Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kittamaru
|
Posted - 2006.03.05 08:03:00 -
[1]
Yeah... realized something the other day.
Missile boats can tank like a ***** because their weapons require NO CAP to fire.
Uh.. ouch. Puts the rest of us at bit of a disadvantage. Lasers or Hybrids or Projectiles can EITHRE Tank or Bust... but missile boats can do both.
Weird.
Any ideas on how to solve this fairly?
|
Britannica
|
Posted - 2006.03.05 09:58:00 -
[2]
the tanks of missile boats usually dont last as long as those of most gun boats
my raven with good setup could tear apart a gank apoc setup, but a tanked apoc will out last my shield tank
|
Ascelot
|
Posted - 2006.03.05 10:31:00 -
[3]
Caldari shield tank, this means they can repair alot of damage in a short period of time, but requires more cap, also, shield tankers dont have the luxury of equipment such as the cap power relay we tankers use.
oh, dont like missles users not using cap, take a look at min weaps.
|
Deja Thoris
|
Posted - 2006.03.05 14:38:00 -
[4]
And what about projectiles? They use practially zero cap.
Your idea is rubbish and is just another silly attempt to homogenise all ship equipment until we are left with "generic mid-slot item xx" for all races
|
Jallen
|
Posted - 2006.03.05 15:24:00 -
[5]
Minmatar weaps use 1pt of cap per volley. Atleast the 1400mm Howitzers do.
|
Jinx Barker
|
Posted - 2006.03.05 18:28:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Deja Thoris And what about projectiles? They use practially zero cap.
Your idea is rubbish and is just another silly attempt to homogenise all ship equipment until we are left with "generic mid-slot item xx" for all races
/me wants to marry Deja Thoris. Thank you for saving me some breath I hate all this crap with "JEDIs for EVERYONE!" mentality.
|
Kittamaru
|
Posted - 2006.03.06 04:57:00 -
[7]
?
Wow... rather assholish of you wasn't it?
Re-read the last line I put up:
Any ideas on how to solve this fairly?
KeyWord: FAIRLY
|
Thanh Vu
|
Posted - 2006.03.06 08:25:00 -
[8]
I think all weapons should use some cap. I think its unfair that any race that doesnt use missiles is dead in the water if they have 0 cap....but caldari can still be blasting away with torpedos. Thats unfair.
|
Grey Area
|
Posted - 2006.03.06 08:57:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Thanh Vu I think all weapons should use some cap. I think its unfair that any race that doesnt use missiles is dead in the water if they have 0 cap....but caldari can still be blasting away with torpedos. Thats unfair.
No, it isn't, it just means there's one race that the universal "Nos 'em till they die" trick doesn't work on. It's an advantage. It counters the many disadvantages that missiles have - like a delay between "fire" and "hit", during which time you will often find your target is no longer there, or a TOTAL lack of midslot modules that affect missile use (unlike turret users who have tracking computers)....
I could go on, but this will just turn into the missile vs turret whinge again, and there have been thousands of pages written on that subject. Currently I think the two systems are pretty well balanced (though a few more missile implants being dropped wouldn't go amiss - CCP please take note)
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums; Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?" Cleese: "I've told you once." |
RogueWing
|
Posted - 2006.03.06 09:11:00 -
[10]
Sure, go ahead and make missiles use cap......as long as you make lasers have a 10 second reload time every minute or so.
|
|
Zarch AlDain
|
Posted - 2006.03.06 11:45:00 -
[11]
Originally by: RogueWing Sure, go ahead and make missiles use cap......as long as you make lasers have a 10 second reload time every minute or so.
And don't forget to make each shot from a laser cost money.
-- Zarch AlDain The Bridgeburners Huzzah Federation
|
K Shara
|
Posted - 2006.03.06 13:16:00 -
[12]
missile advantage
same damage no matter the range. all damage types no tracking. no cap use same damage every time FoF's
Missile disadvantages time to target short cycle between reloads overly subject to speed or sig radius effects same damage everytime defenders smartbombs
Missiles have some good things about them, but they arnt the be all and end all. Most battles use gun ships because by the time the missiles hit the target they have either been killed or warped out.
|
Danton Marcellus
|
Posted - 2006.03.06 14:14:00 -
[13]
How about a slight drop in shields when firing missiles as to illustrate them breaching the shield outgoing making it momentarily weaker?
Remind me about The Maze.
I'm Danton Marcellus and I approve of this message. |
Grey Area
|
Posted - 2006.03.06 14:41:00 -
[14]
And why wouldn't this "slight drop" also be felt as a huge EM pulse passes through it? or a hybrid slug moving at relativistic speeds?
Why is everyone always so keen to bash missiles? You don't get missile users asking for more nerfs to turrets...
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums; Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?" Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Thomas Epsilon
|
Posted - 2006.03.06 15:02:00 -
[15]
Cost more cap???
Most missile boats employ shield tanks and need all the cap they can get. (I use a Raven with maxed skills and I can't maintain a shield tank not for long, if I got alot of firepower against me) Also the low cap usage is a compensation related to the turrets, for the missiles having a delay imho. _________________________ Thomas Epsilon
|
Kittamaru
|
Posted - 2006.03.06 20:54:00 -
[16]
eh, good point. I just think that it's silly having a built in hard counter to NoS'ing.
Maybe make them fire at a slightly reduced RoF without cap? To simulate a reduction in power to the reload mechanism?
I don't think missiles are waay overpowered. I just think it's weird having that one race be far less dependant on cap than the other three.
|
Kittamaru
|
Posted - 2006.03.06 23:10:00 -
[17]
after reassessing my data, I concede. The resistance of a missile boat isn't that great... thought it was higher *shrug* My bad
|
Beowulf Scheafer
|
Posted - 2006.03.07 00:26:00 -
[18]
there is no need to change anything. missiles are just fine as they are. oh, btw, i use blasters, THE most capintensive guns ingame. on a 1on1 with a raven i'm screwed. this changes alot if i bring to blasterfriends and attack 3 ravens with it... as it seems you ( the creator) doesn't play that long with such an idea, believe me: all is well and missiles are definately the last the GM's have to have a look for...
http://www.wonderlands.org/file/test1.jpg
|
Sonya Rayner
|
Posted - 2006.03.07 02:24:00 -
[19]
BTW Missiles are described as "Self propelled" i.e. you need zero effort to launch them. Also take a look at the most of current (real life) missile launcher designs - most of them are just a couple of pipes (or something similar) with missiles loaded into them. Do you think that in current world missiles require energy to be launched?
Missiles aren`t the only weapons which require capacitor energy to be launched - projectiles also requires no or a miserably low ammount of capacitor per shot (in fact it is like the cannons nowadays - a shell and a explosive charge within that makes the bullet fly). To keep up with the "science" thingy - lasers are 100% energetic weapon, since the beams are created by concentrating light and emitting it in one coherent pulse/beam, so they should use most energy of all weapon types since the energy is directly converted to the energy of the weapon (as they are now). Railguns uses electromagnetic fields to accelerate chunks of metal (called "Slugs"), the energy is used to generate this fields (it is hard to imagine the strength of the fields that can accelerate a piece of metal within a small fractions of seconds to releatyvistic speeds). And remember - everything in this game has a scientific basis, even if the basis is just a theories now.
The truth is out there...
...Seek it out! |
K Shara
|
Posted - 2006.03.07 10:08:00 -
[20]
so because your blasterboat doesnt pwn everything you want to nerf missiles.
What colour did you want your win button in sir ?
|
|
Grey Area
|
Posted - 2006.03.07 10:13:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Grey Area on 07/03/2006 10:13:07 Guys, chill...the OP has conceded. We should salute him for having the courage to change his mind, rather than continuing to flog the dead horse.
Anyone WANTING to flog the dead horse, go to the nine page thread on Warp Core Stabs in Ships & Modules forum...
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums; Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?" Cleese: "I've told you once." |
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2006.03.07 17:11:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Kittamaru Any ideas on how to solve this fairly?
KeyWord: FAIRLY
yes. either buff the cap a lot on all missile ships and give them some cap use, or leave the cap use lack as it is.
it is pretty much balanced as it is, and tbh, solving it fairly would mean no changing IMO
sigs of the 23/24/25 hijack just as well -eris yarrrr, i shall retake my sig -HippoKing Not a chance, our 1337 sig haXx0r sk1llz are too powerful! - Wrangler Ho-Ho-Hooooooo, Merry Saturday!11 - Immy Yo ho ho and a bottle of BReeEEEEeee.... - Jacques ARRRRRRchambault Stop spamming with "QFT" >:|. - Teblin
|
Kittamaru
|
Posted - 2006.03.07 18:28:00 -
[23]
I already conceded XD
Though, it WOULD take a little energy to fire a missile- look at Torpdeos on todays subs: The Fire Control systems are VERY energy intensive... even on the Los ANgeles class, the FCS can only be kept online at full capacity for about an hour before it starts to overheat.
Self propelled, yes... but realize: THE MISSILES MOTOR DOESN"T IGNITE TILL IT IS CLEAR OF THE LAUNCH TUBE. That would be foolishnes in itself... think of what the heat of the missile backflame would do to:
A) The firing ship B) The Missile tube C) The back of the missile D) The remaining FUEL in the missile E) The guidance wire
exactly :P
But, case in point, I conceded.
Now I just want an AMD system for gunboats. Even if it's just a mini railgun.
|
Sonya Rayner
|
Posted - 2006.03.11 01:34:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Kittamaru I already conceded XD
Though, it WOULD take a little energy to fire a missile- look at Torpdeos on todays subs: The Fire Control systems are VERY energy intensive... even on the Los ANgeles class, the FCS can only be kept online at full capacity for about an hour before it starts to overheat.
Self propelled, yes... but realize: THE MISSILES MOTOR DOESN"T IGNITE TILL IT IS CLEAR OF THE LAUNCH TUBE. That would be foolishnes in itself... think of what the heat of the missile backflame would do to:
A) The firing ship B) The Missile tube C) The back of the missile D) The remaining FUEL in the missile E) The guidance wire
exactly :P
But, case in point, I conceded.
Now I just want an AMD system for gunboats. Even if it's just a mini railgun.
The analogy of FCS would be the launcher itself - it uses large ammounts of CPU and powergrid.
"THE MISSILES MOTOR DOESN"T IGNITE TILL IT IS CLEAR OF THE LAUNCH TUBE" Yeah, sure, in subs - maybe, but most of other launchers still have no external mechanism to eject missiles from launch tubes. Take a look at the handheld missile launchers (the "bazooka" for example), aviation missiles, anti-aircraft missile launchers, missile launchers on helicopters, ICBMs and more... AFAIK only submarines still uses the control wires to control missiles. Not even mentioning the Fire & Forget type missiles whose have all the guidance systems onboard...
The truth is out there...
...Seek it out! |
Ayla Vanir
|
Posted - 2006.03.11 03:24:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Ayla Vanir on 11/03/2006 03:26:26
Originally by: Sonya Rayner
AFAIK only submarines still uses the control wires to control missiles.
Not that it's directly relevant to fictional EVE technology, but TOW missles (Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided) are still in use in helicopter mounted, vehicle mounted, and man-portable versions (not certain if the man-portable 'Dragon' from the Viet-Nam War era is still used by the USA though).
More relevant to EVE, if CCP did want to have missles cost in terms of cap usage, I wouldn't care if they then rebalanced missle capable ships and increased their cap charge and/or recharge rates. I specifically want to point that out because you have to assume that decisions made about how much cap that (for example) a Raven has was factored/balanced by the devs with the knowledge that launchers don't drain the cap charge.
As for missle boats being able to 'tank' any more or less than other comparable ships, I'm not sold on that as a fact. Personally, I'd rather not be in the 'tank' role in my Caracal or Raven because I don't think they last as long in such situations as the Gallente ships that I flew last year with my old character. The game has changed quite a bit since last July, so I'm not current as to which ships are the best tanks these days but something tells me that it's not the missle ships I fly now.
Escrow Market Revamp
|
Outa Rileau
|
Posted - 2006.03.11 06:55:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Kittamaru I already conceded XD
Though, it WOULD take a little energy to fire a missile- look at Torpdeos on todays subs: The Fire Control systems are VERY energy intensive... even on the Los ANgeles class, the FCS can only be kept online at full capacity for about an hour before it starts to overheat.
Self propelled, yes... but realize: THE MISSILES MOTOR DOESN"T IGNITE TILL IT IS CLEAR OF THE LAUNCH TUBE. That would be foolishnes in itself... think of what the heat of the missile backflame would do to:
A) The firing ship B) The Missile tube C) The back of the missile D) The remaining FUEL in the missile E) The guidance wire
exactly :P
But, case in point, I conceded.
Now I just want an AMD system for gunboats. Even if it's just a mini railgun.
As long as i can keep my computers running with a target locked, ability to control drones and whatever else i can do nossed to hell, i can ignite missiles <.<
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |