets, and possibly (probably) at different ranges, to cover the fact that at close range, turrets miss a lot.
And actually, I think this would make a fun competition...CCP should set up a target on the test server that has 1,000,000 HP, and no resistances. Players take turns in destroying it...first, stationary at 100km, then orbiting at 50km, then orbiting them at 10km. Prize paid for the quickest time to despatch the target from first weapon fired, and into the bargain, CCP get the info on which is THE most damaging setup out there in the three different conditions.
u would need alot of badgers flying behind you with missiles. when u are using a raven 
and once when i was fihgting this guirista war instalation with a friend i did 168 damage or somting and then, just for fun me in my raven and my friend in his scorp both fitted a total of 14 T2 target painters then i did somewhere near 450 dp.
|
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 12:42:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Mariafe Horta
.
Ok, this is a long topic with 14 pages, so sorry but i dont have time to read all it (at work, hehe)
If someone knows the answer or where can i read it, plz answer the following: why i cant fit cruise missiles in siege launchers or torpedos in cruise launchers? The description in itens database says the following:
cruise launchers -> For the launching of cruise missiles. Can also fit torpedoes.
siege launchers -> For the launching of torpedoes and cruise missiles.
Ty
they nerfed it
|
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.11.17 14:53:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Ithildin
Originally by: Jim Raynor
TomB, any chance we will see Ballistic Control II CPU lowered to 35?
Ballistic Control Is already use 5 more CPU than Hybrid, Laser, and Projectile weapon upgrades, and with the 40tf per module on Ballistic Control II, it's rather setup ruining for most people.
As a missile loather and turret fanatic, I support this (cause deep down I'm fluffy pink).
Seriously, though, it's a bit silly that the tech 2 missile damage mod takes more CPU over tech 1 when the turret one doesn't. And don't dare change the turret damage mods to require more CPU, if you do you have to increase the CPU of nearly all Gallentean ships - among others.
all caldari ships olrady have cpu problems when fitting.
XL shield boosters are sypmly big no, they use 3x as much cap as a large one and they boost same efficientsy and for any npc'ing they can keep up any way.
|
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.11.18 22:39:00 -
[10]
Originally by: keepiru
Originally by: TomB
Originally by: Grey Area
A terribly, terribly minor thing, but while you are looking at missiles...
If you order any items window by "type", it sorts all lasers together, all hybrids together, all projectiles together, even all drones together...but not missile launchers. Any chance you could fix this while you are at it?
Thanks!
I'll get this sorted out, thank you.
Any chance you could do that for the missiles (ammo) as well TomB?
i think they designed the ammo/launchers to get sorted that way in the past becouse they where support weapons. but they do not have tat role any more... just becouse they are worse and need alot of skilz wich most turret peepz wont go train until they are more advanced..
i think the only ones who where actualy nerfed are the amar/gallante in the missile nerf
|
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.11.19 14:21:00 -
[11]
cruise missiles do not kill cruisers in 1volley...
for cruise missiles: they should deal more damage at shorter range and use less cargo capacity.
turrets kil stuf @ long range fast enough so that it is dead before it even can get in range, missiles can not do this.
and all missiles deal to few damage on frigates.
"yes"would the turret whiner say "your missiles always hit!" yes they indeed do for 0.7 damage @ short range and 5.7 @ long range.
turrets deal way more damage on long range...
i think missiles should be beter then turrets.
and they are now actualy worse,
missiles should be better becouse the caldari got alot of dis advantages in return:
shield tanking:
20% less base resistance
way less efficient
the whole argumend aboud it boosting faster does not count, most raven pilots use large boosters wich boost just as fast becouse XL boosters use 4x as much fitting then a large booster.
if u fit a XL booster and 6 torps you probitly can not fit much more.. (bcu's wich use to much cpu to?)
-cap boosters: cap boosters use to much cargo cap to be fitted
-those things that give 25% recharge rate bonus and -10% bonus to shield boost is just unfair.
-raven has only 6 launcher hp with its main weapon.
-the 10% velocity bonus is pretty useless i would prefere 10% bonus to cap or 5% more damege...
-agility
-mass
-propulsion
-slow targeting
etc
-missiles do not have tweaking modules or they suck:
-bcu uses alot of cpu, can only be fitted on a raven with good cpu skilz
-there are no things like tracking computers for the raven: target painters are designed for turrets, i remember one dev saying this himselve and i run some test with them, they only work effective on struckuters.
on frigates it wil only increas your damage from 0.1 to 0.2 or 10.1 to 11.1.
- turrets deal 2 difrend types of damage misiles don't
the only good thing it has is +2 gravemetic sensor strenght wich is pretty.. useless.
EDIT: i forgot to mention the missile implants/hardwiring
|
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.11.21 16:46:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Originally by: The Wizz117
Can anything Amarr field smoke a cruiser in the time it takes to complete a single volley?
do you have trageting delay?
flight time?
whats ur ROF?
how long do you take to reload
how many cargo m3 problems do you have?
how many lasers slots does you bs have?
how many damage mods can you fit?
and all those other things....
please..
how much CPU do your dmg mods require to fit?
how many slots do you have to tank?
etc..
these arguments are endless and usualy pointless :-) from both sides
it aint pointles, it are facts wich should be considerd to.
|
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.11.25 12:09:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Kelgen Thann
Edited by: Kelgen Thann on 24/11/2005 19:24:16
One other thingI think Missle users need is a module that gives a decent boost to Missle Velocity, say 25% Missle velocity and 7.5% reduction in explosion radius or something. This will put more variability in a missle users set-up instead of everyone fit the same modules and the only difference is the resistance types and if it's named launchers or T2 items.
Med slot or low slot, whatever. It will give more options to a ship class which has very few in comparison.
/singend.
turrets olrady have trackig copmuters for a long time!
|
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.12.06 16:10:00 -
[14]
 could we please have an update?
|
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.12.07 11:52:00 -
[15]
missile implants
|
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.12.07 14:18:00 -
[16]
Edited by: The Wizz117 on 07/12/2005 14:21:46
bump i wand implants on rmr  and a module like a tracking comp for missiles ( no target paitner aint for missiles its designed for turrets and way more effective for turrets)
on cold war they said they wanted to make missiles more turret like,
by making turret deal less damage on short range... ( to bad they forgot to give it damage boost on long range like turrets)
and reduced the damage output and increasing rof etc, they gave it all the dis advantages of turrets AND missiles to bad they forgot to give it the advantages of turrets ( implants, no flight time, cargo cap m3 etc)
i still think all missiles are over nerfed, they should increase damage output on cruise missiles on some long range to. ( cruise missiles destroying cruisers in 1 volley i would like to see you doing that)
|
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 16:13:00 -
[17]
i remember a post of a dev saying he promised us implants becouse they where so easy to create and they where needed for missile's.
i stil; heard nothing 
|
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.12.10 11:13:00 -
[18]
on this page:
http://myeve.eve-online.com/updates/patchnotes.asp
i looked under "Skills and Implants" but there is nothing aboud missile implants
|
| |
|