| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Prestis
   |
Posted - 2006.07.11 20:27:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Cade Morrigan
Make sure y'all advocate an overall increase in missile dps if you're going to be adding modules that reduce their dps. Thanks!
Where does this stupid myth come from?
A Raven with Rage torps and target painters is the highest possible DPS battleship in the game, just overtaking a Blasterthon and having approx. fifty times the range.
|
R3dj4ck Ry4n
|
Posted - 2006.07.11 21:53:00 -
[32]
I would really like to see a point defense/phalanx/flak type anit-missle module. It should take up medium slot (like the tracking disruptor). Also there should be a skill set to accompany it.
One skill could increase the % chance of the missle being shot down. And another skill could reduce the time it takes to shoot down the missles per level (the higher the skill, the greater chance of negating damage by blowing up the missle farther away from your ship).
The calculations for shooting down the missle should include the flight time of the missle, the skill of the user operating the defense module.
Conversely I think tracking computers and range to target should reduce missle flight time accordingly. Adding this would allow missle users a module option or the ability to better position themselves for effective missle strikes.
|
Tovarishch
|
Posted - 2006.07.11 22:08:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Grey Area
What do you think of the principle of a turret defence making you more vulnerable to missiles and vice versa? I think it would be a pretty good way to balance the modules against each other...
I'm not a huge believer in levying penalties against most modules. It makes balancing the game/ships/modules far more difficult... and it serves as a deterrent to anyone interested in using the module. Some penalties are useful and well-placed... but I believe most of the time a module should be balanced according to its own merits instead of making it 'so good that there should be a downside'.
If a penalty were to be imposed on these modules I'd suggest a very slight boost to sig radius for activating one (along with other modules... sensor boosters, tracking enhancers, etc)... perhaps +5 (not percent) to sig radius.
A few other things need to be kept in mind also. One major detail regarding defender missiles is that they currently take a high slot which is either -
a. Very painful since it directly effects DPS.
b. Not painful at all since it is common to be left with high slots that have no hardpoints.
This does have a slight advantage of offering an interesting alternative to Nos... but for the most part it is far too incongruous with how tracking disruptors work. A mid-slot anti-turret device (tracking disruptor) compared to a high-slot anti-missile device (whatever manifestation defenders take) is a ridiculous comparison. All mid-slots are worth their weight in gold... while leftover high slots are trash... oftentimes being relegated to the position of having a small nos, neutralizer or cloak placed to fill the gap... or simply being left empty by some folks. Show me someone who runs around with an empty mid-slot.
My main concern is that an anti-missile module will be introduced before a counter to it is created. If tracking disruptors have their opposing tracking computers then the anti-missile modules will need an analog.
All life is sacred... until the client says otherwise. |
Stamm
|
Posted - 2006.07.11 22:12:00 -
[34]
How do people feel about adjusting tracking disruptors so that missiles explode at the wrong point, not encompasing the whole ship (effectively increasing explosion radius), and disrupting the targetting mechanism (decreasing the maximum flight time)?
Is it something desirable?
Perhaps missiles would need a little boost in damage, perhaps not. There's strong arguements either way.
But how do people feel about it, in principle?
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.07.11 22:17:00 -
[35]
Stamm, it's fine right now. They're brilliant versus turrets and don't affect missiles. They're different from other ECM. That's fine.
|
Mr Peanut
|
Posted - 2006.07.11 22:41:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Stamm
How do people feel about adjusting tracking disruptors so that missiles explode at the wrong point, not encompasing the whole ship (effectively increasing explosion radius), and disrupting the targetting mechanism (decreasing the maximum flight time)?
Is it something desirable?
Perhaps missiles would need a little boost in damage, perhaps not. There's strong arguements either way.
But how do people feel about it, in principle?
I want to go with the "buff tracking disruptors" idea because I am currently training for curse/pilgrim ( ), but I just thought of an idea of my own that I like better. This idea comes in two parts:
1. Buff defender missiles. I don't want CCP to drastically change how they work or anything, jsut make them a little bit better so people will actually use them in PvP.
2. Introduce a new drone family: the missile interceptor drone family. This assortment of one light, one medium, and one heavy drone, when deployed, will automatically attack oncoming missiles. The light drones will be the fastest, take up the least space, and deal the least ammount of damage. This makes them ideal for killing smaller, quicker missiles (like rockets and light missiles). The heavy drones will take up the most space, be the slowest, and deal the most damage. This will make them ideal for killing missiles that usually fly for a long ammount of time before hitting thier target like torps (because of thier slow flight time) and cruises (because of thier long range (of course cruises used at relatively close range would be very hard to kill with these drones)). Mid-sized drones will be inbetween the two, and ideal for destroying heavy missiles effectively. Of course, both light and heavy drones would be capable of killing heavy missiles, just not very effectively. These new drones would allow players to have some sort of a missile defense system without sacrificing a hi-slot.
There are two main problems that I see with these new drones:
1. AI. It may be difficult to make a successful AI for these drones that is responsive enough to work for the smaller missiles types. Maybe CCP could assign a drone to only go after missiles launched by a specific ship, making them slightly more responsive.
2. Balance. These drones should be carefully balanced with other drones, defender missiles, and missiles themselves. If implemented, poor balancing could result in them either being near useless or way overpowered, resulting in both missile users and pilots of ships that don't have drone bays to whine (of course the latter would be more satisfied by the proposed defender missile buff than had they been completely left in the dust).
Thoughs? Opinions? (Negative ones are accepted but please no "you're retarded for ever coming up with this"-type flames.)
|
Humpalot
|
Posted - 2006.07.11 23:23:00 -
[37]
Originally by: welsh wizard
Edited by: welsh wizard on 10/07/2006 17:57:02
With the exception of a couple of ships we're already the least damaging race.
If an effective missile counter measure module came out then I think any intentions of operating solo in a cheapish Caldari ship will finally die.
For the "least damaging" ships there sure are a helluva lot of them about. I would be interested in actual stats from CCP on this but if anecdotal evidence counts I see MANY more Caldari ships than any other race.
I think the OP is misleading in how it portrays the ability of turret users to increase their damage by getting into optimal range. That combined with what I quoted above sort of takes the issue both ways. Caldari *might* be the lowest damage race when compared to a perfect range, zero transversal shot from a leet turret setup. I think most people view DPS as the max possible and then nerf it down after resists and all that jazz get factored in and not view it as being able to work up into better damage.
Missiles are generally the most consistent damage dealers in EVE. While they may have a somewhat lower damage than an equivalent (for lack of a better word) turret you have all sorts of options to bork that turret from working well. Tracking disruptors, transversal velocity, get over or under the gun's ideal range, jam him (no FoF turrets). Missile users do not have to deal with any of that (and get every damage type for good measure).
Note I am not writing the above as a whine calling for a nerf but honestly missile users have it somewhat easy which is probably why they are among the most flown ships in EVE. Other good ideas have been thrown out so hopefully some good changes will come of it all that leave missile users as a viable and dangerous bunch while spicing up the options available to everyone.
|
Tovarishch
|
Posted - 2006.07.11 23:59:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Tovarishch on 12/07/2006 00:01:58
Originally by: Humpalot
For the "least damaging" ships there sure are a helluva lot of them about. I would be interested in actual stats from CCP on this but if anecdotal evidence counts I see MANY more Caldari ships than any other race.
This line of reasoning and anecdotal evidence is the cornerstone to why most uninformed forum readers believe that the Raven is some supership. Popularity does not immediately make a ship a terrific damage dealer. The Raven itself is popular because it's an easy ship to run missions in and can deal a decent amount of damage with fewer skills to train. It's that simple. Missiles themselves are popular among mission runners because of their easy of use and flexibility.
It is not a terribly well-known fact (but nonetheless true) that in the long run missiles have the lowest base DPS of all weapons. They make up for this with their flexible damage types and the fact that they do (in some regards) ignore some dynamics of combat. However, as I stated earlier in this thread... they pay a price for their easy-of-use. A pilot has no tactical option to increase the damage of their missiles.
Originally by: Humpalot
I think the OP is misleading in how it portrays the ability of turret users to increase their damage by getting into optimal range.
I never mentioned optimal range. I mentioned decreasing transversal velocity to increase DPS. There is nothing misleading about this at all. It is an important distinction and advantage that turret users enjoy... which is a reward (along with slightly better base DPS) for their being slightly more 'difficult' to use. Find me a pilot who uses turrets who does not keep a close eye on minimizing transversal velocity and you will have found me a moron.
Originally by: Humpalot
Missiles are generally the most consistent damage dealers in EVE. While they may have a somewhat lower damage than an equivalent (for lack of a better word) turret you have all sorts of options to bork that turret from working well. Tracking disruptors, transversal velocity, get over or under the gun's ideal range, jam him (no FoF turrets).
Turret users can employ both tracking enhancers and tracking computers to their advantage... both of which are counters to the tracking disruptors, transversal velocity and limited optimal range that you mentioned. Missile users have no module that is at all equivalent to specifically increasing missile damage.
Originally by: Humpalot
Missile users do not have to deal with any of that (and get every damage type for good measure).
We do indeed have to deal with the velocity of a target (along with sig radius... just as turret users do)... as well as the damage type we are delivering. And to add... when Caldari ships receive a damage bonus it is only to kinetic missiles. The advantage of getting to 'choose' our damage type is an illusion for the most part. As I stated earlier... introduce missiles that provide mixed varieties of damage (like turrets) and you will witness a communal cry of consternation from every single turret specialist in EVE. Mixed damage is as much a blessing as a disadvantage. When turrets receive damage bonuses they are receiving mixed damage bonuses. I'd welcome that ability with open arms.
All life is sacred... until the client says otherwise. |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.07.12 00:03:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Tovarishch
Missile users have no module that is at all equivalent to specifically increasing missile damage.
Webbifier, target painter.
|
Tovarishch
|
Posted - 2006.07.12 00:07:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Originally by: Tovarishch
Missile users have no module that is at all equivalent to specifically increasing missile damage.
Webbifier, target painter.
Both of those also increase turret damage. Please reread my statement that you quoted -
Originally by: Tovarishch
Missile users have no module that is at all equivalent to specifically increasing missile damage.
All life is sacred... until the client says otherwise. |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.07.12 00:09:00 -
[41]
Ah, I think the word you're looking for is "exclusively", not "specifically", in whuch case I understand. I don't agree, mind you, that action needs to be taken on missiles either way at this time.
|
Tovarishch
|
Posted - 2006.07.12 00:14:00 -
[42]
I understand and respect that you do not agree... and I'm sure others would agree with you.
As for my choice of words... I used 'specifically' for a specific reason (pun intended). I would never have used 'exclusively' in its place.
Mincing words is one of my favorite pastimes... and I'm more than skilled enough at it to realize precisely what I am trying to say.
Thanks for the concern though!
All life is sacred... until the client says otherwise. |
Humpalot
|
Posted - 2006.07.12 01:12:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Humpalot on 12/07/2006 01:12:59
Originally by: Tovarishch
This line of reasoning and anecdotal evidence is the cornerstone to why most uninformed forum readers believe that the Raven is some supership. Popularity does not immediately make a ship a terrific damage dealer. The Raven itself is popular because it's an easy ship to run missions in and can deal a decent amount of damage with fewer skills to train. It's that simple. Missiles themselves are popular among mission runners because of their easy of use and flexibility.
I have played enough MMOs to know that there is generally a rush to whatever is perceived as the most powerful (whatever) in the game. EVE thankfully has enough balance and options that other ships are not ignored but the Raven would not be as popular as it is if it stunk. Add to that the Scorp in PvP (and Raven) and Ferox and Caracal and Crow and Merlin as all hugely popular ships. They would not enjoy that status if there were clearly better choices as you imply.
Quote:
I never mentioned optimal range. I mentioned decreasing transversal velocity to increase DPS. There is nothing misleading about this at all. It is an important distinction and advantage that turret users enjoy... which is a reward (along with slightly better base DPS) for their being slightly more 'difficult' to use. Find me a pilot who uses turrets who does not do their best to safely minimize transversal velocity and you will have found me a moron.
Again I think this is backwards. I have never seen anyone view their turret damage as (say) 100 DPS but with a possible "reward" to damage if they get transversal in their favor. Most see it as (say) 300 possible DPS that gets screwed up by transversal.
And I know you did not mention optimal but that is not a fair omission. It is a *huge* deal that a missile user can (potentially) sit outside of the range of guns or sit right next to the ship "under" their guns and hit them for the same damage while the turret user goes to zero damage. Now add back in your transversal equation which also can bring the effective turret damage down. This is one reason why Crows are hugely successful interceptors because they can exploit both with ease against most ships.
Quote:
Turret users can employ both tracking enhancers and tracking computers to their advantage... both of which are counters to the tracking disruptors, transversal velocity and limited optimal range that you mentioned. Missile users have no module that is at all equivalent to specifically increasing missile damage.
Right...which is what we are on about here. You may not be able to increase damage (don't BCU's increase effective damage by increasing ROF?) but then neither can someone screw with your tracking or otherwise mitigate your damage (aside from defenders and SBs but no one thinks those work).
Quote:
And to add... when Caldari ships receive a damage bonus it is only to kinetic missiles. The advantage of getting to 'choose' our damage type is an illusion for the most part. As I stated earlier... introduce missiles that provide mixed varieties of damage (like turrets) and you will witness a communal cry of consternation from every single turret specialist in EVE. Mixed damage is as much a blessing as a disadvantage. When turrets receive damage bonuses they are receiving mixed damage bonuses. As a missile specialist... I'd welcome that ability with open arms.
Hmm....well I use lasers a lot so I find it hard to listen to someone that can choose any damage type versus laser's EM and Therm only. Further, why can't a missile user effectively get "mixed" damage types by simply loading different missiles into their launchers? How would a 100% Exp missile in one launcher and a 100% Therm missile in a second launcher differ from 2x 50% Exp/50% Therm missiles (as an example...dunno myself, really asking)?
|
AcheLone
|
Posted - 2006.07.12 02:35:00 -
[44]
Leave My Raven alone..... go elsewhere like NERF Minmatar or somewhere else
------------------------------------------------
Why ppl look down at my raven. Its cool to have mining laser fitted. |
Double TaP
|
Posted - 2006.07.12 02:45:00 -
[45]
I honestly dont see too much of an imbalance how it is right now. If you've really pvp'd youll know that unless a bunch of missile ships are ganged up, most 1on1 fights are going to go to the person with the guns if they have the same intelligence level. Most missile ships dont get to dictate what range theyre at, because they are caldari and they are slow. Sure there are exceptions like crow, okay, but take a raven vs a mega. A skilled mega pilot WILL beat a similar skilled raven pilot. Because the mega moves around faster, and can get to exactly the range it wants to be at using blasters. If its sniping, well first of all its going to get instant damage, and is why it can actually kill people this way, and its not going to get caught by anyone. So whats the problem again? You dont have defenders to gimp Caldari missile dps even though its low enough as is?
|
Humpalot
|
Posted - 2006.07.12 03:41:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Double TaP
A skilled mega pilot WILL beat a similar skilled raven pilot. Because the mega moves around faster, and can get to exactly the range it wants to be at using blasters.
Raven + EW loses to the Mega?
|
Malthros Zenobia
|
Posted - 2006.07.12 04:21:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Malthros Zenobia on 12/07/2006 04:23:37
Originally by: Prestis
Originally by: Cade Morrigan
Make sure y'all advocate an overall increase in missile dps if you're going to be adding modules that reduce their dps. Thanks!
Where does this stupid myth come from?
A Raven with Rage torps and target painters is the highest possible DPS battleship in the game, just overtaking a Blasterthon and having approx. fifty times the range.
And all it costs you is the ability to fit a tank, and loss of cap regen, and Rage torps do full damage to ships moving even 200m/s?
|
Humpalot
|
Posted - 2006.07.12 04:46:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Double TaP
A skilled mega pilot WILL beat a similar skilled raven pilot. Because the mega moves around faster, and can get to exactly the range it wants to be at using blasters.
Actually found my video of the Caldari Championships where a Navy Issue Mega and Navy Issue Raven go at it. Raven lasted longer (not a lot but a bit). Granted this was not 1v1 but only example I could find.
|
Tovarishch
|
Posted - 2006.07.12 05:36:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Tovarishch on 12/07/2006 05:37:11
Originally by: Humpalot
I have played enough MMOs to know that there is generally a rush to whatever is perceived as the most powerful (whatever) in the game. EVE thankfully has enough balance and options that other ships are not ignored but the Raven would not be as popular as it is if it stunk. Add to that the Scorp in PvP (and Raven) and Ferox and Caracal and Crow and Merlin as all hugely popular ships. They would not enjoy that status if there were clearly better choices as you imply.
I do not doubt your experience with other MMOs. I have no reaon to question your veracity. However, I am sure you are well aware that there are many reasons that players will 'rush' to a ship or setup. I will once again state the fact that the Raven is popular almost exclusively among mission runners and NPCers. Ravens do well in small gangs and solo... but both of those scenarios are rare in the grand scheme of PVP in this game. The Raven is a joke in fleets.
Regardless, this Raven fetish that you and others have displayed is misguided. The popularity of one ship (or a small group of them) is not evidence of misbalance. I will restate it (once again) ū missiles are popular due to their ease-of-use when ratting.
Originally by: Humpalot
And I know you did not mention optimal but that is not a fair omission. It is a *huge* deal that a missile user can (potentially) sit outside of the range of guns or sit right next to the ship "under" their guns and hit them for the same damage while the turret user goes to zero damage. Now add back in your transversal equation which also can bring the effective turret damage down. This is one reason why Crows are hugely successful interceptors because they can exploit both with ease against most ships.
/deep breath
If you think that missile flight time is of no consequenceą or that sitting at 100k, 50k or some other silly distance from a target and firing missiles is effective in PVPą think again. There is a very sound reason that Ravens are not flown in fleet battles. I would MUCH prefer to deal with a small penalty such as optimal range versus missile flight time. Using the CrowĘs effectiveness with rockets at 10k and under as an example does not dismiss the massive disadvantage of missile flight time.
Originally by: Humpalot
Right...which is what we are on about here. You may not be able to increase damage (don't BCU's increase effective damage by increasing ROF?) but then neither can someone screw with your tracking or otherwise mitigate your damage (aside from defenders and SBs but no one thinks those work).
Once againą turrets and missiles both have damage mods. Turrets have both tracking enhancers and tracking computersą but they can be tracking disrupted. Zero sum there as well. Missiles have no equivalent module to augment damage akin to a tracking enhancer/computerą but there is poor to mediocre defense against them (SBs and defenders). My proposal is to fix defenders and introduce the equivalent of the tracking enhancer and disruptor for missiles to balance out this discrepancy.
Originally by: Humpalot
Hmm....well I use lasers a lot so I find it hard to listen to someone that can choose any damage type versus laser's EM and Therm only. Further, why can't a missile user effectively get "mixed" damage types by simply loading different missiles into their launchers? How would a 100% Exp missile in one launcher and a 100% Therm missile in a second launcher differ from 2x 50% Exp/50% Therm missiles (as an example...dunno myself, really asking)?
In response to lasers doing ęEM and Therm onlyĘą please go back and read what I wrote regarding kinetic missile damage bonuses versus turrets receiving mixed damage bonuses.
(cont.)
All life is sacred... until the client says otherwise. |
Tovarishch
|
Posted - 2006.07.12 05:36:00 -
[50]
As for loading different missile types to overcome this shortcomingą I will once again restate that when damage bonuses are given to Caldari they are for kinetic damage only. Firing other missile types can be advantageous at times (even in light of there being no damage bonus applied to those missiles)ą but it is as much a gamble as doing ęEM and ThermĘ only. When lasers (for example) get a damage bonusą that damage is applied across two damage typesą not one. Hopefully I wonĘt have to do the math there to explain to you the obvious advantage.
Regardless, this discussion (as interesting as it has become) is way off topic. I would like to stick to ideas regarding missile defense and revamping the Defender missile system.
Humpalotą if you want to chat more about missilesą drop me a line in game. IĘm just trying to avoid derailing this thread.
All life is sacred... until the client says otherwise. |
Hugh Ruka
|
Posted - 2006.07.12 10:45:00 -
[51]
Missile defense is lacking in this game for sure. Defenders are a rather sad excuse. The only time they work is long range, but nobody uses missiles at long range normaly.
For the suggested solutions, I like the phalanx cannon idea. However the module should be a generic type (not turret or launcher), take up a highslot and have low fiting so frigs can fit it. No ammo use either, just capacitor use (like a laser). Should be targeted just like tracking disruptors and work on a % chance to hit incomming missiles with some HP. generaly it should one shot up rockets and lights, 2 shot heavies, 3 shot cruise and torp. Rof and % to hit chance and range increased by suitable skills (either new or existing like gunnery).
Second is a point defense drone. This should come only in large size (25m3 or maybe medium with reduced effectivity) works as a sentry drone (has to be deployed and static), however protects a designated ship (not the drone owner) from incomming missiles. Stats same as the phalanx canon. Again some skills needed.
No numbers given, because honestly I have no clue about them, just about the general idea. Maybe a skill or module that increases effective missile HP could be introduced to compensate.
------------------------------
if you want peace, prepare for war ...
------------------------------
Removed due to offensive content - Laqum
I realy liked my signature. Oh well |
Tovarishch
|
Posted - 2006.07.12 22:44:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
For the suggested solutions, I like the phalanx cannon idea. However the module should be a generic type (not turret or launcher), take up a highslot and have low fiting so frigs can fit it. No ammo use either, just capacitor use (like a laser). Should be targeted just like tracking disruptors and work on a % chance to hit incomming missiles with some HP. generaly it should one shot up rockets and lights, 2 shot heavies, 3 shot cruise and torp. Rof and % to hit chance and range increased by suitable skills (either new or existing like gunnery).
Second is a point defense drone. This should come only in large size (25m3 or maybe medium with reduced effectivity) works as a sentry drone (has to be deployed and static), however protects a designated ship (not the drone owner) from incomming missiles. Stats same as the phalanx canon. Again some skills needed.
Genrally speaking I like the idea of a module that requires no ammo (along with some skills) as missile defense. I disagree that it should be a high-slot module... as tracking disuptors are mid-slot modules... and mid slots are very, very valuable. This difference would lead to a fairly large balance issue... because defending oneself against turrets would require the investment of a very valuable mid-slot... in contrast to throwing a missile defense module into a high-slot where no hardpoint is available. (Surplus high-slots with no hardpoints are almost useless compared to a valuable mid-slot).
That would equate to -
Turret defense (tracking disruptor) = valuable mid-slot
Missile defense (anti-missile module) = low value, hardpoint free high-slot
The opposite would also be as ridiculous. If an anti-missile module required a hardpoint no one in their right mind would ever use one.
All life is sacred... until the client says otherwise. |
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2006.07.12 22:47:00 -
[53]
Perhaps it's time to balance mid slot and low slot modules as well, because always proposing to fit powerful modules in mids because they are scarce, and keeping them scarce because mid slot mods are powerful, is a self-reinforcing unbalancing process. As an evidence, look at how shield tanking is less and less a viable fitting option.
NB.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.07.12 22:57:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
For the suggested solutions, I like the phalanx cannon idea. However the module should be a generic type (not turret or launcher), take up a highslot and have low fiting so frigs can fit it.
So why not just remove a highslot off eaach ship and reduce missile damage if you're going to make it basically mandatory.
|
Tsanse Kinske
|
Posted - 2006.07.12 23:36:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Tovarishch
Turret defense (tracking disruptor) = valuable mid-slot
Missile defense (anti-missile module) = low value, hardpoint free high-slot.
Great point. Possible step to a solution: Make Target Painters high slot modules? They help missiles far more than turrets, so that could be a very tidy counter to an effective Defender unit.
Seems to fit well enough from the pseudotechnical / RP standpoint. And Minnie ships tend to have a fair number of highs. And of course TPs might get used a bit more if they're not taking up a valuable mid.
* * *
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Cade Morrigan
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 01:02:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Prestis
Originally by: Cade Morrigan
Make sure y'all advocate an overall increase in missile dps if you're going to be adding modules that reduce their dps. Thanks!
Where does this stupid myth come from?
A Raven with Rage torps and target painters is the highest possible DPS battleship in the game, just overtaking a Blasterthon and having approx. fifty times the range.
What is stupid is the desire to nerf every ******* missile type when the only imbalance that ever gets held up as an example is the RAVEN with TORPS. -IF- there truly is a problem with Raven+Torps, fix that problem, don't nerf every other missile setup. That, my kneejerking friend, is the point.
-= Save the Gila! Fix its grid and cpu! =-
|
Slash Harnet
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 01:10:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Lisento Slaven
I would prefer to see a flak/defender missile system that actually works as I think the idea and how it looks/"should look" would be awesome.
But if the defender missile situation can't be fixed and the flak idea can't be implemented I guess I could settle for something like that.
I'm just used to watching BSG and seeing them put up a huge web of cannon fire to destroy incoming torpedos...it looks awesome =(
Sounds good to me. Defenders for small ships, Flak for large ones.
|
Tovarishch
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 04:34:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Naughty Boy
Perhaps it's time to balance mid slot and low slot modules as well, because always proposing to fit powerful modules in mids because they are scarce, and keeping them scarce because mid slot mods are powerful, is a self-reinforcing unbalancing process. As an evidence, look at how shield tanking is less and less a viable fitting option.
NB.
I've felt this way for a while. However, it is a very complex issue of balance.
The easiest way for it to be resolved is simply to provide more compelling choices for low-slot modules... therefore making the decision of what to fit in a low-slot more difficult. As it stands now there are myriad options for mid-slots... compared to the relatively standard handful of options for lows. Tweaking Damage Controls was certainly a beginning... as they are very useful mods now. But there is a ways to go before choosing low-slot mods is as painful as mid-slot mods.
All life is sacred... until the client says otherwise. |
tiller
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 05:02:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Stamm
Originally by: Nebuli
Made a long post, and the forum ate it, this forum is getting annoying....
To cut it short as I didnt copy it before hitting enter...
Make tracking disruptors effect missiles in some way, maybe a reduced ROF, made this suggestion ages ago and met with alot of flames but also alot of people agreeing (actualy most disagreeing were mainly the same couple of people).
As it stands Amarr has the only EW system that doesnt effect every ship it will encounter, painting, ECM and Damps effect all ships, tracking disruptors effects only turret ships, make it a weapon disruptor imo.
As an Amarr I'd very much like this... perhaps it could affect the explosion velocity etc of the missile, but it does seem very powerful...
Yes thats great. I want a module that coats my raven in mirrors to reflect lasers as well please...
Click me for Pirate Coalition Website of Gankage |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.07.14 00:48:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Cade Morrigan
What is stupid is the desire to nerf every ******* missile type when the only imbalance that ever gets held up as an example is the RAVEN with TORPS. -IF- there truly is a problem with Raven+Torps, fix that problem, don't nerf every other missile setup. That, my kneejerking friend, is the point.
Have a cookie. You're right.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |