| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sarf
   |
Posted - 2006.05.20 14:45:00 -
[1]
Everyone agrees that Defenders are prety much useless atm.
Here is a idea, when you launch a defender it doesn't head after your target it goes into orbit around your ship. Each defender would get a dwell time say 2 min, for the next 2 min your defender orbits your ship looking for missles coming at you.
When a missle is launched the defenders see it and head for interception. if the missle is destroyed then the missles orbit again.
So a torpedo coming at you would cause several defenders to attack it.
This would give a much more steep advantage to a ship that has multiple launchers to defend against more than 8 attacker.
A idea for T2 defenders would be that the missles do the same job, but the defenders activate if anyone in the gang (within a resonable range of you) gets attacked by a missle, This would alow specific gang members to be the anti missle shell for the whole gang.
Think about a Raven with 6 defender launchers going full bore putting out a swarm of defenders to protect the fleet.
|
Builder AlphaOne
|
Posted - 2006.05.20 21:02:00 -
[2]
good idea about the difference between T1 and T2 versions.
**
Why use a Raven? You can fit five Assault Missile launchers on a Caracal and pop, pop, pop, pop, pop defenders in one heck of a hurry.
This suggests that launchers capable of firing defenders shouldn't be allowed to just spew them into space without a viable target but rather that they turn on and off manually and that, while on, they fire a defender missile whenever an eligible target is available and they are ready to fire.
Thus, you'd turn them on when you see the first missle on its way and they'd try to do their thing as the incoming missile tries its thing.
**
I'd also suggest that when multiple eligible targets are available, that each defender should choose one at random [as pos sentry batteries do] and then try to kill that one. Chance would allocate multiple defenders to some incoming missiles and none to others, so some would get through while others fail.
**
Of course, this would completely upset the relative value of using missiles versus turret weapons, so some other adjustment would have to be made to retain play balance. In the case of rats, the rate of fire could be significantly increased (it is laughably low now). In the case of players, missiles should be smarter about hitting moving targets than turrets and so the hit probability should be significantly higher -- if the missile gets through the screen of defenders.
***
btw, i suggest that attacking drones and frigates with active mwd be eligible targets. [not sure they are now as I don't use defenders since they don't seem to work].
after all, the missile is called a 'defender' -- it should defend you from high speed attacks.
thanks for the opportunity to suggest
|
Sarf
|
Posted - 2006.05.21 18:03:00 -
[3]
good response.
I disagree with the idea of having a target. I think someone who feels threatened should be able to spew missles at will. This way if someone wanted they could have a missle defense shield up when they open fire. It would allow a frigate or cruiser to spew out a rapid set of defenders, reload to combat missle and open fire.
He still has his missle defense as long as they don't get all eaten up, and the battle lasts less than there dwell time.
Right now you need to sacrifice offensive punch for defense. I think this fundmental ballance in missles needs to be adressed. In alot of SF that you read ships have both AMS and offensive missles at the same time. EVE lacks this.
Every other weapon system is a active ballance between how much fire power and how much defense. in the case of missles it is all or nothing (if you only have a single launch bay on your ship) you either load defenders, or you load combat. you can't say fire one defender then one combat,....
Another solution would be to remove defender missles from the launchers and make a new midslot item that loads with defenders and works in parralel with your launch bay.
I would also like to see defenders autolaunch on incoming missle, right now you need to hit the launcher, and then if there is no missle to launch against when it recycles it shuts off and you eat the second missle.
I do like your idea of random choseing of targets, and defender able to attack drones. but I think thee needs to be a limit, ie no more than 5 defenders will allocate on a single target. int he case of fleet defenders you don't want a enemy firing a bunch of light missles to suck up all the defenders and then fire the heavy stuff. it should be a case of chipping away at the missle defense.
|
Tresh Keen
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 10:46:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Tresh Keen on 22/05/2006 10:46:03
and give the defender missiles the capability to destroy incoming projectils or lasers.
If defender missiles are upgraded - then please unnerf the missiles. We dont have any high slot Modules to kill incoming projectils or Lasers... can we get some?
Cheers, Tresh
|
Rask
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 16:14:00 -
[5]
I think if the defenders are upgraded it is a given that the missles would needto be unnerfed.
|
Grey Area
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 22:54:00 -
[6]
Scrap defenders, and introduce decoys. Decoys would absorb X points of damage, and would affect ALL weapons targetting the ship that launched the decoy (so no more complaints from missile users that we have nothing to deflect turret fire).
Launching a decoy should have a penalty that the launching ship must move slower than 25% it's top speed. I would make it so this is NOT a fixed limit - the ship CAN still go faster that 25%, but at that point, the decoy stops working.
If your tergetted ship has an active decoy, you would see a big red "D" over the locked icon in your target buffer.
Stats on decoys (Rate of fire and how much damage they can absorb...racial decoys with "traditional" damage type resistances, etc.) would need a lot of thought and balancing, so I'm going to wimp out and not suggest any here.
Still think this is better than having something that targets missiles...makes much more sense to have something that the missiles (and other weapons) target.
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Reggie Stoneloader
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 00:01:00 -
[7]
Scrap Defenders and replace them with an anti-missile turret.
It's not fair that missile users, in addition to being nerfed and countered, have to sacrifice a damage-dealing hardpoint to install Defenders while turret-users can just toss a rocket launcher into an otherwise idle launcher hardpoint and castrate us with it.
Make them use one of their useful slots for thei anti-missile turret, and the situation will balance itself.
Defenders don't need to be buffed, they're devastating enough as it is.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 00:15:00 -
[8]
And where's the demand for that sort of decoy? I don't see the need for a potentially unbalancing general system like that.
And missiles are balanced right now with non-working defenders...
|
Rask
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 16:05:00 -
[9]
I was infavor of decoys at one point, but now i agree they would be bad.
I would like to see a Visuall effect of Jammers.
Defenders need to work better, and then unnerf missles.
|
cytomatrix
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 22:41:00 -
[10]
How about a highslot Anti-missile module? When you activate this module some of your weapon systems start shooting at incoming missiles. So you can use your normal weapons(turrets or missiles) to destroy incoming missiles. The ability to track high speed missiles depends on a skill and at high lvls you should be able to destroy some incoming heavy or light missiles. So turret ships can have a defence against missiles. What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Reggie Stoneloader
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 23:26:00 -
[11]
That sounds pretty good, but would you be able to choose which turrets go into "anti-missile" mode, or would it redirect all your guns?
|
Humpalot
|
Posted - 2006.05.27 02:45:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Humpalot on 27/05/2006 02:47:01
 Originally by: Tresh Keen
Edited by: Tresh Keen on 22/05/2006 10:46:03
and give the defender missiles the capability to destroy incoming projectils or lasers.
If defender missiles are upgraded - then please unnerf the missiles. We dont have any high slot Modules to kill incoming projectils or Lasers... can we get some?
C'mon....missiles are FAR easier to use than guns.
Missile users do not need to worry about Optimal and Falloff.
Missile users do not need to worry about tracking.
Missile shoots it pretty much hits whether toe-to-toe or at max range.
Defenders are near worthless. Problem is they have a short range and they target the nearest missile. When you add in unavoidable lag effects (time the game takes to realize a missile is in the defender envelope, time it takes the missile to shoot once activation occurs and time to realize a successful interecept has been made) there is a very small window in which they work as advertised (the slower the incoming missile the easier it gets but it is never very good...versus fast missiles they are worthless). Perhaps a defender equipped ship can handle a guy with one or two launchers but beyond that defenders are quickly overwhelmed.
Test it. Go find a nice missile spamming Gurista spawn somewhere and see how long it takes for the defenders to be swamped and turned into uselessness.
Mind you I am not asking that missile users be castrated on this as they need to remain a viable weapon system. But given their inherent advantages other pilots should have options to reduce their effect just as pilots have options available to reduce or even nullify someone with guns (get inside their tracking envelope for instance or outside their falloff). Note that this is better than an outright missile nerf as a missile nerf affects missiles regardless of what the other player does. This would only matter if the opposing pilot bothers to use defenders.
Some ideas for improving defenders (not saying all should be implemented):
1) Defender should target furthest missile in the intercept envelope.
2) Launcher with Defenders should stay active ready to engage regardless of whether it has a target. If one presents itself it shoots.
3) Defenders should be able to target ANY missile hostile to the group and not just a missile targetted on the player (so making a role for a missile defense ship).
4) Increase the range at which defenders can engage
Some ideas for balance of the above notions:
1) Only one launcher with defenders in it can be active on a given ship.
1a) Make a missile defense class ship that can have multiple defender launchers (only works if #3 above is implemented). For balance make it easy as hell to pop versus guns.
2) Seriously up the skill reqs on defenders (maybe easy to start but to be really useful the training should sting). For instance their effective range should be crap with low skills and go beyond what is available today (as per #4 above) with some serious training.
3) Launcher with defenders that stays active (as per #2 above) should suck a non-trivial amount of cap (call it the scan process eating cap).
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.05.27 03:06:00 -
[13]
Or boost missile damage 25%, which is the only reasonable fix. Now you've screwed everyone WITHOUT a slot for it....etc.
Can of worms, and it's balanced discounting the broken defenders.
|
ragewind
|
Posted - 2006.05.27 12:13:00 -
[14]
if you improve befender you have to boost missels this will then actually make missiles unbalanced and then over powered. they are currently balanced
------------------------------------
fix eves industrial sector!
advanced industrial ship |
cytomatrix
|
Posted - 2006.05.27 12:14:00 -
[15]
Not all ships have launcher hardpoints. And you should be able to choose which gun to shoot at the incoming missiles.
|
Dark Chasm
|
Posted - 2006.05.27 13:55:00 -
[16]
See also this thread
|
Humpalot
|
Posted - 2006.05.27 19:28:00 -
[17]
Originally by: ragewind
they are currently balanced
It's an odd sort of balance then. Of all the ships I fight in EVE missile ships easily give me the most trouble (both in PvP and PvE). The Crow, Ferox and Raven I'd wager are far and away the most flown ship of their respective classes. There are a helluva lot of Caracals around too. Somehow I do not think their extreme popularity is due to looks.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.05.27 19:33:00 -
[18]
What do you fly, and post a typical setup...
|
Prescience
|
Posted - 2006.05.27 20:13:00 -
[19]
Change the premise of the defender. Instead of trying to hit an incoming missile, which is actually highly unlikely considering the supposed 'speed' and 'intelligence' of missiles, how about some sort of 'chaff' arrangement which disrupts the sensors on missles as happens today? Chaff would only affect missiles bearing in mind guns are direct fire, based around the latest scans of the parent vessel predicting where the shot should hit. Drones dont home and are pretty much automatic. Therefore, the simpler guidance systems on missiles would be more effected, it could be argued. However, missiles dont usually make direct contact with the hull of a vessel, they explode nearby causing damage in this way. Perhaps chaff would simply cause the missiles to explode further away from the vessel causing less or no damage.
There are already tracking disruptors for use against gunnery, yet this would solve the issue for the missile field. One could introduce this as part of the 'environmental' changes, with chaff dispersing over time.
The effect of chaff would not be permanant unless the vessel was stationary and who sits still in a gunfight anyway?
WHO said EVE had to be FAIR??
|
Humpalot
|
Posted - 2006.05.27 20:17:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
What do you fly, and post a typical setup...
Mostly Amarr ships although in a previous life (mixup at the cloning facility...long story) I was a missile junkie.
I will not post every ship and every setup as that would take forever and obviously PvE setups differ from PvP.
Curretnly I fly:
Crusader(interceptor):
Hi:
4xDual Light Beams (T2)
Mid:
MWD
Web (named)
Low:
Small Armor Rep (T2)
200mm Rolled Tungsten Armor
MAPC
Cap Relay
Prophecy (battlecruiser):
Hi:
6xHeavy Pulse
Med Nos
Mid:
10mn AB (T2)
Web (named)
Cap Recharger
Low:
Med Armor Rep (T2)
Internal Force Field Array
3xActive hardeners (switch depending on expected foe or swap with 3xEANM-2 for more general)
Cap Power Relay
Apocalypse (battleship):
Hi:
6x Mega Pulse Lasers
2xHeavy Nos
Mid:
100mn AB (T2)
Web (named)
2xCap Rechargers
Low:
2xLarge Armor Reps
2xActive hardeners (usually Exp and Kin....maybe Therm)
EANM (T2)
RCU (T2)
Cap Realy or Heat Sink (T2)
As mentioned those are just typical setups but are of course subject to modification depending on circumstances. Those are also just my most flown ships...I have a pile of other ships (frigs cruisers and so on) that probably do not merit listing here.
|
|
|
Humpalot
|
Posted - 2006.05.27 20:27:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Prescience
The effect of chaff would not be permanant unless the vessel was stationary and who sits still in a gunfight anyway?
I do sometimes. It can actually be beneficial to sit still in some cases. Mainly it comes into play when your tracking sucks versus the opponent. If an inty with fast tracking guns is orbiting your slower tracking cruiser guns then moving only helps him. Your own speed just adds to the transverse velocity equation and your slower tracking guns suffer more from it so standing still is beneficial.
In general I agree most ships keep moving. Just saying now and again there can be occasions where you wouldn't want to.
|
Prescience
|
Posted - 2006.05.27 21:28:00 -
[22]
Fair point. The chaff would expand anyway under its own inertia, or be cooked off by your own fire.
WHO said EVE had to be FAIR??
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |