EVE Search - Balance Hardwiring implants please!

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Balance Hardwiring implants please!

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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
Hllaxiu Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.07.31 15:30:00 - [31] I hate how mindlinks are slot 10 along with large weapon and missile damage. --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson
Lucian Corvinus Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.31 15:36:00 - [32] Originally by: Testy Mctest In short, ** off, Im tired of Caldari whining when they're the best at pretty much everything already. Well buuhuu to you, the OP asked a valid question, no need to flame him. And sure, the caldari is best at everything, soo true And btw, why don't you grow some balls and post with your main instead of that **ty alt. my iskies
Tsanse Kinske Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.31 15:52:00 - [33] I think the OP makes some sense. It's hard to believe that the implant issues compared to turrets are there intentionally for balancing purposes...and if they are, it seems like an untidy and unnecessarily annoying way to do it. (If it makes any difference, I like and use turrets far more than missiles, even though my character is Caldari.) The thing I wonder though is if the issue can be easily fixed? Does CCP have a way to do so without borking over users of existing implants? * * * 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
Norris Neophitus Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.31 16:03:00 - [34] I'm sick of everything CCP have wrong and thats all i seem to read on the forums thesedays. How about from now on we dont change anything after release that way we can all train for it and all be equall. And how about from now on everyone spends a day or two every month on the test server to make sure all future items get balanced before they hit tranquility
Uther Doull Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.07.31 16:09:00 - [35] Originally by: Grey Area 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? because warping out makes you 'win' against missiles is it? and bubbles and scrams do not work ofcourse lets face it, missiles rule pve and small scale pvp, and for fleets you have another awsome bs that doesn't even need weapons to be effective
Rexthor Hammerfists Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.07.31 16:24:00 - [36] it seems to me that they arent enough of those missile hardwirings dropping as their prices are pretty high. just compare them to the turret onces. - Purple Conquered The World, We the Universe.
Grey Area Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.31 17:32:00 - [37] Originally by: Testy Mctest 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. I've heard some CRAP on these forums but this is the SINGLE BIGGEST PILE. For turrets, the "generic implants" affect ALL turrets. So optimal, falloff, tracking etc...all affect ALL turrrets. The DAMAGE implants are split...there is BOTH an "overall" damage increaser AND a size specific damage increaser. For missiles, there is only the "overall" one. So you are actually saying that NOT having two damage implants is an advantage? And you accuse ME of fuzzy logic? 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 - 2006.07.31 17:35:00 - [38] Originally by: Tsanse Kinske I think the OP makes some sense. It's hard to believe that the implant issues compared to turrets are there intentionally for balancing purposes...and if they are, it seems like an untidy and unnecessarily annoying way to do it. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that missile implants were rushed. Hammer promised them, and then when reminded thought "Ohh crap, forgot all about those", and just rattled off half a dozen to shut up missile users in the short term. Well, the short term is passed, and without a doubt we were shafted compared to the implants that turret users get, and in the way they were implemented so that you can't easily "double up" like you can with the turret ones. Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums; Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?" Cleese: "I've told you once."
Uther Doull Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.01 09:28:00 - [39] Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists it seems to me that they arent enough of those missile hardwirings dropping as their prices are pretty high. just compare them to the turret onces. it could also be because most ppl fly caldari so the demand is much higher, but i guess only ccp can say that for sure
White Ronin	Posted - 2006.08.01 10:15:00 - [40] I know missile users have it rough and I hope the devs take note of your concerns. You have alot of Hardwirings that actually impact missile performance though and that may not help your case as some of us have none. Notable the drone using community. So IF Santa Tux does make your MAJOR amount of implants even better, could you see if he could slip in even ONE implant for drones? Please? Thanks.
LUKEC Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.01 18:08:00 - [41] Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists it seems to me that they arent enough of those missile hardwirings dropping as their prices are pretty high. just compare them to the turret onces. True, but... if you have more chars, which is mission runner? Yes caldari, and hence you invest more into it since you don't plan to use it for other stuff than pve (at least not the main body). Now there is another thing: Why is DG bcu worth like 200+ mil while SS mag. stab is like 45-55 and faction heat sinks are like 35? Rarity of drops isn't the factor since i've lived in venal long enough to know how often they drop, but people still invest into them. Oh and we have estamel's bcu which was worth like 2bil last time i checked and will probably go much much higher(3/4bil probably)? Why are officer heatsinks worth like 1/6 of that? Reason n1 is that caldari are carebear race deluxe and reason n2 is that shield tanks + missiles pimp wagons are much better than any pimp gunship. (faction guns < t2 guns while gurista launchers > t2, and same for officer stuff) --------- Torture by ccp: pic
Grey Area Caldari	Posted - 2006.08.01 23:45:00 - [42] Originally by: White Ronin I know missile users have it rough and I hope the devs take note of your concerns. You have alot of Hardwirings that actually impact missile performance though and that may not help your case as some of us have none. Notable the drone using community. So IF Santa Tux does make your MAJOR amount of implants even better, could you see if he could slip in even ONE implant for drones? Please? Thanks. Seems fair. Three and Five percent implants for drone users as per the rest of the weapon systems, affecting toughness, hit %, speed etc. You won't get as many as the drones don't use cap (so no cap reducing implant), power (so no grid reducing implant) or CPU (...ditto...), but I'm sure there are other aspects that could be modified. I'd resist any that let you control an extra drone though - mainly because that increase would equate to at least 20% (1 out of 5) for most people. Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums; Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?" Cleese: "I've told you once."

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.