Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Da'iel Zehn
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 00:17:00 -
[1]
Just a thought on missile defenses... since missiles never miss as long as your in range...
1) defender missiles are mediocre, but they should stay active when you turn them on instead of cycling. that way the pilot can concentrate on other things besides trying to time the defender missile bay to coincide with an enemy launch. defender missiles don't do enough damage to stop incoming missiles
2) add an anti-missile defense turrent to shoot down missiles
3) (my favorite idea) add a missile tractor beam to catch missiles and hold them until they run out of fuel.
:-)
Peace, DZ
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 00:20:00 -
[2]
Okay, so then (since missiles are currently balanced). you need to raise missile damage to compensate, ad that stuffs everyone WITHOUT a missile defence.
...
Pass.
|
Illegal
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 01:37:00 -
[3]
1. yes 2. no 3. no
my very breif 2 cents.
one greif i had when i very breifly used defenders was that the turret did not stay active. i would most certainly like the turret to stay on, primed even if there are no hostile missiles in the air. --
|
Humpalot
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 02:10:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Maya Rkell Okay, so then (since missiles are currently balanced). you need to raise missile damage to compensate, ad that stuffs everyone WITHOUT a missile defence.
Balanced? How so?
Missile users do not need to worry about optimal and falloff and tracking. They never miss and do consistent damage and offer every damage type. Those are HUGE advantages and makes your tactical planning a lot simpler.
I agree anti-missile proposals need to be scrutinized very carefully as you do not want to geld all missile users making a surefire defense available. That said defenders do suck and are in need of love and I think CCP agrees and is looking into it (which even if true may mean your grandkids will maybe see an improvement...defenders have sucked forever and are still waiting for the love).
|
Illegal
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 02:26:00 -
[5]
@ Maya..
yes missiles are balanced, but a defence system is already in place, and some tho not all non-missile based ships do have launcher hardpoints, for a possible defense/offense hardpoint.
when i first read your forum posts you were semi-constructive, you just appear to have become a troll now. --
|
Reggie Stoneloader
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 06:42:00 -
[6]
I agree with the turret countermeasure and having defender-equipped launchers stay active and fire defenders when valid targets are detected. It would be no more effective than just setting the launcher to "Manual" and mashing the F-keys throughout a fight, but it wouldn't wear out my keyboard and it wouldn't fill my combat logs with spam about the lack of valid targets.
|
Brer Lapin
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 12:22:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Humpalot
Originally by: Maya Rkell Okay, so then (since missiles are currently balanced). you need to raise missile damage to compensate, ad that stuffs everyone WITHOUT a missile defence.
Balanced? How so?
Missile users do not need to worry about optimal and falloff and tracking. They never miss and do consistent damage and offer every damage type. Those are HUGE advantages and makes your tactical planning a lot simpler.
Whilst I agree their does actually need to be a AMS that isnt missile based itd be hard to make it exactly the same effectiveness & althought its harsh those ships lacking missile bays actually have more weapons & therefore can destroy the enemy before his missiles impact.
In regards to missile balance PMSL Missile users need to worry about range & time to target you ever tried calculation the travel time on three moving objects in combat ? Whilst they never miss they can be easily avoided or the bulk of the damage negated. The range of missiles damage types is negated by the missiles size to ship factors. Torpedoes are ineffective against a fast moving interceptor. As are rockets against a battleship. AFAIK you dont get wrecking hits with missiles.
Their consistencey lies only in ratting. A good human player can avoid missile fire & the limitation of one damage type only means that the missile user has to choose very carefully his load out.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 13:00:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 05/06/2006 13:02:16
Originally by: Illegal @ Maya..
yes missiles are balanced, but a defence system is already in place, and some tho not all non-missile based ships do have launcher hardpoints, for a possible defense/offense hardpoint.
when i first read your forum posts you were semi-constructive, you just appear to have become a troll now.
Defenders don't work. Period. You might want to consider that.
And upping missing damage by a considerable percentage (too offset whatever aveage hit your missile defence system takes) just stuffs smaller ships which can't afford to fit it. (Or they must, and gimp their setups).
The Eve engine dosn't support a true PD/missile interaction with every ship having defences and missiles being launched in swarms...
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |