Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Scuzzy Logic
Midnight Elites Partners of Industrial Service and Salvage
80
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 16:48:00 -
[31] - Quote
The problem here is that Heavies and HAMs were specifically nerfed to counter a broken hull: The Drake.
Drake's been nerfed, CCP. And Navy drake is so expensive you're not likely going to see blobs of it being used nearly as much as the old drake.
So yeah, return heavies to what they were, buff HAMs a wee bit (explosion speed needs help) and we're in business. Torps can't be touched due to SB issues, Cruise were finally buffed, and lights and rockets are finally worth half a damn.
Also fix the ugly turrets on the Malediction, please? |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
750
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 16:53:00 -
[32] - Quote
Scuzzy Logic wrote:The problem here is that Heavies and HAMs were specifically nerfed to counter a broken hull: The Drake.
Drake's been nerfed, CCP. And Navy drake is so expensive you're not likely going to see blobs of it being used nearly as much as the old drake.
So yeah, return heavies to what they were, buff HAMs a wee bit (explosion speed needs help) and we're in business. Torps can't be touched due to SB issues, Cruise were finally buffed, and lights and rockets are finally worth half a damn.
Also fix the ugly turrets on the Malediction, please? Actually, as far as I can tell HAMs were left untouched. The original thread and documents only references changes to heavy missiles and light missiles. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Skwiche
Beyond Tranquility
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.05 02:12:00 -
[33] - Quote
It's probably been said hundreds of times the thing I think missiles lack is explosion velocity bonus the explosion radius of missiles in my eyes appears to be relatively well balanced I just seem to lose too much damage when ships start to speed off.
|
Saberlily Whyteshadow
Novum Matutinus Interstellar ConVicts
35
|
Posted - 2013.12.05 02:36:00 -
[34] - Quote
What really needs to happen to the missile formula is factoring in the Radial Velocity between the missile and its target. The closer to 0 the radial velocity is, the less damage.. The higher the negative radial velocity, the more damage.. and if its a positive value.. well your missile just lost the race.
This will also put piloting skills back in the game for missile systems. |
Ransu Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
46
|
Posted - 2013.12.05 03:39:00 -
[35] - Quote
I started a thread in Jita Park Speakers corner to outline some of the problems with the Missiles weapon system as it stands. Please talk to your CSM representative about bringing up a discussion on a full Missiles rework to make the system viable. It needs more than just a quick balancing pass, and that's all I see happening at the moment.
Here's the link, which goes into a lot more detail.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=294382&find=unread
Some of the points have been made, but the main ones I see are:
The current SP imbalance, now even more evident since Gunnery has had the skill requirements decoupled, means you are spending almost 2 SP in missiles compared to 1 SP in Gunnery for a weapon system which has support skills that only affect one, instead of three.
The lack of a proper progression for missile ships. You basically have to train all races to be able to use missile ships effectively. For example, if you start as a Minmatar player, and you pick up the Breacher, Bellicose, Cyclone.. where do you go for Interceptors, Assault Frigates, HACS, Recon Ships, etc? The only T2 Minmatar ships which use missiles are the Hound and the Claymore. Every race has a stealth bomber, and Command Ships aren't commonly used.
Fixing the damage application formula to be more balanced for signature tanking and speed tanking is another big one. Because you currently need webs and/or target painters to properly apply damage to opponents of the same ship size, and missile ships are most commonly shield tanked, you have to sacrifice tank for damage application.
The ability to decouple reload time from changing missile damage types is something that was brought up in the RLML/RHML thread. The ability to reload the existing number of missiles for a different damage type, or explosion radius (Precision/Fury) could be shorter than reloading the launchers completely. Considering Energy Turrets can change out their crystals with zero reload time, this isn't unreasonable, and would play into the strengths of the weapon system.
The need for scriptable modules to allow missile users to customize the range, explosion velocity/radius, rate of fire, etc. Only having the Ballistic Control System doesn't allow a lot of flexibility outside of rigs, which are static and frequently those slots are needed for other things.
Remove the damage type specific bonuses for more of the hulls. Having one bonus means typically it isn't worth spending 10 seconds to change out the damage to exploit a potential hole in resistances, compared to losing the bonus from the hull.
Revert the RHML/RLML to the earlier version without the swarm launcher, or find a better alternative than a 40 second reload. My main problem with the RHML/RLML was that any addition to the weapon system should play into it's strengths - selectable damage, consistent damage application. The 40 second reload took away one of the main advantages of being able to choose the damage or missile type (Precision/Fury) to hit the opponents for the best damage application. Having a scriptable weapon/module or rig to trade off magazine size versus reload time would have been one way to give more choice to missile users, without restricting new modules to very niche uses. |
Cardano Firesnake
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
92
|
Posted - 2013.12.05 03:56:00 -
[36] - Quote
The missile game mechanics is not so bad. I think the problem is in the missiles stats |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
260
|
Posted - 2013.12.05 04:30:00 -
[37] - Quote
Saberlily Whyteshadow wrote:What really needs to happen to the missile formula is factoring in the Radial Velocity between the missile and its target. The closer to 0 the radial velocity is, the less damage.. The higher the negative radial velocity, the more damage.. and if its a positive value.. well your missile just lost the race.
This will also put piloting skills back in the game for missile systems.
This idea has some merit.
Why are guns "better"? Well we can argue they have the downside of tracking (or not tracking for misses as the case may be).
If ccp's holdup is the "always" hit of missiles it could be a viable change to get them better. If a lazy drake pilot who likes to land, press f1 and make stuff go boom (maybe pretend to care enough to orbit) their missiles suck more. If they adapt and go jsut a bit beyond this it works out for them.
Even has a working model in game. Even if jumped in a cane by a smaller ship (to include same class but lower sig radius) I will care enough to try and fly it well to at least attempt to work better traversal gaming to get more shots on target.
Hate to oversimplify flying a drake but since it currently does not factor in angles in anyway it can literally be autoorbit, pop drones, press f1 and go get a drink from the fridge and see what you got when you come back. Sig radius of the usual passive/buffer fit is not faking out gun tracking short of caps and higher or maybe a low skill/ crapfit bs. And your missiles always hit...actually moving around a bit is purely optional unless going against another missile boat. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
171
|
Posted - 2013.12.05 22:21:00 -
[38] - Quote
Cardano Firesnake wrote:The missile game mechanics is not so bad. I think the problem is in the missiles stats
More to the point, CCP almost certainly isn't going to redesign the missile mechanics, so the stats are all we have to work with. |
kurage87
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2013.12.05 22:53:00 -
[39] - Quote
Vizvig wrote:http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20
3 Tengu 5,256 7 Manticore 3,086 6 Prototype 'Arbalest' Torpedo Launcher 1,770
No skill? The extent to which your post, or more precisely your link, was counter productive to the point you were trying to make is amazing. |
Seranova Farreach
483
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 02:10:00 -
[40] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:And light missiles. Such a wealth of choices... How many Hawks or Coraxs have you seen running light missile launchers? I don't measure quality by use. That's CCP's schtick. Light missile launchers are quite good at their intended purpose.
the "quality" is actually very much in its use and popularity. look at the old drake fleets they were effective and nominal priced and people whined about them! all the whineing seems to be people on the receving end of a popular and well used ship.
remember years ago? spider domi camps? unbeatable drameils? the Sabre superiority for solo? minmatar ships and projectiles? we do need balance but not nerfs to the point where caldari pilots dont bother with missles any more. _______________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg
|
|
Seranova Farreach
483
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 02:12:00 -
[41] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote:i some how disagree.. missles seem to work for frigs and dessys(mostly) but yes other then those ships turrets seem to be better over all :| Frigates and destroyers... that's it? So basically you mean rockets. That's 1/8 missile systems. And light missiles. Such a wealth of choices...
i do hope that is sarcasm. _______________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg
|
Seranova Farreach
483
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 02:14:00 -
[42] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:And light missiles. Such a wealth of choices... How many Hawks or Coraxs have you seen running light missile launchers?
probably non as Blarpys are OP. so are cheapfleet Hero-atrons. so are turret based destroyers. and people only whine about kiteing condors with light missles cause they do not know how to dictate range nor expect it.. most people fail cause they dotn have forthought they just go for yolobrawler and hope they get lucky :P _______________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
780
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 03:01:00 -
[43] - Quote
The missile problem is still... the damage application nerf to heavy missiles and, more recently - the changes to rapid light missile launchers. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Naomi Anthar
167
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 03:21:00 -
[44] - Quote
I love logic of many forum users - they only see bad things about stuff they want buffed or save from nerf.
Missiles are not affected by neuts .
They are not affected by TD.
They can even shoot jammed and damped(not that they do best at this situation but still).
They can select any type damage they want (very often hulls are not bonused for kinetic only, even if they are option is still there)
They got insane range (especially STUPID light missiles).
They got no tracking problems.
They don't have to use low damage ammo to reach targets far away (cruise missile is good example).
Probably more good things but cba to list all.
And i know there are also drawbacks for using missiles. But we cannot make one weapon system flawless - else others will suck and ask for buffs - and it will never end.
We already got autocannons - perfect weapons ... just range sucks sometimes. Which is good else it would be ******** ;).
-1 to any missile buff attempt except small for HMs ... and maybe citadel.
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
781
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 03:37:00 -
[45] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:I love logic of many forum users - they only see bad things about stuff they want buffed or save from nerf.
Missiles are not affected by neuts . They are not affected by TD. They can even shoot jammed and damped(not that they do best at this situation but still). They can select any type damage they want (very often hulls are not bonused for kinetic only, even if they are option is still there) They got insane range (especially STUPID light missiles). They got no tracking problems. They don't have to use low damage ammo to reach targets far away (cruise missile is good example). Probably more good things but cba to list all.
And i know there are also drawbacks for using missiles. But we cannot make one weapon system flawless - else others will suck and ask for buffs - and it will never end. We already got autocannons - perfect weapons ... just range sucks sometimes. Which is good else it would be ******** ;). -1 to any missile buff attempt except small for HMs ... and maybe citadel.
I love posts like this. Allow me to respond in kind...
GÇó Yes, they aren't affected by TD. Then again, they don't get ballistic computers or passive ballistic enhancers, either. GÇó Yes, if you consider a 25-50% DPS drop with FoF missiles against random targets 'shooting jammed'. If you brought any, that is. And no, sensor dampening has the same effect for missiles: longer targeting time and/or target loss. No target, no shoot. GÇó Yes, they can apply any damage type. Usually for a 25-50% DPS hit (contrary to popular belief). Assuming you have room for all the variations, again. You can count the number of turret ships that have damage specific damage on one hand. GÇó Yes, and that insane range is easily negated with sensor dampeners, ECM or just generally traveling fast. GÇó Yes, no tracking problems. Only problems with applying damage to non-stationary targets. GÇó Yes, so many people are running cruise missiles outside PvE...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Naomi Anthar
167
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 04:44:00 -
[46] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote: stuff
I also love post like yours : Let's start with range negated by damps , ecm and traveling fast - oh ... sorry but drones damage is affected by fast traveling , turrets also don't deal much damage when you got jammed or ecmed ( what kind of argument you are trying to get here ? At least you are immune to TD. Because for example my dear poor friend , who suffers from poor state of weapon systems balance, right now i present you lasers:
1. Huge cap usage, VERY suspectible to neuts. Even if not neuted, they drain cap hard so less for mwd,reps other modules using cap. We don't have this problem with missiles 2. Set damage type to EM/Thermal. Yeah you hear it. When you shoot lasers against for example armor tanked wolf ... do i have to even go on ? Even kinetic bonused hulls with missiles will do better no matter what. 3. Terrible tracking , so easy to get under guns with lasers. I bet you got same problems with missiles. 4. TD's denies the only real good thing with lasers - range. Or screw up your tracking even further. I'm absolutely sure you got same problems with your poor missiles there. And no TE/TC does not compensate for what TD does , not at all. 5. Gigantic fitting requiremnts to fit those lasers in first place .
And about few of your nonsens arguments : "GÇó Yes, no tracking problems. Only problems with applying damage to non-stationary targets." No glacing hits, no misses, no grazes etc. Not at all turrets always apply 100% of damage to moving targets ...
"GÇó Yes, so many people are running cruise missiles outside PvE..." You are not PvPing at all i see them in low sec - not that often because we don't see battleships too often in FW. And i know they are MASSIVELY used by Darkness of Despair on thier Typhoons in big null war we got now.
"GÇó Yes, if you consider a 25-50% DPS drop with FoF missiles against random targets 'shooting jammed'. If you brought any, that is. And no, sensor dampening has the same effect for missiles: longer targeting time and/or target loss. No target, no shoot." Better than 100% dps drop we got with turrets.
"GÇó Yes, they aren't affected by TD. Then again, they don't get ballistic computers or passive ballistic enhancers, either." It's not like i don't sacrifice mid/low slots and cpu to use those modules. I have secret my every ship comes with extra mid for tracking computer and extra low for tracking enchancer. Sure you don't have those modules , but you can easily get web or target painter in place of those. Goddamit please stop this nonsense.
Now to best one :
" they can apply any damage type. Usually for a 25-50% DPS hit (contrary to popular belief). Assuming you have room for all the variations, again. You can count the number of turret ships that have damage specific damage on one hand."
Not sure where to even start ... 25% dps ?Sorry, but maybe you not that good at this game. But my opponents using missiles usually deal more than thier 25% dps.
Now i know missiles got some drawbacks like :
1. Delayed damage - especially at long ranges - very important in mass scale pvp. This is big drawback but you don't even know what is bad about missiles in first place. 2. Long reload time, despite having selectible damage type - it takes long time to switch. And it can be pain in heat of battle. But honestly ? You can still shoot missiles you got loaded. It's not like it's same thing that laser, blaster users have to do right ?
And of course more, but what you said actually is not true. So why trying to make fool from me, when you just did this to yourself.
Don't try to tell me missiles are THAT bad. Sorry to burst your bubble but i do some pvp there and there. And i see missiles. They work.
Yes they work - if not for you , sorry but they do.
I actually consider them way better weapon system than many others. Sure they are not best in big fleets - i would say inferior. I'm AWARE of that. I'm not blind hater. But in many range of engagements they are very good and perform well.
You got some serious problem there - you want missiles to have no drawbacks and perform flaweless . Not going to happen, time to understand it.
So HMs not work well ... small beam lasers also work like **** ... just an example. Hell i'm going to say that HMs are in better state than small beam lasers.
I could go on, but i'm not sure you just want to exchange punches on forum or understand that missiles are not that bad actually. I'm afraid you went for option number 1.
I'm forum warrior too - i like to fight on forums, but know one thing i value good gaming experience and game balance above anything else on those forums.
That is why i'm here to share my ideas , and hopefully affect game balance even very slightly. Of course if i'm right and hopefully ignored when i'm posting bad ideas.
Time to ... start accepting missiles or change to other weapon system.
It works ... i did not like laser drawbacks and cross trained to projectiles ... still using both. But noone forces you to use missiles , really noone.
I see too many condors, hawks, caracals, breachers, talwars, coraxes etc to give even small credit to what you say.
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
172
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 05:02:00 -
[47] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:Zvaarian the Red wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote:i some how disagree.. missles seem to work for frigs and dessys(mostly) but yes other then those ships turrets seem to be better over all :| Frigates and destroyers... that's it? So basically you mean rockets. That's 1/8 missile systems. And light missiles. Such a wealth of choices... i do hope that is sarcasm.
Why would it be sarcasm? Light missiles are pretty decent. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
172
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 05:16:00 -
[48] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:I love logic of many forum users - they only see bad things about stuff they want buffed or save from nerf.
Missiles are not affected by neuts .
They are not affected by TD.
They can even shoot jammed and damped(not that they do best at this situation but still).
They can select any type damage they want (very often hulls are not bonused for kinetic only, even if they are option is still there)
They got insane range (especially STUPID light missiles).
They got no tracking problems.
They don't have to use low damage ammo to reach targets far away (cruise missile is good example).
Probably more good things but cba to list all.
And i know there are also drawbacks for using missiles. But we cannot make one weapon system flawless - else others will suck and ask for buffs - and it will never end.
We already got autocannons - perfect weapons ... just range sucks sometimes. Which is good else it would be ******** ;).
-1 to any missile buff attempt except small for HMs ... and maybe citadel.
The entire EVE community is wrong and you are right. People avoid missiles above lights and rockets like the plague, not because they are terrible, but because they just don't understand. Well done. |
Void Weaver
R-isk-Y
2
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 10:09:00 -
[49] - Quote
Sorry, Naomi, to sound condesending but I think that you may be speaking from lack of experience using missiles? I could be wrong but I don't blame you for it lol. I think most missile pilots are agreed,in this thread and countless others that there is a problem.
Poor damage application algorithm, Poor damage, Poor shop design lacking direction, Poor available choice... The list goes on.
I respect your argument that maybe lasers are as difficult to use as missiles however I believe that may be out of the scope of this thread. I also have no experience using lasers however I do see them more frequently then missiles I believe. |
Trixie Rocks
Captains Club
4
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 15:18:00 -
[50] - Quote
I'll repeat it.... just so it sinks in.
CCP doesn't want Missiles (above rockets) in this game for PVP.
They don't know how to balance them, that's why they will ALWAYS be the odd duck.
|
|
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
2338
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 15:36:00 -
[51] - Quote
If they would remove explosion velocity and make damage reduction only dependant on the signature radius of the target and explosion radius of the missile, would that make balancing them easier? Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Dr Sraggles
The Covenant of Blood
46
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 17:02:00 -
[52] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:
I see too many condors, hawks, caracals, breachers, talwars, coraxes etc to give even small credit to what you say.
Thank you Naomi for making our point for us.
Not one of those ships even remotely use those missiles (that have the real problems being discussed here) on a regular basis. Light missiles are perfectly healthy (if maybe even need a range nerf) because they apply their damage well. All those ships (with one notable exception) use the Light Missile Launcher II or Rocket Launcher II which are still effective for their classes (frigs/dessies).
The problem is that the true cruiser missiles (Heavy Missiles, Heavy Assault Missiles and the new RLML) are incredibly bad and do a tiny, tiny fraction of their listed damage against anything or suffer from a huge DPS/Reload nerf. They are so bad that the ships that use them are not remotely viable for pvp as they really are intended for only killing Battlecruisers and Battleships.
Currently Caldari pilots have no effective Cruiser, BC, or BS for pvp other than 100MN Strategic Cruisers that are extremely pricey and cost you SP training when lost.
Add to that and you will likely find Caracal's rapidly falling off your list as the RLML has been completely gutted by a new 40 sec reload to change damage types or to simply add 1 missile. This recent change appears to have gone *whoosh* over your head.
Medium Missiles (that ironically are called Heavy) are in a bad state. Light Missiles/Rockets for Frigs and Dessies are healthy.
This thread is about fixing Medium Missiles. |
Notorious Fellon
Republic University Minmatar Republic
42
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 17:44:00 -
[53] - Quote
I think it is safe to assume that Cruiser class weapons (Medium guns, medium missiles) should apply their damage *effectively* to medium and larger/slower targets (other cruisers, BC, BS, etc).
I think it is also fair to state that all medium weapon systems should require a similar number of supporting slots to make them more effective. So, tracking enhancements for turrets, and painters/webs for missiles.
Currently, the explosion radius and target velocity math makes missiles (Medium, and large) fail to apply the same level of damage as their turret counterparts assuming equal pilot skill.
As it stands, if we use the same number of supporting slots, Heavy Missiles do not apply *effective* damage to targets smaller than a battleship or bloated sig BC. DPS drop from Precision missile variants is fine for killing frigs and cruisers IN PVE (dumb opponents). PVP, not so much.
The issue is not as pronounced in large blob fleets. The time to apply damage sucks, but is understandable trade off for never missing and good range and damage type choice.
Small gang pvp: HML suck for like-sized targets.
I swear whoever is balancing HML and RHML must have been only an EFT warrior, and not involved in the entirety of the game. |
Notorious Fellon
Republic University Minmatar Republic
42
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 17:56:00 -
[54] - Quote
One of the direct conflicts in fitting is that:
a: medium missile ships are too often shield based (caldari, minmatard) and need medium slots for tank, which compete with our ability to make our damage consistent.
b: we have no low slot module that would help us apply consistent missile damage like turrets do (these exist for turrets in both medium and low slots)
I would gladly remove a BCU for a new module that would reduce missile explosion radius / increase missile speed / etc. Basically, a low slot module like Rigor and Flare rigs. |
Naomi Anthar
167
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 20:48:00 -
[55] - Quote
Dr Sraggles wrote: Light missiles are perfectly healthy (if maybe even need a range nerf) because they apply their damage well. All those ships (with one notable exception) use the Light Missile Launcher II or Rocket Launcher II which are still effective for their classes (frigs/dessies).
Now i don't want to live in perfectly healthy game in that case. Because they are worst thing for small scale pvp that could ever happen. They are blantly op and everyone who does a bit of small scale pvp knows this.
Thanks, that's why i don't want "perfectly healthy" balance for medium missiles. I rather keep them "sick". |
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Black Slag Authenticated Corrosive.
50
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 20:51:00 -
[56] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:Dr Sraggles wrote: Light missiles are perfectly healthy (if maybe even need a range nerf) because they apply their damage well. All those ships (with one notable exception) use the Light Missile Launcher II or Rocket Launcher II which are still effective for their classes (frigs/dessies).
Now i don't want to live in perfectly healthy game in that case. Because they are worst thing for small scale pvp that could ever happen. They are blantly op and everyone who does a bit of small scale pvp knows this. Thanks, that's why i don't want "perfectly healthy" balance for medium missiles. I rather keep them "sick". Well now we know where CCP40sec got his positive feedback. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
792
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 21:11:00 -
[57] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Well now we know where CCP40sec got his positive feedback. No surprises there... the wingnuts are starting to come out of the woodwork... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland
398
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 21:14:00 -
[58] - Quote
Gimme more Cynos wrote:Personally, I think the missile dmg concept is fine, with just one exception:
Low-slot modules for missile-tracking plx.
Edit: not too much, balance with the ammount of damage mitigation speed-increasing low-slot modules provide.
We have these things called target painters and webs that increase sigRad and decrease target velocity, and thus indirectly increase missile applied damage up to the maximum possible.
But having a low slot item like a tracking enhancer would balance out the selection of damage application items. Free Ripley Weaver! |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
792
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 21:20:00 -
[59] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:We have these things called target painters and webs that increase sigRad and decrease target velocity, and thus indirectly increase missile applied damage up to the maximum possible. Target painters are target specific, though - unlike Tracking Enhancers and Tracking Computers. So you can interchange webs and target painters, but that still gives gunnery two extra damage application modules. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
176
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 21:44:00 -
[60] - Quote
Notorious Fellon wrote: I swear whoever is balancing HML and RHML must have been only an EFT warrior, and not involved in the entirety of the game.
Rise has admitted as much. Though even EFT makes it clear they suck if you actually use DPS graphs and don't just look at the base DPS value. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |