|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Azerrad InExile
   |
Posted - 2006.09.08 07:31:00 -
[1]
Missles need a severe range nerf. Otherwise they're fairly balanced.
|
Azerrad InExile
|
Posted - 2006.09.08 07:46:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Nobler
Pfffft. Do you know how long it takes a cruise missile to travel 100KM? if you get killed by one you deserve it.
The problem is more with the "short range" missles in my mind. Torps max range shouldn't be anywhere close to what it is (84 km without any ship bonus w/ lvl 5 skills). For a "short range" weapon this is just completely off. Missles could use a large reduction in flight time and an increase in velocity across the board. I wouldn't mind if a missle equivelant of a tracking computer was added as well to compensate for the reduction in range.
Originally by: Nobler
P.S. you are a n00b too.  Republic Military School - 2006.09.01 08:32:00
Ad Hominem
|
Azerrad InExile
|
Posted - 2006.09.08 08:21:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Nobler
Umm ok. Short range missiles. My arguement to this is- blasters/rails/lasers/autocannons?!? Deal with it. Real world missiles don't need "tracking computers", neither do the ones in eve.
My argument to this is - lions/tigers/bears (oh my!). Seriously, can you elaborate what your argument here is rather than listing other weapon types? Also you can change the name to something other than "tracking computer" if it makes you feel better.
Originally by: Nobler
"Missiles could use a large reduction in flight ime and an increase in velocity across the board." -- I thought you were talking about short range missiles...?
I was. However, the point extends to the "long range" missles, but I don't see those as being nearly as problematic as the "short range" versions.
Originally by: Nobler
Do you know how long it takes to train Torp 5?
Depends on your attributes. Also not entirely sure how this is relevant.
Originally by: Nobler
Post with your main character so I can come pod you. If I'm gate camping (160K from gate), and the target is 15Km away from the gate, with missile projection lvl 4, using arblast cruise launchers, I can fire off three salvo's before the target (Omen) reaches the gate and jumps. How is that not fair?
I have seen guys in Megathrons and other battleships pod people from 220K out, with rails/lasers/projectile.....
I agree that T2 sniper ammo (the ammo required to do what you are describing) is overpowered and could use a nerf. However, I don't think that missles should have 4x the range of their counterpart guns by default without fitting any modules.
|
Azerrad InExile
|
Posted - 2006.09.08 08:25:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Malthros Zenobia
Originally by: Steven Dynahir
Missiles should be removed from the game. Those things are just too I-WIN button.
As I recall, the Gallente players are the ones who *****ed so loud that CCP ended up given them a general damage bonus to drones instead of just thermal.
Last time I checked CCP still only give a kinetic dmg bonus to Caldari.
Or ROF, which makes a hell of alot more sense (for anything).
There are some bonuses of 10% to kinetic damage and 5% to all other damage types (kestrel comes to mind). Drones also have built-in damage bonuses to specific damage types and if missles were changed to do the same (i.e. kinetic>explosive>em>thermal) it would make sense to give Caldari ships flat damage bonuses to all types. I doubt the Caldari pilots would like that change though.
|
Azerrad InExile
|
Posted - 2006.09.08 08:33:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Malthros Zenobia
If you get hit by torps at max range, you've got bigger problems to worry about, like the guy scramming you, because you'd have to be AFK to not have warped out after nearly a minute.
And lets not forget you should shoot the torp ship half a dozen times before warping out.
If you want to talk PVP situations then my change will actually help Caldari since delayed damage is the biggest whine from missle users. Increased missle velocity would help reduce the delay. Also you shouldn't be sniping in a Raven anyways... wait a few weeks and fly a Rokh.
PVE is where this change would hurt since Caldari wouldn't be able to snip everything from insane ranges without having to make some tradeoffs such as fitting a missle equivelant of a tracking computer (or "Noblers not a tracking computer because real life missles don't need tracking computers" missle range enhancer if you wish). The way things are know a reason to use something other than a Raven for PVE wouldn't be a bad thing though imho.
|
Azerrad InExile
|
Posted - 2006.09.08 12:59:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Azerrad InExile on 08/09/2006 12:59:35
Originally by: Trojanman190
Missiles will be balanced as soon as turrets arent penalized when oribiting a stationary target.
Or when the firing ships speed is added to the target ships speed when calculating the explosion velocity damage reduction.
|
Azerrad InExile
|
Posted - 2006.09.08 14:40:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
sure as soon as we make it so you cant sit 250km from a gate and use guns to snipe with T2 ammo
T2 sniping ammo is overpowered and could use a nerf. However, even with T2 ammo it requires a few tracking computers/enhancers to hit at 250km while a Raven can do it without having to use any such modules. That in my mind isn't right.
Originally by: Rezerwowy Pies
And in EVE we don't have anty rails defenders
They're called tracking disruptors and they work on all turrets.
|
Azerrad InExile
|
Posted - 2006.09.08 15:07:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Lucian Corvinus
Originally by: Azerrad InExile
They're called tracking disruptors and they work on all turrets.
tracking disruptors are for countering tracking computers, tracking enhancers and tracking links, since there are no such modules for missiles, defenders should be removed all in all
That would only be a valid argument if tracking disruptors had no effect when tracking computers/enhancers/links weren't active. However, tracking disruptors effect tracking and range of turrets even without tracking computers/enhancers/links. And defenders may as well be removed, they don't really work anyways.
|
|
|
| |
|