Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arthur Aihaken
Halas Hooligans
3778
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 19:35:00 -
[31] - Quote
I adjusted missile velocity to have a higher flight time penalty, with the net end result that range drops slightly. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Icarus Able
Revenant Tactical
469
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 19:53:00 -
[32] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:elitatwo wrote:How about CCP ditches two attributes from all missiles and call it a day? I'd like to ditch tracking and signature radius from guns while we're at it just to balance them out. I guess you would think that would make the two even as a newborn but it is not as easy as that. Maybe I should just repeat myself, just for your consideration! When I first entered New Eden almost eight (8) years ago, no missile had the two "tracking" attributes I am talking as long as it will take them to make them go away about. So you can take my word for it that I already know, how different that is, not hypothetically, no for real because I was there. Three months after my tutorial someone with an 'X' in his name thought it would be a good idea to add those two attributes. A very, very long thread in the forums responded that is wasn't and guess what? It wasn't. For about 6 years nobody was taking missiles into serious consideration when it came to pvp until someone made a video with a Drake in it. Before Empyrean Age missiles used to be a very serious thread to come across and noone would have made any kind of joke about a Raven busting a gatecamp. People just bailed in fear of ever getting cought by one. I really do not get why it is difficult for you more simple folks to comprehend that taking away that missile tracking nonesense is going to make missiles overpowered all of a sudden? It won't. Missiles would just become competitive. See, missiles are that weapon system you could compare to artillery turrets with the tiny difference that missiles would do damage at the end of the cycle instead at the beginning of the cycle, so your 60% of an arty tornado alpha would have to wait a little to do damage, if at all. You whinematar only want your sooper-dooper alpha turret for yourself but guess what, we Caldari volley you out of existence. Do you see the irony here? For a whinematar, 11000 hp alpha is all goody and everything is fine but a Caldari hull with 5000 delayed alpha, it's totally overpowerded, EVE is dying, goofswarm disbanding, all nullsec conquered by Caldari faction warfare and no stopping the Caldari because you are bad at dragging the right modules for the job on your fitting screen. Well, I can and will not help you with that. I will stand by opinion that missiles tracking was a bad idea and it needs to go.
Artillery have terrible tracking. Your argument is invalid. No missile tracking would mean Ravens killing cruisers and frigates in seconds.
You must either be a huge missile fanboy or just plain dumb
|
elitatwo
Congregatio
284
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 00:52:00 -
[33] - Quote
Icarus Able wrote:
Artillery have terrible tracking. Your argument is invalid. No missile tracking would mean Ravens killing cruisers and frigates in seconds.
So a tornado or machariel shooting ships with one shot is okay and a Raven shooting a tad harder than she does now is bad?
And what haz artillery turret tracking anything to do with missiles?? signature |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
352
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 05:49:00 -
[34] - Quote
Missile formula discussions have been done to death. If you don't understand why they're bad in their current implementation then you're a bonafide idiot. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015 T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346 LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
7
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 16:38:00 -
[35] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Missile formula discussions have been done to death. If you don't understand why they're bad in their current implementation then you're a bonafide idiot.
First off I resent your comment about me being an idiot. I use missiles and I use guns and I have no clue what you are talking about. Instead of calling people idiots because they do not share your opinion or do not understand your thoughts why not present your case in a calm and rational way. You know by supporting it with something that resembles facts, or maybe even a discussion based on the math formula that CCP uses to calculate damage applied to targets.
So missiles/rockets do not carry the fire power to Alpha strike like artillery does so what? If you want that high alpha strike then fly an artillery boat. Missiles/rockets on the other hand can easily destroy targets that artillery cannot even hit because of tracking penalties. Different tools that should be used in different situations.
All turret based weapons in the game have a chance to miss the intended target and this is how it should be. However if they hit the game generally applies the full damage to the target, this is why artillery has such a high alpha strike potential. That higher power level is balanced by a lower fire rate and a lower chance to hit. But when they do hit look out destruction ensues.
On the other hand most missiles/rockets in the game are guaranteed to hit the target dead center so they are balanced by lower overall damage, a bunch of fancy math that determines how much damage is applied to the target and the chance that some of them will be destroyed by defender missiles before reaching the target. Well defender missiles are an issue for missions. sites and complexes they may not be for PvP.
Different characteristics, different uses. No one uses a chain saw to cut bread or a bread knife to cut trees. I guess I am just weird, crazy or stupid because I value the weapons options that game offers and choose the one that is best for the task at hand. |
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
373
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 18:08:00 -
[36] - Quote
I like the idea and thought behind it.
+1 Are you sure your issues aren't elsewhere ?! |
elitatwo
Congregatio
285
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 19:41:00 -
[37] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote: First off I resent your comment about me being an idiot. I use missiles and I use guns and I have no clue what you are talking about. -snip-
This is offtopic on purpose but important to this case.
Let me start with a little background from my highschool days.
We had one language teacher that was a littler older than his collegues and due to his long years of experience and education he tought us well in the history of languages.
The word 'idiot' comes from a very, very old greek word that sounds similar and with time 'morphed' to the word 'idiot' which we all know today. Now the fact is that back in Greece around 3000 years ago that word meant 'someone who doesn't know' or 'someone who does not have a clue'.
Nowdays that is taken as an insult but really it is just an observation as you can see. It is not even meant as an insult but people that do not know a lot might take it as such.
Now back to topic after my free of charge education for you, you seem to contradict yourself.
And in response to the poeple that are trying to be cute, you really are not cute at all.
Again, when I joined New Eden no missile had an explosion radius or explosion velocity attribute and they were not really dominant that much in pvp except for small scale skirmishes.
You can argue whatever you want with your turrets being blabla balanced and whatnot, what you all seem to forget are recent changes to all of the turrets doing way more damage than they did back in 2006.
No missile recieved any kind of a damage buff, except for cruise missiles and despite the feeling of some noobs that get hurt in the process, I hate to brake it to you but I have what is called 'perfect recall memory' and I know exactly what I am talking about, wether you like it or not.
I do not have to proove any of my claimes and I do not have to make any spreadsheets because the data is already there.
Ask CCP 'X-plosion radius' what he has to say. signature |
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
27
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 19:55:00 -
[38] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:I do not have to proove any of my claimes Why do people have this attitude, when they're posting an idea for the developers to consider changing or adding to the game? "I don't have to prove why this is necessary, the developers should just do it now."
Anyway, explosion velocity and explosion radius will never be removed. Without those, a torpedo Raven will 100% of the time volley a frigate and there's nothing the frigate could ever do about it. If your response is "it's more expensive so it should be beat less expensive things," go back to WoW because Eve is about using ships to their advantages, not grabbing a ship that's perfect for every situation.
Edit: Oh, and while we're at it, Citadel Torpedos with perfect application against cruisers and battleships. I can totally see why you want explosion velocity and explosion radius removed from the game. |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
925
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 20:10:00 -
[39] - Quote
Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:elitatwo wrote:I do not have to proove any of my claimes Why do people have this attitude, when they're posting an idea for the developers to consider changing or adding to the game? "I don't have to prove why this is necessary, the developers should just do it now." Anyway, explosion velocity and explosion radius will never be removed. Without those, a torpedo Raven will 100% of the time volley a frigate and there's nothing the frigate could ever do about it. If your response is "it's more expensive so it should be beat less expensive things," go back to WoW because Eve is about using ships to their advantages, not grabbing a ship that's perfect for every situation. Edit: Oh, and while we're at it, Citadel Torpedos with perfect application against cruisers and battleships. I can totally see why you want explosion velocity and explosion radius removed from the game. This is the Phoenix *no devmagic for a pic* It kills things You will be fighting a Pandemic Legion pocket group of 80 that have slipped behind via a traitor cyno Remember to have an updated clone gents -End of briefing- |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
889
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 20:19:00 -
[40] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Donnachadh wrote: First off I resent your comment about me being an idiot. I use missiles and I use guns and I have no clue what you are talking about. -snip-
This is offtopic on purpose but important to this case. Let me start with a little background from my highschool days. We had one language teacher that was a littler older than his collegues and due to his long years of experience and education he tought us well in the history of languages. The word 'idiot' comes from a very, very old greek word that sounds similar and with time 'morphed' to the word 'idiot' which we all know today. Now the fact is that back in Greece around 3000 years ago that word meant 'someone who doesn't know' or 'someone who does not have a clue'. Nowdays that is taken as an insult but really it is just an observation as you can see. It is not even meant as an insult but people that do not know a lot might take it as such. Now back to topic after my free of charge education for you, you seem to contradict yourself. And in response to the poeple that are trying to be cute, you really are not cute at all. Again, when I joined New Eden no missile had an explosion radius or explosion velocity attribute and they were not really dominant that much in pvp except for small scale skirmishes. You can argue whatever you want with your turrets being blabla balanced and whatnot, what you all seem to forget are recent changes to all of the turrets doing way more damage than they did back in 2006. No missile recieved any kind of a damage buff, except for cruise missiles and despite the feeling of some noobs that get hurt in the process, I hate to brake it to you but I have what is called 'perfect recall memory' and I know exactly what I am talking about, wether you like it or not. I do not have to proove any of my claimes and I do not have to make any spreadsheets because the data is already there. Ask CCP 'X-plosion radius' what he has to say.
funny you say that .. because rockets, light missiles and HAMS all got damage buffs in the last missile rebalance (when they nerfed heavies).. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
|
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
28
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 20:45:00 -
[41] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:funny you say that .. because rockets, light missiles and HAMS all got damage buffs in the last missile rebalance (when they nerfed heavies).. I think we were supposed to leave that part out. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
285
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 22:12:00 -
[42] - Quote
Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:Why do people have this attitude, when they're posting an idea for the developers to consider changing or adding to the game? "I don't have to prove why this is necessary, the developers should just do it now."
Funny you ask me this.
Answer is:
I am here for eight years. Seven years ago they added those two attributes for ? reasons? BOB said so? And the Band of Developers agreed?
Reason unknown to this day.
Proove unnecessary!
And yes, you should have been here and tried one of the Gurista Mazes, where you will be shot at with zero 'tracking' citadel torpedos.
Why do you think that no NPC in EVE has missiles that haz no 'tracking'? Where do you think that comes from?
And Harvey,
you mean that tiny 'tracking' adjustment so those could hit something that wasn't a moon and that 1% damage addition to rockets?? signature |
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
28
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 22:21:00 -
[43] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Reason unknown to this day.
Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:Without those, a torpedo Raven will 100% of the time volley a frigate and there's nothing the frigate could ever do about it.
If they get removed then I want tracking speed taken out as well, so my Abaddon and Revelation won't have any trouble tracking those pesky sig-tanking interceptors. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
477
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 23:43:00 -
[44] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote: So missiles/rockets do not carry the fire power to Alpha strike like artillery does so what? If you want that high alpha strike then fly an artillery boat. Missiles/rockets on the other hand can easily destroy targets that artillery cannot even hit because of tracking penalties. Different tools that should be used in different situations.
The issue is missile meta is harder to push because of this. Some want their primary weapons system they put time into to be you know....more useful.
Missile stats being looked are what make them less loved outside of pve or some niche pvp.
Its not like there is a precedence here. Drone doctrine says hi, thank for fixing most of the things broken with us to have drone boats (beyond carriers) to be loved again. Some balance issues remain granted....but they no longer a secondary weapon system brought for coloring to the drink as it were.
Before drones it was hybrid rebalance. You see the learn other weapons arguments was used before here to. And showed to be lacking. I still have projectile and laser rokh fits in some data files somewhere. Before rebalance....they were legit outside of official ops where it was force fed "fleet fit" rules in place. Trade in my range bonus of the weapon spec'd for the ship, get other bene's for it (cap less projectiles or better damage type selection with lasers). Not sure if you have been here before....it tends to create a sense of man this is just a bit messed up.
Also worth noting the target that don't die in arty strikes can weather missiles as well. the speed they have to fake out tracking of arty also reduces missile damage. Can also throw in firewalls. And factor in missile speed and delayed hit...the damage that actually reaches them has varying chances to repped up.
I recall a match Saturday before break where the commentators were wondering why a NH was not being killed outright. It was iirc the only real souce of dps (paper anyway) left on the field for the other team. HML fit too, so ranged dps to boot. then they guessed it was because its damage was easily locally repped so the the winning team opted fo pop frigs and such instead and leave the NH for last on the clean up list. If you watched the damage bars....good assumption. Nothing on the other side was having damage bars get hit bad.
Pretty sad sign when link + long ranged dps has you last on the list still. then we look at say sieiprnir comps....usually you want the sleipnirs dead ASAP.
Worth noting logi on both sides dead at this point....whatever the NH was hitting was not going omfg, help help I am dying and local reps not holding. |
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
28
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 00:56:00 -
[45] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:I recall a match Saturday before break where the commentators were wondering why a NH was not being killed outright. It was iirc the only real souce of dps (paper anyway) left on the field for the other team. HML fit too, so ranged dps to boot By NH I assume you mean Nighthawk.
He traded raw DPS for the ability to hit at longer range and apply damage better to smaller/faster targets. A beam-fit Absolution or a rail-fit Vulture would be easily locally-tanked as well (with worse damage application). Your comparison is off because you're comparing short-range (point-blank!) autocannons on a ship that gets a total of 100% damage bonus, and long-range HMLs on a ship that gets a single damage bonus to what many regard is the most easily-resisted damage type.
If the Nighthawk could apply a Sleipnir's DPS at the 60km its heavy missiles could reach with the missiles' incredible damage application, something would be very wrong. |
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
interstellar initiative Incorporated
240
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 01:07:00 -
[46] - Quote
Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:Zan Shiro wrote:I recall a match Saturday before break where the commentators were wondering why a NH was not being killed outright. It was iirc the only real souce of dps (paper anyway) left on the field for the other team. HML fit too, so ranged dps to boot By NH I assume you mean Nighthawk. He traded raw DPS for the ability to hit at longer range and apply damage better to smaller/faster targets. A beam-fit Absolution or a rail-fit Vultures would be easily locally-tanked as well. Your comparison is off because you're comparing short-range (point-blank!) autocannons on a ship that gets a total of 100% damage bonus, and long-range HMLs on a ship that gets a single damage bonus to what many regard is the most easily-resisted damage type. If the Nighthawk could apply a Sleipnir's DPS at the 60km its heavy missiles could reach with the missiles' incredible damage application, something would be very wrong. While your assessment is not wrong, I think you are missing what he was trying to point out. I assume he was drawing attention to the fact that the damage dealt by the Nighthawk wasn't sufficient to even make a local tank sweat, which seems lacking when considering that the damage was coming from a T2 platform. A HML Nighthawk shouldn't be sweeping the field alone, but neither should it be such a non-threat that the opposing team feels secure in taking their time clearing the support frigates until they decide to take out the Nighthawk at their leisure. The issue of Caldari platforms having bonuses to what you call "the most easily easily-resisted damage type" is a separate, albeit related, issue that I hope will be looked at in the near-future. *Just my impression of someone else's post, not putting words in their mouth |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
478
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 02:06:00 -
[47] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Just my impression of someone else's post, not putting words in their mouth
You would be correct. If it had real applicable dps it be higher priority target in the off chance crap happens to give the losing side an unexpected opening. A few key boundary violations, magic can happen. This case was just written off for the NH.
Not asking for uber NH's of doom....just be nice if they in some cases were a target to be just a little bit feared. Not discounting frigs...they have done some amazing things like the uber hero tanking burst (think that was Saturday too?, took 26000ish damage over time before it finally fell). Its just in my mind would have been better if there was a reason to have the NH dropped right not right now.
TBH in this and many other threads I have offered a very fair caveat. Make missiles hit better....and I'd if the terms were agreeable accept the caveat they can miss. I do all weapons. With guns, imo, I make out better at the end of it all when I tally up the missed shots with the shots that connect hard. It be why after gun conversion...I liked them more. If we and and ccp could have this tally reflected missile side worked out....I'd be happy to get them more viable. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
296
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 08:58:00 -
[48] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:Zan Shiro wrote:I recall a match Saturday before break where the commentators were wondering why a NH was not being killed outright. It was iirc the only real souce of dps (paper anyway) left on the field for the other team. HML fit too, so ranged dps to boot By NH I assume you mean Nighthawk. He traded raw DPS for the ability to hit at longer range and apply damage better to smaller/faster targets. A beam-fit Absolution or a rail-fit Vultures would be easily locally-tanked as well. Your comparison is off because you're comparing short-range (point-blank!) autocannons on a ship that gets a total of 100% damage bonus, and long-range HMLs on a ship that gets a single damage bonus to what many regard is the most easily-resisted damage type. If the Nighthawk could apply a Sleipnir's DPS at the 60km its heavy missiles could reach with the missiles' incredible damage application, something would be very wrong. While your assessment is not wrong, I think you are missing what he was trying to point out. I assume he was drawing attention to the fact that the damage dealt by the Nighthawk wasn't sufficient to even make a local tank sweat, which seems lacking when considering that the damage was coming from a T2 platform. A HML Nighthawk shouldn't be sweeping the field alone, but neither should it be such a non-threat that the opposing team feels secure in taking their time clearing the support frigates until they decide to take out the Nighthawk at their leisure. The issue of Caldari platforms having bonuses to what you call "the most easily easily-resisted damage type" is a separate, albeit related, issue that I hope will be looked at in the near-future. *Just my impression of someone else's post, not putting words in their mouth
That is because heavy missiles are hilariously bad. They are out damaged at most useful ranges by just about everything.
Hell a mwd shield tanked cruiser doesn't even take full damage and it's not like the damage is stellar to begin with.
I did some comparisons between rails and HML and the rails utterly dunk them - at MAX transversal! |
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
769
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 09:28:00 -
[49] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:It is long overdue for a Ballistic Enhancer for missiles. Even drones now have low-slot enhancements, yet missile ships are continually relegated to utilizing rigs for improving missile ballistic damage application. I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but just in case it hasn't...
Drones deserve damage application enhancing modules because drones can be destroyed Turrets deserve damage application enhancing modules because turrets can be tracking disrupted Missiles deserve damage application enhancing modules because... ???
Please finish the sentence. Targeting, Sensors and ECM Overhaul |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 09:38:00 -
[50] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:It is long overdue for a Ballistic Enhancer for missiles. Even drones now have low-slot enhancements, yet missile ships are continually relegated to utilizing rigs for improving missile ballistic damage application. I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but just in case it hasn't... Drones deserve damage application enhancing modules because drones can be destroyed Turrets deserve damage application enhancing modules because turrets can be tracking disrupted Missiles deserve damage application enhancing modules because... ??? Please finish the sentence.
... they can't apply damage to a target sitting 0m away going 0ms even without E-war
and why not add an E-war mod to counter the proposed mod |
|
Distuth Brinalle
Wraith.Wing
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 09:40:00 -
[51] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:It is long overdue for a Ballistic Enhancer for missiles. Even drones now have low-slot enhancements, yet missile ships are continually relegated to utilizing rigs for improving missile ballistic damage application. I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but just in case it hasn't... Drones deserve damage application enhancing modules because drones can be destroyed Turrets deserve damage application enhancing modules because turrets can be tracking disrupted Missiles deserve damage application enhancing modules because... ??? Please finish the sentence.
Because Missiles can be speed tanked at a higher effectiveness than either turrets or drones. Even ships that aren't built for speed tanking do a pretty good job of it. I'd say they deserve it more than turrets because not everyone packs tracking disruption, whereas everyone packs an engine.
Also because **** you, missiles are cool. You get to make "whoosh" noises with your mouth when they leave the launcher.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 09:41:00 -
[52] - Quote
Distuth Brinalle wrote:
Because Missiles can be speed tanked at a higher effectiveness than either turrets or drones. Even ships that aren't built for speed tanking do a pretty good job of it. I'd say they deserve it more than turrets because not everyone packs tracking disruption, whereas everyone packs an engine.
Also because **** you, missiles are cool. You get to make "whoosh" noises with your mouth when they leave the launcher.
lol they can be speed tanked by a ship holding still |
elitatwo
Congregatio
285
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 10:26:00 -
[53] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:It is long overdue for a Ballistic Enhancer for missiles. Even drones now have low-slot enhancements, yet missile ships are continually relegated to utilizing rigs for improving missile ballistic damage application. I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but just in case it hasn't... Drones deserve damage application enhancing modules because drones can be destroyed Turrets deserve damage application enhancing modules because turrets can be tracking disrupted Missiles deserve damage application enhancing modules because... ??? Please finish the sentence.
And the answer here is, that was what those defender missles were for, you know back in 2003 - 2006 where missile were considered strong.
The second weapon system that can be shot down if you wish.
For those who might be guessing it wrong, I also use turrets, so my observations of those will have merit too.
But I am Caldari at heart, I was born Caldari and I will always be Caldari. signature |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
296
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 10:29:00 -
[54] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:Missiles deserve damage application enhancing modules because... ??? Please finish the sentence.
Because I can't hit a cruiser with a 1157m signature with a heavy missile (exp radius 105m) unless it is going under 700 m/s for full damage?
And if that same cruiser moves at it's max speed (2117) I'm down to 31.8% applied damage.
Cruiser weapon. Shooting a MWD shield tanked cruiser. <32% damage applied. Does that seem reasonable?
Tbh, we don't need mods - we need heavy missiles un-fubared.
And if anyone suggests web/painters I'll once again point out that these ALSO boost turret and drone systems and as such are not a great "equalizer" for missiles.
Edit: Shooting the same cruiser (caracal) with a 60% web applied and it's MWD off, the missile still only manages 74.5% damage. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
478
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 10:39:00 -
[55] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Distuth Brinalle wrote:
Because Missiles can be speed tanked at a higher effectiveness than either turrets or drones. Even ships that aren't built for speed tanking do a pretty good job of it. I'd say they deserve it more than turrets because not everyone packs tracking disruption, whereas everyone packs an engine.
Also because **** you, missiles are cool. You get to make "whoosh" noises with your mouth when they leave the launcher.
lol they can be speed tanked by a ship holding still
I used to run web or scram while I also ran paint on stations for final killing bashes to help my brothers in arms in phoenix. The web/scram was a joke (but to my credit a station has never burned off or warped away on my watch).
Sadly the target painting was not a joke. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
889
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 13:03:00 -
[56] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:Why do people have this attitude, when they're posting an idea for the developers to consider changing or adding to the game? "I don't have to prove why this is necessary, the developers should just do it now." Funny you ask me this. Answer is: I am here for eight years. Seven years ago they added those two attributes for ? reasons? BOB said so? And the Band of Developers agreed? Reason unknown to this day. Proove unnecessary! And yes, you should have been here and tried one of the Gurista Mazes, where you will be shot at with zero 'tracking' citadel torpedos. Why do you think that no NPC in EVE has missiles that haz no 'tracking'? Where do you think that comes from? And Harvey, you mean that tiny 'tracking' adjustment so those could hit something that wasn't a moon and that 1% damage addition to rockets??
light missiles got a 10% damage increase .. thus why they are so popular combined with their ability too apply damage.. when they nerfed heavies and changed the GMP skill too apply too all missiles .. they increased the damage of HAMS, torps and rockets .. and the GMP skill boosted the tracking of most of them .. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
28
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 13:12:00 -
[57] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:I assume he was drawing attention to the fact that the damage dealt by the Nighthawk wasn't sufficient to even make a local tank sweat, which seems lacking when considering that the damage was coming from a T2 platform. Right, which is a problem which is shared by other command ships fitting the long-range weapons of a particular type. Absolutions with heavy beams do about the same DPS, with much worse damage application. |
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
377
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 13:28:00 -
[58] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:I do not have to proove any of my claimes and I do not have to make any spreadsheets because the data is already there. First, if you make a positive claim about something being bad and to be removed, the burdon of proof is on you, always.
And the statement, 'well I was a moron then, I am a moron now, therefore I am right' doesn't really pull any weight either. Just because you are here now and you were 'there' 'then' has no impact no the validity of the truth in any way and does not correlate to anything good or bad in either case. Data - data - data, combined with logic and reason.
It is very simple, if explosion velocity and explosaion radius would get removed, it would make missiles so overpowered, other weapon system could not compete with it, which is even the minor issue here-¦-¦. It would make them counter-less (and don't play dump, you know what is meant).
The problem you have is not with either of the stats, it is with balancing them.
And for someone who claims to know, you understand very little. You also seem to think that being intelligent is the same as having knowledge, which is not the case either.
Are you sure your issues aren't elsewhere ?! |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
300
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 13:33:00 -
[59] - Quote
Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:I assume he was drawing attention to the fact that the damage dealt by the Nighthawk wasn't sufficient to even make a local tank sweat, which seems lacking when considering that the damage was coming from a T2 platform. Right, which is a problem which is shared by other command ships fitting the long-range weapons of a particular type. Absolutions with heavy beams do about the same DPS, with much worse damage application.
I don't think that is wholly accurate - if you're shooting at, say a shield tanked MWD caracal.
It perhaps becomes true beyond certain ranges - all of which are well passed point range. However, I'm working so short on time so the only things I fit to the attackers were 2 damage mods and full weapon rack using IN standard and CN scourge
Beams have definitely have better engagement profile in point ranges (8-38km ish) and probably (I've not fully fit one due to time so no TE/TC tested) better projection except at all but effectively unworkable ranges.
It does require ammo shuffling if ranges are flexing I'll admit, but with that being instant, that's hardly a material chore/downside.
And that's with a hull application bonus on the nighthawk. Sure, I guess I could put rigors/flares on there to help out/get near the other weapon applied DPS - but that buggers my tank options - to break even.
Rails are even harder to get near.
In fact, when I last looked, only arty can legitimately lay claim to worse application than HML - something I'm unsure of how I feel about given the instant alpha arty can project. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1231
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 16:55:00 -
[60] - Quote
Just make a mod that reduce flight time but grant better application OR more missile speed. Hell make it similar to a TC if you want with different scripts or 2 entirely different mod so a trade off has to be made at the fitting screen.
Seeker optimiser (insert fitting cost here) Missile explosion radius +10% Missile explosion velocity +10% Missile flight time -15%
Rocket engine overfeeding system <---- this name is sooooo bad (insert fitting cost here) Missile flight speed +10% Missile flight time -15% |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |