| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Grey Area
Caldari
   |
Posted - 2006.07.30 21:32:00 -
[1]
Currently for turrets it is possible to fit;
An implant in slot 6 that will add 5% to damage from the small turret of your choice
An implant in slot 8 that will add 5% to damage from the medium turret of your choice
An implant in slot 10 that will add 5% to damage from the large turret of your choice
In conjunction with;
An implant in slot 10 that will add 5% to damage from ALL turrets
OR
An implant in slot 10 that will reduce rate of fire of ALL turrets by 5%.
By comparison, it is only possible to fit;
An implant in slot 10 that will reduce rate of fire of missile launchers by 5%.
EQUALLY, it is possible to fit implants that improve BOTH falloff AND Optimal range for turrets (slots 7 and 9), but the implants for velocity and flight time for missiles go in slot 7, meaning you cannot fit both.
When the balance of turrets vs missiles is (often!) discussed, the 5% advanatage that turrets can gain from implants is NEVER raised.
Suggestion;
Add implants that increase damage to small, medium and large missiles in slots 6,8, and 10 respectively.
Move the missile flight time OR velocity implant from slot 7 to slot 9.
For completeness, the implant that lowers launcher CPU needs should be a slot 10 implant, since that is where the identical implant for turrets is located.
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Ras Blumin
Atomic Battle Penguins
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 21:35:00 -
[2]
Also, make tracking disruptors work on missiles and nerf jav torps!
|
HappyKitten
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 21:36:00 -
[3]
Also, you could compare the relative rarity of the implants, and thus their price 
|
Dethis
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 21:41:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Ras Blumin
Also, make tracking disruptors work on missiles and nerf jav torps!
Also make T2 ammo that gives the same bonus as precision missiles.
--------
Kill em all and let god sort em out
|
Gorgons
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 21:56:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Ras Blumin
Also, make tracking disruptors work on missiles and nerf jav torps!
also give missile users modules like tracking links, tracking enhancers and tracking computers
----------------------------------
It says Snippy.
E-mail us with any questions. -ReverendM
OMG! what does it say... |
Murukan
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 22:08:00 -
[6]
awww how cute caldari whining some more.
In rust we trust!!! |
Sarmaul
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 22:09:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Gorgons
Originally by: Ras Blumin
Also, make tracking disruptors work on missiles and nerf jav torps!
also give missile users modules like tracking links, tracking enhancers and tracking computers
Sure, but you would need to have your current range/speed & explosion velocity nerfed to begin with.
TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS
- In Rust We Trust - |
HappyKitten
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 22:16:00 -
[8]
k guys, lets just introduce assault missiles, fix the t2 skilltree and be done with it, mkay?
We'll fix t2 ammo when it is ALL fixed.
|
Vera Nosfyu
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 22:18:00 -
[9]
Might I suggest reposting this in the Features and Ideas forum where it's less likely to be driven off-topic and flamed to hell?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Violence solves all problems, no man, no problem." --Josef Stalin |
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 22:24:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Ras Blumin
Also, make tracking disruptors work on missiles
I'm fine with that, as long as defenders get to work on turrets too....
Originally by: Ras Blumin
...and nerf jav torps!
Which are no more powerful than Tech II ammo but hellishly more expensive. So...er...no.
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 22:26:00 -
[11]
...and could you all focus on the matter in hand please...this isn't about the turrets/launchers themselves, it's about the simple fact that (yet again) turret users get more CHOICE than missile users.
May well take the advice and post it in features and ideas...though I'm sure the flamers will find it there too.
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Sarmaul
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 22:26:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Grey Area
Originally by: Ras Blumin
Also, make tracking disruptors work on missiles
I'm fine with that, as long as defenders get to work on turrets too....
Originally by: Ras Blumin
...and nerf jav torps!
Which are no more powerful than Tech II ammo but hellishly more expensive. So...er...no.
Last time I checked T2 ammo doesn't let me hit smaller targets easier (in fact, 3 out of the 4 types have a tracking penalty).
TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS
- In Rust We Trust - |
Sarmaul
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 22:28:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Grey Area
...and could you all focus on the matter in hand please...this isn't about the turrets/launchers themselves, it's about the simple fact that (yet again) turret users get more CHOICE than missile users.
May well take the advice and post it in features and ideas...though I'm sure the flamers will find it there too.
If I can have turrets that never miss, you can load in rof + damage implants. How's that?
TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS
- In Rust We Trust - |
HappyKitten
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 22:31:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Sarmaul
Originally by: Grey Area
...and could you all focus on the matter in hand please...this isn't about the turrets/launchers themselves, it's about the simple fact that (yet again) turret users get more CHOICE than missile users.
May well take the advice and post it in features and ideas...though I'm sure the flamers will find it there too.
If I can have turrets that never miss, you can load in rof + damage implants. How's that?
Have you not seen the tracking on civilian guns?
|
Sarmaul
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 22:33:00 -
[15]
Originally by: HappyKitten
Originally by: Sarmaul
Originally by: Grey Area
...and could you all focus on the matter in hand please...this isn't about the turrets/launchers themselves, it's about the simple fact that (yet again) turret users get more CHOICE than missile users.
May well take the advice and post it in features and ideas...though I'm sure the flamers will find it there too.
If I can have turrets that never miss, you can load in rof + damage implants. How's that?
Have you not seen the tracking on civilian guns?
Touche
TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS
- In Rust We Trust - |
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 22:38:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Sarmaul
Last time I checked T2 ammo doesn't let me hit smaller targets easier (in fact, 3 out of the 4 types have a tracking penalty).
Javelin Torp reduces explosion radius by 25%. Equivalent to increasing the damage done to a 40 sig radius target from 65 to 87. Not exactly the best yield from a 450-damage warhead.
Quake L ammo does 60 damage compared to 36. With your 25% penalty to tracking speed I think it's fair to say that the two are equally powerful, but just in different fields.
Same argument can't be made for the implants. Turrets plain and simple get more, and with a better ability to fit complementing sets. It should be fixed.
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Gorgons
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 22:39:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Murukan
awww how cute caldari whining some more.
wee what a productive answer, now go mine some ore slave
Originally by: Sarmaul
Originally by: Grey Area
...and could you all focus on the matter in hand please...this isn't about the turrets/launchers themselves, it's about the simple fact that (yet again) turret users get more CHOICE than missile users.
May well take the advice and post it in features and ideas...though I'm sure the flamers will find it there too.
If I can have turrets that never miss, you can load in rof + damage implants. How's that?
well I don't know about that, but you can have some of the missiles that do miss and do 0.003 in damage. But then I want a module that insta-moves my missiles on the targetted ship 200 km away
----------------------------------
It says Snippy.
E-mail us with any questions. -ReverendM
OMG! what does it say... |
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 22:40:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Sarmaul
Originally by: Grey Area
...and could you all focus on the matter in hand please...this isn't about the turrets/launchers themselves, it's about the simple fact that (yet again) turret users get more CHOICE than missile users.
May well take the advice and post it in features and ideas...though I'm sure the flamers will find it there too.
If I can have turrets that never miss, you can load in rof + damage implants. How's that?
For an attempt at a derailment, it's pretty good I suppose.
Would you be happy with those "never miss" turrets, if against certain targets they did 1% of the damage they were capable of, and you had NO other modules that could counter that effect?
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Sarmaul
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 22:42:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Grey Area
Originally by: Sarmaul
Last time I checked T2 ammo doesn't let me hit smaller targets easier (in fact, 3 out of the 4 types have a tracking penalty).
Javelin Torp reduces explosion radius by 25%. Equivalent to increasing the damage done to a 40 sig radius target from 65 to 87. Not exactly the best yield from a 450-damage warhead.
Quake L ammo does 60 damage compared to 36. With your 25% penalty to tracking speed I think it's fair to say that the two are equally powerful, but just in different fields.
Same argument can't be made for the implants. Turrets plain and simple get more, and with a better ability to fit complementing sets. It should be fixed.
Compare it vs a cruiser sized target, which is what they are supposed to be hitting in the first place.
Quake is artillery ammo, and should be compared with cruise missiles.
TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS
- In Rust We Trust - |
Ras Blumin
Atomic Battle Penguins
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 22:53:00 -
[20]
Missiles and turrets (and the implants) are different, which is not necesarily a bad thing. I think you are looking at it with a very "everything-should-be-the-same" kinda attitude, hence my first reply.
I still think jav torps need a good nerfing tho 
|
WildHope
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 22:59:00 -
[21]
As the recent alliance PvP tournament showed....missile launchers have it really tough.
Wildhope
ShinRa
Curse Alliance (may it last 1000 generations)
Alter the 'CTRL Q' Invulnerability button |
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 23:04:00 -
[22]
Originally by: WildHope
As the recent alliance PvP tournament showed....missile launchers have it really tough.
I detect sarcasm. In this artificial scenario, yes, there were a lot of missile launchers. Why? Because no-one was allowed to warp out. If you want to apply that to every combat in the game, then yes, missiles become overpowerful and would need a nerf. But it's not exactly realistic, is it?
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 23:06:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Ras Blumin
Missiles and turrets (and the implants) are different, which is not necesarily a bad thing. I think you are looking at it with a very "everything-should-be-the-same" kinda attitude, hence my first reply.
I still think jav torps need a good nerfing tho
I can handle "different"...but when one set of weapons has a straight out, clearly defined access to 5% more damage, then it's unbalanced.
If for example, we removed all the implants that added 5% damage to energy turrets, but left them in for projectiles and hybrids, would it still be balanced?
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 23:11:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Sarmaul
Compare it vs a cruiser sized target, which is what they are supposed to be hitting in the first place.
Increases hit on a cruiser from 186 points to 247..(assumes average cruiser sig radius of 150) or an increase in damage of 33% - but ONLY against that specific target...against a battleship you get NO damage increase.
Originally by: Sarmaul
Quake is artillery ammo, and should be compared with cruise missiles.
Not that familiar with projectiles...what is the equivalent to Torps?
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Testicular Testes
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 04:39:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Testicular Testes on 31/07/2006 04:39:43
Originally by: Grey Area
Originally by: Sarmaul
Compare it vs a cruiser sized target, which is what they are supposed to be hitting in the first place.
Increases hit on a cruiser from 186 points to 247..(assumes average cruiser sig radius of 150) or an increase in damage of 33% - but ONLY against that specific target...against a battleship you get NO damage increase.
Err, no. Against Amarr and Minmatar BS, it's up to a 12.5% damage increase. With a much better time to impact, explosion velocity and usefulness against pretty much anything. And 250k range of course.
Also, turrets can't hit MWDing ships either - except turrets still suffer a huge accuracy penalty when those interceptors turn off their MWDs, whereas doing 1/10th your maximum damage with javelin torpedos is plenty to take out interceptors.
Quote:
Originally by: Sarmaul
Quake is artillery ammo, and should be compared with cruise missiles.
Not that familiar with projectiles...what is the equivalent to Torps?
Autocannons with 300k falloff.
Anyways, if you're arguing life is unfair against missile users, just cut yourself. Thanks.
|
Weirda
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 05:04:00 -
[26]
dunno if this gonna make any sense, but:
instead of having the stuff go 6, 8, 10.... could you have it go in a different progression (say 10, 6, 8) so that a matari could hope to fit those implant on same (mixed weapon) ship of same size (ie large gun and large missile not on same slot, medium gun, medium missile not on same slot etc)...
cuz that would be CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL! 
__
Weirda
Join QOTSA Now |
Glarion Garnier
Solar Wind
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 05:22:00 -
[27]
nah Just add 10 more implant slots while we are at it. cap at 20. so you can fit gun, missile / speed mods to their own slots. After all having lots of implants on your head is not a cheap loss if you get killed and you can only use one ship at a time anyways. So if you want to install 3 bil worth of implants to your head you should be able to. 20 slots should be enough
|
Wesley Harding
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 06:41:00 -
[28]
Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. A more streamlined game would be nice, although I wonder what would happen to the implants people are currently using if the slots are changed?
|
Tobias Sjodin
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 15:14:00 -
[29]
Let's make the guns have a travel time at distant targets enough to fire three volleys before the first one struck. So you could basically warp out, and in, to dodge them.
|
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 15:20:00 -
[30]
I love the fuzzy logic you use here.
Originally by: Grey Area
By comparison, it is only possible to fit;
EQUALLY, it is possible to fit implants that improve BOTH falloff AND Optimal range for turrets (slots 7 and 9), but the implants for velocity and flight time for missiles go in slot 7, meaning you cannot fit both.
You do realise that missiles have ranges usually equalling or surpassing similar sized turrets? And that missiles dont need to *worry* about falloff range? What you're essentially saying is that you're aware that missiles are already better, and you'd like to fit two implants to increase them even *farther* into the realms of imbalance?
Quote:
When the balance of turrets vs missiles is (often!) discussed, the 5% advanatage that turrets can gain from implants is NEVER raised.
I think you'll find that even factoring in that 5% advantage (you dont quantify what it's 5% to), then missiles will outperform turrets in nearly every way anyway.
You're also missing the point that ALL missile implants affect ALL missile launchers, whereas many turret implants only affect ONE KIND of turret. Since implant space and jump clones are limited, then this is a *massive* advantage for missiles.
Also, even though I'd like to see balance, why must EVERYTHING be constantly asked for to be the same? So what if some implants are in different slots?
In short, **** off, Im tired of Caldari whining when they're the best at pretty much everything already.
Scrapheap Challenge Forums |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |