| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Vex Seraphim
   |
Posted - 2005.11.06 16:42:00 -
[31]
I didn't quite get what exactly you are doing with heavies,
but please, pretty please, change the cerb bonuses,
cerb does not need range.
-------------------
:: finite horizon :: killboard ::
:: bio :: blog ::
|
Antic
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 16:44:00 -
[32]
Cruise missiles also need some looking into vs HACs primarily. Considering that they are the middle choise between torps and heavies and torps do better damage agaisnt larger targets and has long enough range by todays standards its not OK that cruise who do low damage against said larger targets does as low damage to cruisers as torps does. Especialy HACs. This with a setup without faction modules.
Makes it pretty pointless to fit cruise compared to torps. The small benefits of range, low fitting cost and speed does not make up for the extrene drawbacks.
Whatever we do people will always compare missle ships performances to turret ship performances. And if theres meant to be a balance here, then cruise vs cruisers need to be looked into.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 16:52:00 -
[33]
Edited by: j0sephine on 06/11/2005 16:54:48
Thank you for the updates, TomB ^^
changes sound yummy, about only thing i wonder about is, if it'd be possible to give base explosion radius of cruise missiles some tiny decrease, possibly trading it for some of the range? As it is now, against anything smaller than battleship even with maxed out skills the damage reduction from is on rather heavy side, making the target painter(s) pretty much obligatory part of setup... i realize this is due to the long range of cruises, but such long range isn't exactly very useful in the first place :/
|
Denrace
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 17:09:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Denrace on 06/11/2005 17:14:17
Excellent news!
Possibly the best (eve related) news I have heard all year. Thanks so much TomB and the rest of the Devs! You've made my day!
No longer will my missile ships be sub standard to the equivalent turret ships!
Now, my biggest issue here is about the damage per m3. I really dont understand what you mean here.
Clarification would be great!
On another note Sir. B, when will the Heavy Launcher changes (primarily ROF boost) be coming into effect?
Thanks
____________________________________________
|
Istvaan Shogaatsu
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 17:14:00 -
[35]
I enjoy and approve of all these changes.
|
Jin Entres
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 17:17:00 -
[36]
Thank you.
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 17:19:00 -
[37]
Edited by: keepiru on 06/11/2005 17:22:04
Think he means boosting the damage/explosion radius ratio.
When you divide one by the other you get hp/m, and thats how good missile is at hitting stuff smaller than its ideal target size.
Right now, lights have a high ratio - 1.5hp/m base- and cruise quite low - 1.0hp/m base.
Heavy should be in the middle - and hence be better at hitting frigs than cruise - but instead they have 1.0hp/m as well, meaning heavyes and cruise do the same damage to a standing frigate with the same skills.
edit: a rather shameless self-plug
-------------
Where are the named 800mm Plates and Mega Ions, CCP?
|
Gunstar Zero
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 17:22:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Gunstar Zero on 06/11/2005 17:23:32
<3
Thanks for listening and aplogies for whining :-).
Sounds like the ideas you're mulling over are along the right line.
I'm primarily interested in these changes with regards to PvP and live server PvP at that, not what happens on SiSi (where people dont try to escape because they dont care) or theoretical planned 1v1 situatons (which happen very rarely).
With this in mind:
Agility: Keep the top speed down, so we cant keep range and wtfpwn everything, but make them less cumbersome to fly. Why not the second most agile ships after the Minny ones? This would make a nice difference.
Cruise: Cruise DPS is aweful, max skills 2 dmg mods = 300dps. 'Yay' this can be done from 250k, but anyone with an iota of sense is long gone by the time they hit. Range combat is flawed (give me a 250km scrambler and I'll shut up ;-P). Since high ROF isnt good for the server - a dmg boost?
Torp rad/vel: Should be able to hit BS / BC and HAC easier.
Offtopic: EM Hole on Caldari Hacs: This sucks man. Racial blah etc blah, still sucks.
oh and can the un-nerf come in un-pre-nerfed?
Cheers for posting that you're going to take a look, really helps people from getting agitated.
|
Decairn
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 17:33:00 -
[39]
Please reduce the volume of missiles too while you're at it, especially heavies, cruise and torps.
--Decairn |
Dark PIne
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 17:49:00 -
[40]
I'd like to point out the Ballistic Control System 2 CPU issue:
namely the fact that it takes 5 more CPU than tech 1 version, whereas tech 1 and 2 turret damage mods take the same amount of CPU. I'd like to see either BCS 2 CPU requirement reduced to the BCS 1 level, or the CPU of tech 2 turret damage mods increased accordingly.
|
Turkantho
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 17:59:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Turkantho on 06/11/2005 18:01:37
sounds promising indeed :)
now for another issue with missiles:
 Originally by: Tuxford
Assault
The missile frigates, Inquisitor, Kestrel and Breacher have all lost their rate of fire bonus. Instead they get 5% damage per level to all missile damage types except for their race specific damage type where they get 10% per level.
I'd really like to see that bonus on the Crow as well, since as many of you may remember the Crow once had an indirect damage bonus for all damage types, before it was changed to the current 10% kinetic damage bonus only it was 5% kin damage and 5% rof, which you could say was a double bonus to kinetic damage and a bonus to the other damage types.
I understand that the Crow would deal a bit more dps when not only using kinetic missiles, but it sure need it. And yes I can fly more interceptors than just Caldari.
Oh and I second the motion from Dark PIne regarding BCU CPU need.
________
As[G]ard |
Derran
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 18:01:00 -
[42]
What about making it so that you can fit undersized missiles in the launchers? For instance, fitting cruise missiles in siege launchers, heavy missiles in cruise launchers, etc. Before the changes, siege launchers were widely used over cruise launchers to use cruise missiles because the RoF was way better on siege. Now that it has all been addressed, I'm not sure I can see this being too overbalanced since using heavy missiles on a cruise launcher with its kind of rate of fire would be kinda terrible but wouldn't make you defenseless against smaller sized ships when you compare the same missile in a heavy launcher which has better RoF than cruise launchers.
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 18:07:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Hanns
I bet jim raynor wil be happy 
This will more or less fix everything that is wrong with missiles at the moment.
------
If Captain James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock embracing one another, in a bath tube, nude, in space, is wrong, I don't want to be right. |
theRaptor
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 18:13:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Turkantho
sounds promising indeed :)
now for another issue with missiles:
Originally by: Tuxford
Assault
The missile frigates, Inquisitor, Kestrel and Breacher have all lost their rate of fire bonus. Instead they get 5% damage per level to all missile damage types except for their race specific damage type where they get 10% per level.
I'd really like to see that bonus on the Crow as well, since as many of you may remember the Crow once had an indirect damage bonus for all damage types, before it was changed to the current 10% kinetic damage bonus only it was 5% kin damage and 5% rof, which you could say was a double bonus to kinetic damage and a bonus to the other damage types.
I understand that the Crow would deal a bit more dps when not only using kinetic missiles, but it sure need it. And yes I can fly more interceptors than just Caldari.
Oh and I second the motion from Dark PIne regarding BCU CPU need.
I have sweet, sweet dreams about the crow getting that bonus. I used to love my Taranis but now everyone flies em :'(
Go the underdogs!
And I heard the noise of thunder. And I looked and behold: a pale horse. And his name, that sat on him, was Death. And Hell followed with him |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 18:15:00 -
[45]
Originally by: theRaptor
Originally by: Turkantho
sounds promising indeed :)
now for another issue with missiles:
Originally by: Tuxford
Assault
The missile frigates, Inquisitor, Kestrel and Breacher have all lost their rate of fire bonus. Instead they get 5% damage per level to all missile damage types except for their race specific damage type where they get 10% per level.
I'd really like to see that bonus on the Crow as well, since as many of you may remember the Crow once had an indirect damage bonus for all damage types, before it was changed to the current 10% kinetic damage bonus only it was 5% kin damage and 5% rof, which you could say was a double bonus to kinetic damage and a bonus to the other damage types.
I understand that the Crow would deal a bit more dps when not only using kinetic missiles, but it sure need it. And yes I can fly more interceptors than just Caldari.
Oh and I second the motion from Dark PIne regarding BCU CPU need.
I have sweet, sweet dreams about the crow getting that bonus. I used to love my Taranis but now everyone flies em :'(
Go the underdogs!
yeah, that the crux with flying gallente ships, everybody does it 
At least I get my matari ceptros for 6 million
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscription canceled |
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 18:18:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Pottsey on 06/11/2005 18:26:06
EDIT:
I have no idea how that was posted in this thread. Sorry that was in reply to someone else in another thread all together. With nothing whatÆs so ever to do with missiles. I donÆt even use or read missile thread.
_________________________________________________
Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 18:19:00 -
[47]
Edited by: j0sephine on 06/11/2005 18:25:10
Originally by: Pottsey
and now for something completely different...
-.^
|
Antic
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 18:22:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Pottsey
ôAs a comparison, an armor tanking battleship running a large rep t2 with 3 hardeners t2 will tank: 4*71/((1-0.6)+(1-0.595)+(1-0.663)+(1-0.708)) = 198 dps.ö
You have to also take into account the high hitpoints on the passive tank at first glance the 198DPS seems better then the shields 172 DPS but its not once you take into account total hitpoints. Take the Raven shields at 16,500. Take off the equivalent amour hitpoints found on an amour tank which is around about 6000. That leaves the shield tank with 10k more hitpoints then the amour tank setup. At 71 HP a sec found on the large rep t2 it will take the amour tank over 2 minuets to heal the same amount of hitpoints as the shield tank has base. ThatÆs not even accounting for the shield regen the passive tank has.
If the battle lasts under 2 minuets your better of with the passive shield tank. If the battle lasts over 2 minutes your still perhaps better off with the passive tank as the HP regne with high hitpoints means you last a long time.
With the new changeÆs due in next patch you should be able to get a Raven with 20002.5 hitpoints and 107.2 HP regen with 30% to all resistance.
After the patch I would change to
Mid slots, 5 large t2 extenders, T2 Invulnerability field
low slots, 5 Shield Relays.
So thatÆs
4*107.2 /((1-0.3)+(1-0.72)+(1-0.58)+(1-0.44)) =218.775
that setup isnt very good for missile ships like ravens. They need the lows for BCUs for an attempt to get some use out of their missiles. How will that calc look without lets say 3 of those shield relays. will it evenfit with 3 BCU IIs on CPU? i somehow doubt it.
|
Kyle Caldrel
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 18:27:00 -
[49]
TomB, will you be looking at BCU II cpu use?
|
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 18:27:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Pottsey on 06/11/2005 18:31:19
Antic my post wasnÆt meant to be here. Do you mind editing out the quote of my post. I didnÆt mean to bring up tanking here.
If you do want to know what its like with 3 less relays and 3 BCU's can you ask me at http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=244290 lets keep tanking away from this thread.
_________________________________________________
Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
Nerdin
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 18:51:00 -
[51]
Thank you CCP.
That apologize was very much appreciated i think, since you basically have ignored us players for a very long time now when it comes to missiles.
I really hope and believe you will de-nerf the missiles to at least some extent.
Thanks.
|
Tovarishch
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 19:16:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Tovarishch on 06/11/2005 19:17:39
Hey TomB,
Thank you very, very much for the update. Receiving even a small bit of information regularly from the Devs regarding highly anticipated changes/adjustments can do quite a bit to assuage peoples doubts. The silence surrounding missiles has been incredibly frustrating. Thank you for the response.
Aside from what you mentioned... a couple other changes come to mind. Sig radii on some ships and structures needs to be reviewed. Missiles (particularly torpedos and Citadel torpedos) doing only partial damage to structures is out of whack. The Phoenix is designed to be a siege monster. Having Citadel torpedos doing fractional damage to structures castrates it's ability to fill the role for which it was designed. Many POS structures have sig radii equivalent to some battleships... which seems... odd. They are, after all, huge structures anchored in space.
Also, some ships have sig radii that effects mean average missile damage far greater than others. Sig radii of all ships and structures needs to be reviewed across the board with missile damage kept in mind during the review.
T2 BCUs requiring 40 cpu (5 more than the t1 BCU) is ridiculous. We waited over a year for this damage mod to come out... and for some reason it's the only damage mod that doesn't follow the pattern of all the others. Fine... the t1 BCU is 35 cpu... 5 more than other weapon mods. Why does the t2 BCU not follow the pattern?
Other changes may come to mind later... but those I listed, in addition to what you mentioned, should go a very long way in fixing the issues facing missiles at the moment. Hopefully, however, we won't have to wait another several months to see these adjustments finally made.
Thanks again for the update. Take care.
Edit - additions -
1. Review of some missile related ship bonuses. (Cerberus flight time bonus is next to worthless)
Only two things in life are certain... and Mercenary Coalition doesn't do taxes. |
Xanenal
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 19:50:00 -
[53]
Are we going to see missle size shrinking? Especially since HP is going up around the board, missle users already suffer from cargo bays full of missles, that barely last now.
|
Kyoko Sakoda
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 21:17:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Kyoko Sakoda on 06/11/2005 21:22:02
I think I love TomB again. I also would like to see Cruise Missile explosion radius unnerfed a bit, as well as T2 BCUs being brought back down to 35 CPU. Take another look at the Cerberus's damage bonuses as well, I feel they need a solid damage bonus, rather than a racial one.
Torpedos versus structures, like Tovarishch said, is maybe the biggest problem right now. I've also had an experience versus a Cyclone in which I was not doing full damage with my torpedos (but my explosion radius equaled the ship's sig radius). I'll test this on SiSi again just to make sure it wasn't some kind of fluke.
|
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 21:41:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda
Edited by: Kyoko Sakoda on 06/11/2005 21:22:02
I think I love TomB again. I also would like to see Cruise Missile explosion radius unnerfed a bit, as well as T2 BCUs being brought back down to 35 CPU. Take another look at the Cerberus's damage bonuses as well, I feel they need a solid damage bonus, rather than a racial one.
Cruise Missile explosion radius is well under any battleship signature size. Anything further than the current is a bonus to smaller ships, not the ships Cruise Missiles are supposed to take out.
Thermal drones do +25% damage than explosive drones. If you can't understand this, then don't comment drones |
Wrayeth
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 21:54:00 -
[56]
Tomb, man, I've gotta thank you for responding to our inquiries about this. I was beginning to despair that missiles would take as long as projectiles to become useful again. You've made my day - woke up, checked the forums, and found this totally unexpected thread.
You've already mentioned most of the glaring problems with missiles, which is awesome, but there are a few I'd like to suggest adding to the list:
Torpedo and cruise missile damage vs. cruiser-class ships could use increasing. Currently, the raven is pretty much useless against anything other than a battleship (as far as player ships go), meaning I rarely have reason to undock mine for PvP due to the prevalance of HACs. This issue also greatly affects the typhoon, though that ship is seen less frequently in PvP than the raven.
As others have mentioned, the sig radius of most structures could use help.
In addition, the CPU need for tech 2 ballistic controls could use reduction to the level of tech I ballistics, or the raven could use a CPU boost.
The final thing that I'd like to mention is the fact that you can fit a better setup with malkuth siege on a raven than you can with tech II due to massive CPU issues. I don't know if this is intended, but I figured I'd throw out some examples:
Tank, Malkuth
6 malkuth siege
2 heavy nosferatu
1 XL shield booster II
1 anointed EM hardener
1 di-trigonal thermic hardener
1 non-intertial ballistic hardener
1 eutectic cap recharger
1 shield boost amp I
5 power diagnostic unit II
Tank, Tech II
6 tech II siege
2 medium energy neutralizers or cruiser turrets
1 XL shield booster II
1 anointed EM hardener
1 di-trigonal thermal hardener
1 non-intertial kinetic hardener
1 eutectic cap recharger
1 shield boost amp I
4 power diagnostic II
1 coprocessor II
Gank, Malkuth
6 malkuth siege
2 medium unstable energy neutralizer
1 XL shield booster II
1 anointed EM hardener
1 di-trigonal thermal hardener
1 non-intertial kinetic hardener
1 heavy frx prototype cap boost unit
1 shield boost amp I
4 ballistic control I
1 reactor control II
Gank, Tech II
6 tech II siege
2 medium unstable energy neutralizer
1 XL shield booster II
1 anointed EM hardener
1 di-trigonal thermal hardener
1 non-intertial kinetic hardener
1 heavy frx cap boost unit
1 shield boost amp I
4 ballistic control I
1 coprocessor II
Anyway, thank you very much for the update. It's very heartening to know that you guys are looking into the issue.
-Wrayeth
|
Kyoko Sakoda
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 22:19:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Ithildin
Cruise Missile explosion radius is well under any battleship signature size. Anything further than the current is a bonus to smaller ships, not the ships Cruise Missiles are supposed to take out.
I'm more concerned about the Raven vs. HACs situation, which seems to be very dire lately.
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 22:30:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Wrayeth
Any chance we could get a highslot warp disruptor?
Yes pls
Tacklephoons with +8 4tw
________________________________________________________
|
Wrayeth
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 22:31:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Meridius
Originally by: Wrayeth
Any chance we could get a highslot warp disruptor?
Yes pls
Tacklephoons with +8 4tw
Hey, at least we'd actually SEE typhoons in PvP, then. 
-Wrayeth
|
Riley Craven
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 23:54:00 -
[60]
One thing that people seem to forget about is the missle flight time is still alittle out of wack. I would like to see missles increased in speed some more.
Trying to fire any missles at 160km is retarded because they take so long to travel to your target. By the time your salvos are actaully fitting you mutlpi bad things that could be happening to you.
1. Target warped
2. Target was fitted for range with guns and is owning you
3. Target fit defenders and owned all your missles
This could be a simple fix. Drop the flight time attribute and raise the missle speed and the range stays the same.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |