EVE Search - The missile vs gun debate is pretty lame at this point.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The missile vs gun debate is pretty lame at this point.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ghoest	Posted - 2006.08.13 15:15:00 - [1] I have both them trained fairly high now. So now I use both, which one I use depends on the situation. I used to be a missile guy and now I find I use guns most the time. I think most of the complainers are newbs who rushed to use a HAC or BS and are actually upset thay still have a narrow range of skills, but cant admit it to themselves. The others are probably people who restrict themselves to 1 race, thats fine if you play that way, but you should accept the trade offs. Now Im not saying there arent particular points with weapons that could be improved. A cruiser size rocket would fill a gap. Projectile tracking is pretty lame. And Im sure Ammar have some issues I dont know. But I think the general complaints of guns vs missiles(few mentions drone for some reason) should be ignored and people should just train for the other if they dont like what they have. Wherever you went - here you are.
Soulis Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.13 15:57:00 - [2] it seems to me that its just a case of "the grass is always greener on the other side" Shinra - The Good Guys
Nanobotter Mk2	Posted - 2006.08.13 18:53:00 - [3] Dunno but it seems missles got over nerfed, or the fix to them was not implmented correctly. I spent the last week exploring routes and gate camps out into 0.0 and what i discovered is that out of all those dam camps i ran through or suicided into with an alt, the only time i bumped into a missle user was a cov ops boat using cruise missles. Everyone else is gun user only. IMHO that should show there is a pretty clear issue when it comes to missles and pvp atleast.
DigitalCommunist Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.13 19:05:00 - [4] Math would show that your "feelings" about either missiles or turrets are lame. Both are broken to a certain extent. For turret tracking its the way transverse is calculated and the signature resolution of some guns. For missiles, its the fact all missiles have the same AOEFalloff value. So when you orbit a ship which isn't moving, and your guns start to miss or you get podded by a sieged Phoenix's citadels while doing 1km/s you can come back and tell us how discussing such problems is lame. Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
Helmut 314 Amarr J.H.E.N.R Pure.	Posted - 2006.08.13 19:23:00 - [5] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Math would show that your "feelings" about either missiles or turrets are lame. Both are broken to a certain extent. For turret tracking its the way transverse is calculated and the signature resolution of some guns. For missiles, its the fact all missiles have the same AOEFalloff value. So when you orbit a ship which isn't moving, and your guns start to miss or you get podded by a sieged Phoenix's citadels while doing 1km/s you can come back and tell us how discussing such problems is lame. I give that smackdown 9 wrecking hits out of 10. ________________________________ Trying is the first step of failure - Homer J Simpson
Kerry Rose	Posted - 2006.08.13 19:34:00 - [6] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Pure ownage. QFT Originally by: Ghosthowl At what level can i PVP?
Christopher Dalran	Posted - 2006.08.13 19:54:00 - [7] Edited by: Christopher Dalran on 13/08/2006 19:59:53 Edited by: Christopher Dalran on 13/08/2006 19:58:34 Edited by: Christopher Dalran on 13/08/2006 19:55:38 Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2 Dunno but it seems missles got over nerfed, or the fix to them was not implmented correctly. I spent the last week exploring routes and gate camps out into 0.0 and what i discovered is that out of all those dam camps i ran through or suicided into with an alt, the only time i bumped into a missle user was a cov ops boat using cruise missles. Everyone else is gun user only. IMHO that should show there is a pretty clear issue when it comes to missles and pvp atleast. Reason being you dont want to be waiting for your missiles to hit the target which might give it time to get to the gate, also a BS fittied with Smartbombs can Pop all your missiles out of the sky with the aoe damage. Missiles realy shine for the fact that they can be use at any range (your cruise missiles hits just aswell at 100km as it does at 5km) and you can push ALL the damage into the targets vulnerable type (Meaning you can do 100% explosive against an armor tank). Missles let you ALWAYSE fight outside your targets optimal provided your ship is faster. I stongly feel that all the weapon typse are fairly well balanced and useful with the exception of defender missiles, i'm still trying to blow up my first incoming missile with them.
Jaddor	Posted - 2006.08.13 20:27:00 - [8] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Math would show that your "feelings" about either missiles or turrets are lame. Both are broken to a certain extent. For turret tracking its the way transverse is calculated and the signature resolution of some guns. For missiles, its the fact all missiles have the same AOEFalloff value. So when you orbit a ship which isn't moving, and your guns start to miss or you get podded by a sieged Phoenix's citadels while doing 1km/s you can come back and tell us how discussing such problems is lame. Amen. I like it better when you are right behind a BS thats has almost a 0zero transvers and you still miss because you are too close.
zurich93 XERCORE	Posted - 2006.08.13 22:13:00 - [9] Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2 Dunno but it seems missles got over nerfed, or the fix to them was not implmented correctly. I spent the last week exploring routes and gate camps out into 0.0 and what i discovered is that out of all those dam camps i ran through or suicided into with an alt, the only time i bumped into a missle user was a cov ops boat using cruise missles. Everyone else is gun user only. IMHO that should show there is a pretty clear issue when it comes to missles and pvp atleast. Well if you look, most of the BS are turret users only a few are missile boats and have missile bonuses, thats why its not because they have been nerfed, also missiles are alot easier to train than turrets, in order to get tech 2 large turrets you have to train small, med specializations and then large, with missiles you need minimal skills to train for tech 2 torp/cruise.
Ghoest	Posted - 2006.08.14 00:59:00 - [10] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Math would show that your "feelings" about either missiles or turrets are lame. Both are broken to a certain extent. For turret tracking its the way transverse is calculated and the signature resolution of some guns. For missiles, its the fact all missiles have the same AOEFalloff value. So when you orbit a ship which isn't moving, and your guns start to miss or you get podded by a sieged Phoenix's citadels while doing 1km/s you can come back and tell us how discussing such problems is lame. Weak. No ones saying the mechanics of either system couldnt be tweaked. Im saying the balance issue is not an issue. They both have strengths and weaknesses, choose your weapon for the occassion. Taken as a whole neither is much really worse than the other. Wherever you went - here you are.
Deeik Minmatar	Posted - 2006.08.14 02:23:00 - [11] Edited by: Deeik on 14/08/2006 02:24:20 wrong post
DigitalCommunist Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.14 06:00:00 - [12] Originally by: Ghoest Originally by: DigitalCommunist --- Weak. No ones saying the mechanics of either system couldnt be tweaked. Im saying the balance issue is not an issue. They both have strengths and weaknesses, choose your weapon for the occassion. Taken as a whole neither is much really worse than the other. Are you deliberately trying to be comical? The tweaking of mechanics I just described would have a pretty huge impact on balance. The biggest selling point of missiles has nothing to do with their actual advantages; like being able to switch damage type, high damage at long ranges, no cap to fire. People enjoy using missiles because you can swat small ships much easier than you can with battleship turrets. Just look how many agent runners switched to using Ravens after missiles were reduced to a fraction of their original price. You might also want to take a look at how logical it is for Ravens to set off thermonuclear warheads 0m from their hulls, deal full damage and take none. And tweaking that would change the balance of missile ships against close range turret ships, right? Or maybe you can go tell us how great balance is by flying a Raven in a large fleet battle and having your missiles travel a mere 20km before the target explodes under laser and hybrid fire. Then as you travel back home in a pod from the fight, you have it sniped by a tempest sitting 150km from a gate in empire directly in the line of your approach. Which, thanks to the independence of signature on range and zero transverse makes for one expensive and boring day in EVE. Preaching an argument without any supporting evidence is the definition of weak posting. Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
Aloysius Knight Minmatar Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.14 07:14:00 - [13] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Originally by: Ghoest Originally by: DigitalCommunist --- Weak. No ones saying the mechanics of either system couldnt be tweaked. Im saying the balance issue is not an issue. They both have strengths and weaknesses, choose your weapon for the occassion. Taken as a whole neither is much really worse than the other. Are you deliberately trying to be comical? The tweaking of mechanics I just described would have a pretty huge impact on balance. The biggest selling point of missiles has nothing to do with their actual advantages; like being able to switch damage type, high damage at long ranges, no cap to fire. People enjoy using missiles because you can swat small ships much easier than you can with battleship turrets. Just look how many agent runners switched to using Ravens after missiles were reduced to a fraction of their original price. You might also want to take a look at how logical it is for Ravens to set off thermonuclear warheads 0m from their hulls, deal full damage and take none. And tweaking that would change the balance of missile ships against close range turret ships, right? Or maybe you can go tell us how great balance is by flying a Raven in a large fleet battle and having your missiles travel a mere 20km before the target explodes under laser and hybrid fire. Then as you travel back home in a pod from the fight, you have it sniped by a tempest sitting 150km from a gate in empire directly in the line of your approach. Which, thanks to the independence of signature on range and zero transverse makes for one expensive and boring day in EVE. Preaching an argument without any supporting evidence is the definition of weak posting. now if only i could put that in a can "Pure own" best served hot and fast
Stems Gallente Trade Consortium Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.14 07:55:00 - [14] Thanks for that Digi, best points as always
Gariuys Evil Strangers Inc.	Posted - 2006.08.14 09:36:00 - [15] DC has won the forums for today.
Nanobotter Mk2	Posted - 2006.08.15 09:39:00 - [16] "Well if you look, most of the BS are turret users only a few are missile boats and have missile bonuses, thats why its not because they have been nerfed, also missiles are alot easier to train than turrets, in order to get tech 2 large turrets you have to train small, med specializations and then large, with missiles you need minimal skills to train for tech 2 torp/cruise." oh gee GTFO already, look NOONE uses a dam missle boat anymore for pv and there are planty of good options people have posted the reasons even but they are then just dismissed lol. Look missles for a variety of reasons are not good in pvp period, if they were atleast a decent portion would be using them. Missles = overnerfed, instant frontloaded dmg IE turrets is pvp weapon of choice because it is better, nothing left to discuss.
Terraform Gallente	Posted - 2006.08.15 10:36:00 - [17] I vote for CCP to bring back area-damage to missiles, was much more fun, and fitting missiles actually meant hitting multiple targets with one hit. Would make it a bit more realistic too.
Ghoest	Posted - 2006.08.15 23:31:00 - [18] Edited by: Ghoest on 15/08/2006 23:32:54 Originally by: DigitalCommunist Originally by: Ghoest Originally by: DigitalCommunist --- Weak. No ones saying the mechanics of either system couldnt be tweaked. Im saying the balance issue is not an issue. They both have strengths and weaknesses, choose your weapon for the occassion. Taken as a whole neither is much really worse than the other. Are you deliberately trying to be comical? The tweaking of mechanics I just described would have a pretty huge impact on balance. The biggest selling point of missiles has nothing to do with their actual advantages; like being able to switch damage type, high damage at long ranges, no cap to fire. People enjoy using missiles because you can swat small ships much easier than you can with battleship turrets. Just look how many agent runners switched to using Ravens after missiles were reduced to a fraction of their original price. You might also want to take a look at how logical it is for Ravens to set off thermonuclear warheads 0m from their hulls, deal full damage and take none. And tweaking that would change the balance of missile ships against close range turret ships, right? Or maybe you can go tell us how great balance is by flying a Raven in a large fleet battle and having your missiles travel a mere 20km before the target explodes under laser and hybrid fire. Then as you travel back home in a pod from the fight, you have it sniped by a tempest sitting 150km from a gate in empire directly in the line of your approach. Which, thanks to the independence of signature on range and zero transverse makes for one expensive and boring day in EVE. Preaching an argument without any supporting evidence is the definition of weak posting. Even weaker. You want changes for the sake of balance - balance just isnt an issue. Its so easy to train up either that its a nonissue and both are better at different circumstances. Now if you want changes for increased playability, or fun using the items in their own right - fine. Im all for good suggestion. I consider that tweaking. If you want changes because you feel your pet weapon class isnt good enough in a particular circumstance against someone elses pet weapon - in the case of missiles/guns - you are a whiner. Suck it up and accept that your cant win everything, all the time, with 1 weapon. Wherever you went - here you are.

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.