Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
394
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 12:39:04 -
[31] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Missiles as a whole are fine, it's heavy (perhaps arguably torps) that are the problem children.
So we agree to disagree, that's fine.
Yet apperently missiles get nerfed at least twice since Retribution.
Now if fidelas cons would elaborate how one missile boat is fine with only 200 more buddies of his I do understand.
Torpedo battleships with 2meters of range and hopefully complete planet application and a lot of very depressed Phoenix pilots might agree that there is something not right just yet.
Last time I spoke to my Raven, she was very sad that I want to go all out and fit torpedos and closed the fitting screen on her own so I wouldn't.
It took me three weeks and to comfort her and let me get to her fitting screen again.
Why do we even have an almost democratic selected few to talk to CCP and pass things along?
Do I need to let you feel the wrath of a hungry Fedo on you?
Fedo: ..uuurggh uurghh.. looks exited in e2's direct with something that could be a smile
Quiet, Fedo! I will let you know
Fedo: ..uuuuurrgh
signature
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1630
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 02:58:50 -
[32] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote: Exactly. Missiles should be able to apply 100% base damage to ships within their class, period. If we want to entertain missile counters then have a ship's sensor strength or EECM modules reduce their effectiveness - which means utilizing actual slots as opposed to simply flying around.
Let's not forget that missiles aren't simply "op". There is no opportunity for critical damage and they have the longest delay for actual damage application.
That is not what I said at all, please don't misquote me. I said they should do full damage to an UNFITTED hull. Once fittings & links come into account damage should be mitigatable. |
Iain Cariaba
579
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 03:09:02 -
[33] - Quote
I don't see what the big deal is here.
Frigs fall before my rlml fits Cruisers and destys evaporate against my t2 precision heavies. Battlecruisers melt when pounded by my t2 furies.
Seems to be working as intended by the last nerf to heavy missiles. Stop trying to use them outside their intended purpose.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
|
Gaan Cathal
Angry Mustellid The Periphery
13
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 03:41:48 -
[34] - Quote
There is a strong logic to designing missile systems such that the Explosion Radius of a missile size is equal to the average/base Signature Radius of the target class and then balancing damage etc from there. However there is a logistical aspect to take into account, since this isn't just a rebalancing tweak, but a pattern redesign due to needing to tweak a host of other factors to account for increased application by currently functional missiles.
The big problem with missile mechanics (not, per se, missiles) is the damage delay. It's a very distinct disadvantage - just look at how favoured the synchronised alpha offered by assigned sentries was, consider that missiles are the opposite end of that scale to mounted guns. However it's not a disadvantage very friendly to numbers being crunched, the smaller scale the engagement the less it matters, and there your opponent's raw speed being a factor rather than traversal velocity becomes more and more of an advantage.
They also sit in an odd place because they have a high volley damage, but that alpha doesn't scale even slightly because of the delayed damage effect staggering application. There's also the significant range advantage of short ranged missiles over short ranged guns as a confounding factor. It might well be worth significantly lowering their alpha and like increasing their ROF (and reducing the size of missiles themselves) in order to make them a "pressure" weapon. If this was done, the increase in application by matching Explosion Radii with Sig Radii would hopefully counterbalance the reduced alpha. Maybe apply that change to one range of missiles and keep the other frontloaded. |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
377
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 05:08:29 -
[35] - Quote
While I agree that directly comparing guns and missiles is dumb (not to mention anecdotally attempted a number of times) I don't agree with your suggestion. Application should be on a racial level. To a degree it already is: a HAM cyclone will dish out 700+ dps in omnidamage while caldari have "some" hulls with an application bonus and some with the kinetic bonus. Unless I am mistaken the corax gets both but obviously gets pidgeon holed in to kinetic to stay competitive in the dps race.
Important to consider is the only application bonused hulls in the medium range are the navy caracal and navy drake. Functionally they should be getting higher applied damage but the rof and volley is so low that both of these ships are largely abandoned for cheaper hulls.
And that's not to mention the navy hulls other problems. People use rlml because of the high burst damage and good application. People use artillery because of the high volley damage at respectable ranges with instant delivery. Rails get high range. Lasers apparently get tracking. Scaling up tp heavies and hams... hams would be the superior choice to hml in 99% of cases if they had some extra range. Hml only stay competitive due to their range. The overall low dps is their single biggest issue. Losing 25% of your damage off the bat just because you changed type is pretty crazy.
If we can't have more damage then yes tightening the sigR is the next best option but as I said earlier better off increasing the damage because to increase the applied damage means sacrificing slots. Which many caldari hulls can barely afford.
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
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
404
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 07:23:58 -
[36] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:While I agree that directly comparing guns and missiles is dumb (not to mention anecdotally attempted a number of times) I don't agree with your suggestion. Application should be on a racial level. To a degree it already is: a HAM cyclone will dish out 700+ dps in omnidamage while caldari have "some" hulls with an application bonus and some with the kinetic bonus. Unless I am mistaken the corax gets both but obviously gets pidgeon holed in to kinetic to stay competitive in the dps race.
Important to consider is the only application bonused hulls in the medium range are the navy caracal and navy drake. Functionally they should be getting higher applied damage but the rof and volley is so low that both of these ships are largely abandoned for cheaper hulls.
And that's not to mention the navy hulls other problems. People use rlml because of the high burst damage and good application. People use artillery because of the high volley damage at respectable ranges with instant delivery. Rails get high range. Lasers apparently get tracking. Scaling up tp heavies and hams... hams would be the superior choice to hml in 99% of cases if they had some extra range. Hml only stay competitive due to their range. The overall low dps is their single biggest issue. Losing 25% of your damage off the bat just because you changed type is pretty crazy.
If we can't have more damage then yes tightening the sigR is the next best option but as I said earlier better off increasing the damage because to increase the applied damage means sacrificing slots. Which many caldari hulls can barely afford.
Hence I said Caldari ships need to gimp their fitting in a way that no turret ship has to do.
Okay the Naga does have to"pay" for out of normal grid range with tank and mobility but shooting a ship at 280km is an extreme case and she is a turret boat and will hurt anything immediately.
Looking at the case of a HAM Drake, which would look strong on paper, we would also have to look at the ship itself. Being a Drake she isn't the fastest of the former "tier 2" battlcruisers and 20km range is hardly scary.
Heavy assault missles are paying raw damage for faster cycle time but in the current kiting meta of linked everything and even not, those will also suffer from being made fun of since they will stop doing any damage after the flight time is run out.
My thread in the assembly hall (of injustice) was shot down by some random noobs who accused me either of substance abuse, being sold and no longer myself and stupid.
If I may point everyone still in doubt at the Caral and the Cerberus roaming about on TQ as we speak. Those two are the best examples of would it would look like of missiles without "tracking".
You may come and tell me something about "only being 93%" but let us imagine for a moment that it would indeed be 100%.
Though those too ships are strong with light or standard missiles, we do not have the end of the world.
EVE is still here.
Fedo: ..uuurgh uuuurgh..
signature
|
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
3889
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 07:31:24 -
[37] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:That is not what I said at all, please don't misquote me. I said they should do full damage to an UNFITTED hull. Once fittings & links come into account damage should be mitigatable. Yes, that's what I meant by "base" damage.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
187
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 08:09:31 -
[38] - Quote
come back after a few days and the first page is almost nothing but re-posts did the forum update break the search function or something? |
Nienna Leralonde
Halt. Hammerzeit
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 08:28:21 -
[39] - Quote
"HML nerf to kill tengu fleets in null
killed every other viable HML fit in the game at the same time
brilliant CCP balancing."
glad i`m not the only one who noticed it :D.
how ccp thinks : why just nerf something when we can absolutly destroy it.ex : drake,cyclone (bc`s in general)/heavy missiles,crow etc |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
405
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 11:26:32 -
[40] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:come back after a few days and the first page is almost nothing but re-posts did the forum update break the search function or something?
Nah, but you should have noticed that whenever someone responds into a thread it lands on the "front page" once again.
In this case I don't mind the attention to the thread, maybe someone with a blue tag reads it.
Well, whom am I kidding??
Of course they read it and I didn't get a gag order yet and as to CCP Fozzies wishes I even explained in detail how this will not brake EVE just the minds of the missile haters.
Haters gonna hate, no matter what.
Our blue tagged readers seek the shadows of the Vale of the Silent and find it rather enteraining or freightening or both, we will never know.
At least I have some of you convinced that the matter has some merrit, so thank you for your support! I appreciate it
signature
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
423
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 11:39:55 -
[41] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:I don't see what the big deal is here.
Cruisers and destys evaporate against my t2 precision heavies.
You're shooting "precision" weapons at the same size class should be a clue.
As should the fact that if you were using guns then your target would die nearly twice as fast compared to precision HM which do so little damage on a caracal with 3x BCU I can get 93% of it's damage out of a freakin' merlin never mind with another cruiser.
Next to their peer group, heavy missiles are nothing short of absolutely god awful outside of super niche roles (which can trivially be replicated by other hulls which are, in general, far less of a liability). |
Xequecal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
265
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 11:58:59 -
[42] - Quote
I've said it a bunch of times, missiles suck because of links. If someone clicks approach on you, guns do 100% damage regardless of whether he's linked or not. Missiles bigger than light missiles do absolutely damage linked targets unless they're either webbed or the target is like two size classes above the missile. (HAMs and battleships) They're only used on pure kiting boats where the low damage is not really a drawback when the opponent can't shoot back at all. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
727
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 12:02:56 -
[43] - Quote
maybe some kind of rigs that allow heavy missiles to use a new class of tech II missiles with sub-munition warheads would help. Give HAM users more choice at the cost but you still have to mke the right choice due to missile reload times if you make a mistake. The sacrifice for using the sub-munitions is in your rig choices, you lose buffer tank/active tank or whatever in place of better and more flexible damage application. The rigs would be adding in extra target acquisition and missile control functions to be able to handle the much larger number of warheads in play. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
423
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 12:08:53 -
[44] - Quote
Or we could just give them the boost that all other mediums got and see how that goes. Bringing missiles into line was fine, then buffing the other 3 systems was decidedly less fine. |
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
interstellar initiative Incorporated
312
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 13:45:34 -
[45] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Or we could just give them the boost that all other mediums got and see how that goes. Bringing missiles into line was fine, then buffing the other 3 systems was decidedly less fine. This would be splendid, but in the short term I would settle for Fozziebear to tell us what he has against missiles. Then maybe he could go to a couple Missile Haters Anonymous meetings and start working his steps... On a serious note though, how long ago where HMLs broken? Because I foresee somethig similar in store for LMLs after the way their "OP" apllication was fixed with a flat damage nerf. |
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
3893
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 14:24:31 -
[46] - Quote
All missiles could benefit from a +25-50% increase in explosion velocity. This would really only have an effect against non-afterburning targets. The flip side is that L4 missioning would be more challenging as well.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
46
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 14:42:35 -
[47] - Quote
The issue i have with HML from a solo perspective is application. HML does absolutely nothing to frigs. With an uber application fit bellicose, out of the 250ish dps it does with HML and 3 BCUs its only applying 90ish dps. Thats with 2 bonused TP, double rigor and a standard crash booster. This leaves room for 1 LSE for tank.
Now, i know that HML arent for anti-frig, and im not asking for 100% application to a frig, but it would be nice to have a chance to kill tackle before im scrammed, with HML. I can use 1400s or 800 acs to kill frigs using battleship sized turrets but cant kill a frig using a cruiser sized missile launcher without 4 application mods and drugs?
I simply do not use HML for this reason. Every fit ive tried or theorycrafted for a solo fit is just not viable. This is why i generally fly with turrets or LM or RLML if i use a missile ship.
Maybe its intended to have support for HML, its just odd that no other weapon system requires a dedicated belli/huginn/rapier pilot for your weapon system to apply half way decently. |
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1158
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 15:16:17 -
[48] - Quote
learn to missile.
A.K.A Hodor Von Grootenberg
|
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
381
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 15:51:33 -
[49] - Quote
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame wrote:learn to missile. Very mature.
Do you have anything of substance to add?
[Caracal Navy Issue, Caracal Navy Issue fit]
Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Shield Power Relay II Shield Power Relay II
EM Ward Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II 10MN Afterburner II J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer II Medium Warhead Flare Catalyst II Medium Warhead Flare Catalyst II
335 dps with fury, 285 with navy, 248 with precision.
This is a ship with -25% explosive radius and with 2x explosion velocity rigs. Let's look at application.
Fury: 136/144 Navy: 78/171 Precision: 70/205
Now let's look at range.
Fury: 44km Navy: 58.7km Precision: 29.3km
YMMV I ran these figures with my personal API data, obviously the missiles have a bit better range at all V but this is fine for comparison purposes. It's worth noting I have the relevant missile application skills to 5.
Now compared to say.. railguns, off the top of my head now medium railguns have a sig radius of 125? base. Target velocity isn't really important at this stage but it is interesting to see that at least missiles have generally a lower radius than railguns and that no ship reduces the signature resolution of guns. There's no modules or rigs for it either. Otherwise I guess a railgun ship with even just 1x T2 sig reduction for guns would be tracking easily over 15% better just from that alone, dependent on target they could track up to 50% better. It would be totally broken. And so in this complex web of interdependent modules we get the TP and the web.
Are missiles borked in application? From a velocity perspective yes. From a sig perspective no.
So to compare with 2x t2 rigors instead of flare:
Fury: 86/102 Navy: 50/122 Precision: 45/146
according to the missile formula as described graphically here: http://eveuni.org/missiles101 we desire to push our sig radius factor as far in to our favour as possible. Sounds good?
One caveat remains: my corax does more volley damage than this CNI. In fact you need a drake to beat the volley damage of a LML corax with similar numbers of BCS. There is a problem here. Heavy missiles don't get significantly more range than lights, apply damage much worse and do roughly the same amount of damage. Maybe 15% more give or take.
So really I still think HML just need a damage buff, they suffer quite a staggering amount of damage mitigation naturally and it takes a niche fit in order to really push their damage down field. At the moment I would recommend any person considering HML to think of RLML instead as that 15% volley decrease is compensated for through significantly higher levels of application.
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
|
Khan Wrenth
Hedion University Amarr Empire
74
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 16:27:20 -
[50] - Quote
I don't have a horse in this race (I think that's the proper saying here), but because I do see this come up fairly frequently, why don't we give this problem a solution through skills?
What catches my mind immediately is that to increase the number of targets you can lock, you trail a skill. You get that to five, and you unlock a skill you can train further. Could we do such a thing for explosion velocity and radius? Both are current skills, and most pilots probably have them to four or five if they use missiles a lot. So why not give them a second step in those skill trees?
I'm just throwing out an idea, it's not like I ran numbers or anything. If the normal skill gives a 5% bonus/level, perhaps the second tier of the skill gives a 3% bonus/level? That should edge the missiles closer to doing the sort of damage application they are apparently lacking. My only concern with an outright damage buff is what it does for hitting classes above your own. Sure, upping damage would give you better damage verses cruisers, but it might de-balance missiles relative to each other. If you can get better damage out of heavies, and heavy lanchers require less fittings than cruises, why use cruises?
Again, I'm not running numbers, but I think giving players the ability to further train down radius and velocity would be easier to balance than damage buffs. Plus, for the ease of use of missiles, it kind of makes sense for there to be more to train. Like drones - you have to train separate racial skills to really get the most out of them, so they are already outside the norm for weapons training. Missiles are definitely outside the norm, so let's think outside the norm to address this issue (if it needs addressing).
HTFU.-á Adapt or die.-á Beware the falcon punch.
|
|
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
381
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 16:36:43 -
[51] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:I don't have a horse in this race (I think that's the proper saying here), but because I do see this come up fairly frequently, why don't we give this problem a solution through skills?
What catches my mind immediately is that to increase the number of targets you can lock, you trail a skill. You get that to five, and you unlock a skill you can train further. Could we do such a thing for explosion velocity and radius? Both are current skills, and most pilots probably have them to four or five if they use missiles a lot. So why not give them a second step in those skill trees?
I'm just throwing out an idea, it's not like I ran numbers or anything. If the normal skill gives a 5% bonus/level, perhaps the second tier of the skill gives a 3% bonus/level? That should edge the missiles closer to doing the sort of damage application they are apparently lacking. My only concern with an outright damage buff is what it does for hitting classes above your own. Sure, upping damage would give you better damage verses cruisers, but it might de-balance missiles relative to each other. If you can get better damage out of heavies, and heavy lanchers require less fittings than cruises, why use cruises?
Again, I'm not running numbers, but I think giving players the ability to further train down radius and velocity would be easier to balance than damage buffs. Plus, for the ease of use of missiles, it kind of makes sense for there to be more to train. Like drones - you have to train separate racial skills to really get the most out of them, so they are already outside the norm for weapons training. Missiles are definitely outside the norm, so let's think outside the norm to address this issue (if it needs addressing).
Interesting idea. 2% per level is the standard already set. I'd have really hoped for CCP to change the specialisation skills for missiles from ROF to raw damage and let ROF be purely determined by mods and rigs. This will homogenise the system with guns and add more value to the ammo you carry and make overheating your missile mods tangentially more valuable too.
Secondly RHML doesn't really hold a candle to cruise missiles. As far as PVE goes, nothing can beat 900+ dps to 250km from cruises. At around 250 sig and 100m/s Ve too. Cruises just **** all over heavy missiles. A rack of 8 does and with fury does nearly 8000 volley. By comparison heavies do about 2100. No ship gets bonuses to RHML flight time or velocity (except barghest I think?). As for shooting UP a catagory.... you're *supposed* to do more damage than normal, that's the point. It's a larger target. Right now an AB battleship can speed tank heavy missiles - this shouldn't be possible and it sure as hell isn't when comparing light missiles to cruisers, at least not to the same degree.
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
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
407
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 19:23:44 -
[52] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:...What catches my mind immediately is that to increase the number of targets you can lock, you trail a skill. You get that to five, and you unlock a skill you can train further. Could we do such a thing for explosion velocity and radius? Both are current skills, and most pilots probably have them to four or five if they use missiles a lot. So why not give them a second step in those skill trees?
I'm just throwing out an idea, it's not like I ran numbers or anything. If the normal skill gives a 5% bonus/level, perhaps the second tier of the skill gives a 3% bonus/level? That should edge the missiles closer to doing the sort of damage application they are apparently lacking. My only concern with an outright damage buff is what it does for hitting classes above your own. Sure, upping damage would give you better damage verses cruisers, but it might de-balance missiles relative to each other. If you can get better damage out of heavies, and heavy lanchers require less fittings than cruises, why use cruises?
Sorry dear but NO. Both turrets and missile haz four skills to improve application, range and damage and tracking (..turret tracking anyways).
What missiles and missile launchers do not have in common and I just stick to hybrid turrets for a moment:
Rocket launcher <-> small electron, ion, neutron blaster Light missile launcher <-> 75mm, 100mm, 150mm railgun Assault missile launcher <-> used to be anti-tackle and now it's anti-all missile launcher Heavy assault missile launcher <-> medium electron, ion, neutron blaster Heavy missile launcher <-> 150mm dual, 200mm and 250mm railgun (the latter having more range than linked ships can lock..) Cruise missile launcher <-> 250mm dual-, 350mm and 450mm railgun Torpedo launcher <-> used to be cool, now it's a YOLO bomber hazz torpedo. Electron, Ion and neutron blaster.
Trained eyes can see where I am going here and NO I do not want "smaller" launchers, I want all of my Caldari ships to be superior missile ships, ships that can fit the launchers and an active tank.
Dear Kil2, since you have flown the Drake quite often you should know that there are 4 fitting combinations viable but no longer possible. Maybe elaborate how you determined that Drakes can no longer active tank with heavy assault missile launchers without serious brain surgery? Odd, wouldn't you agree?
Missiles in general are the second weapon system that can be destroyed and have tons of downsides.
Let me quote from the old foums archive in a stealth bomber thread from back in the day when the Manticore was unique:
"If you fire a volley of cruise missiles from 200km away, you will see them approaching and you will still have time to go out, eat Pizza, buy groceries, come back and simply warp away."
What am I saying?
What I am saying for about seven years now, a missile will not do any damage with 100% or 1% application until they impact.
Or they can be compared to armor repair modules, which give you hp at the end of the cycle, so do missile maybe do damage the the end of the cycle.
Perhaps it is time for our "representatives" to take a look.
signature
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
428
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 21:25:56 -
[53] - Quote
Maybe this is the wrong path, maybe medium weapons just need pulled back.
A Deimos with 200mm rails is doing 93% of the DPS of a blaster Deimos...at far longer ranges. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
407
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 21:42:53 -
[54] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Maybe this is the wrong path, maybe medium weapons just need pulled back.
A Deimos with 200mm rails is doing 93% of the DPS of a blaster Deimos...at far longer ranges.
In my humble opinion, medium railguns are okay now.
Tech II beam laser "disks" could need some looking at the hunger games.
No dice for air-condition, since they have no interest in capacitor.
Moving on.
Except for the "drama" section this is the most viewed section in the forums. It would be save to assume that by now everyone with a blue name-tag has taken a look here.
At least some of you Joveans will have an opinion. Maybe you have something that we are not supposed to know yet or you just like to read something entertaining in your free time and are not allowed to respond.
Now to circumvent any further guesses or pokings a boolean response would be really cool.
And to make it clear for our CSM, no large alliance representative is getting a vote on this, neither your afk-cloaking alts.
signature
|
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
384
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 06:43:19 -
[55] - Quote
Maybe I should run for CSM next year, heh.
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
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
408
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 07:33:15 -
[56] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Maybe I should run for CSM next year, heh.
Can I vote for you naow?
signature
|
Luwc
Confederation of Independent Contractors Swamphole
265
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 07:38:05 -
[57] - Quote
and then people will complain about HMLs again. " HML Tengu. Kite. Such wow. many de pe es Drake OP nerf missiles Look at Cerberus. Much missiles. very range. DPS DPS DPS "
...something like this
back n forth back n forth.
I like how they are and a drake with HML is still a legit and cheap weapon system.
They are still overshadowed by hams and rapid lights in most PVP cases but yet they have their niche.
Damage and application so far is fine. I would just like to see increased range again to have a legit reason to choose them over rapid lights for certain pvp situations.
http://hugelolcdn.com/i/267520.gif
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
408
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 08:24:57 -
[58] - Quote
Luwc wrote:and then people will complain about HMLs again. " HML Tengu. Kite. Such wow. many de pe es Drake OP nerf missiles Look at Cerberus. Much missiles. very range. DPS DPS DPS "
Luwc wrote:I like how they are and a drake with HML is still a legit and cheap weapon system. Everyone likes something, that's okay. You wanna know what I like? Missiles that can hurt moving ships.
Luwc wrote:They are still overshadowed by hams and rapid lights in most PVP cases but yet they have their niche. Did you consider reading, what I wrote at least 5 times now in the last two weeks??
Luwc wrote:Damage and application so far is fine. I would just like to see increased range again to have a legit reason to choose them over rapid lights for certain pvp situations. Thank you for almost catching up to us!
Yes light missiles are as close as we can get to 100% damage application, the one thing I want to have on all missiles.
And now that we have cought the last one up, let me tell you AGAIN, that the Cerberus haz many range too.
Oh noes, we haz ship with zee good application of zee missile. Which is what I am telling you for a very, very long time now. May I also hint, that I never said anything in seven years of complaing that wasn't true.
Turns out, it's much easy to "sentry" ships of zee fields with zee sentry Archons to haz 100% gude keyboards. Keyboards much more show of zee no gude blobb.
Wait for missile to hit make longggh, neaddh more zee killz with 200 sentry Archons or Ishtars. More cuhl. Guhdder 100% keyboards.
signature
|
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
386
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 08:25:14 -
[59] - Quote
You feel that changing missile specialisation skills to increase damage and not ROF would be bad? A net decrease in dps would actually occur. This benefits the sniper role of long range missiles more and provides more room for movement with modules and rigs. Each shot you do is worth more and missiles fire slower.
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
|
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
269
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 08:34:08 -
[60] - Quote
i like how CCP nerfed drakes a full 6 months after the introduction of tier3 BCs made HML drakes almost completely obsolete
sort of like how they nerfed cynabals a full year after anyone ever thought they were good
anyway we're never going to see HMLs (or cruises or torps) viable in our lifetime as long as fozzie is at the helm. That man's hatred of missiles is... unnatural
watch me be a scurb and get owned
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |