Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jihad leader
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 07:32:45 -
[241] - Quote
Make all missiles and torpedoes realistic If you have a f-15 cruisng at 800 mph and it launches a missle at another jet traveling 800 mph the other jet doesn't outrun the missile like in eve, it dies in a big ball of fire. You need to rework velocity period its like shooting a missile from 0mph and having a jet out run it yes it can easily....... 2 light missile boats IE: crows should not be able to out run eachothers missiles its dumb ...... if crow (A) is doing 4500m/s and crow (B) launches missiles at crow (A) also doing 4500m/s, missiles velocity should be a launch speed of 4500m/s on top of normal flight speed and should have no problem hitting them out running missiles in little ships is a unrealistic joke |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
461
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 09:03:42 -
[242] - Quote
Jihad leader wrote:Make all missiles and torpedoes realistic If you have a f-15 cruisng at 800 mph and it launches a missle at another jet traveling 800 mph the other jet doesn't outrun the missile like in eve, it dies in a big ball of fire. You need to rework velocity period its like shooting a missile from 0mph and having a jet out run it yes it can easily....... 2 light missile boats IE: crows should not be able to out run eachothers missiles its dumb ...... if crow (A) is doing 4500m/s and crow (B) launches missiles at crow (A) also doing 4500m/s, missiles velocity should be a launch speed of 4500m/s on top of normal flight speed and should have no problem hitting them out running missiles in little ships is a unrealistic joke
But then you'd have to fit rigors and and target painters otherwise the drake will be unbalanced against comparatively tanked battleships.
Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1461
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 14:32:38 -
[243] - Quote
Jihad leader wrote:Make all missiles and torpedoes realistic If you have a f-15 cruisng at 800 mph and it launches a missle at another jet traveling 800 mph the other jet doesn't outrun the missile like in eve, it dies in a big ball of fire. You need to rework velocity period its like shooting a missile from 0mph and having a jet out run it yes it can easily....... 2 light missile boats IE: crows should not be able to out run eachothers missiles its dumb ...... if crow (A) is doing 4500m/s and crow (B) launches missiles at crow (A) also doing 4500m/s, missiles velocity should be a launch speed of 4500m/s on top of normal flight speed and should have no problem hitting them out running missiles in little ships is a unrealistic joke
The only reason why EVE missiles can be outrun is because they wanted to make flight time relevant. Out running a mordus ship missiles is a whole different challenge because most of it's range come from speed. If all missiles were like that, the stupidity of outrunning missiles would stop. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1461
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 14:33:26 -
[244] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:Why wouldn't I just bonus them for missile damage? I'm not seeing your problem. Because in that case Amarr missile ships for pve in amarr space would not be able to both tank EM (T2 resists are explosive/kin) as deal EM.
Some ship are bad @ missions.
News at 11. |
Tusker Crazinski
Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels
16
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 16:14:59 -
[245] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Tusker Crazinski wrote:Gregor Parud wrote: Then we'll go back in circles about how missiles don't use cap, can select damage type, can't be countered by angular, don't require any manual input and are too easy to fit and because of all that shouldn't work even close to on par to turrets.
perhaps that should be the thing the fix instead of tweaking damage output and application/projection values, just say'n. Well missiles would most likely be a mix of kinetic and explosive damage. If they were hypothetically to get damage locked completely then that would be the two I'd give them. Which gives you only drones and projectiles as the selectable damage weapons and missiles could be modified in other more useful ways.
I was referring more to the Lack of manual input needed to make missiles work, with a weapon system that always hits they're either OP if they apply good damage or garbage if they don't. there's really no middle ground. fix that part instead.
that being said I do think all weapons should lose damage selection.
drones- EM / Therm.... they don't use ammo projectiles- kin / exp..... they're bullets missiles- either kin / therm or kin / exp. |
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1023
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 16:44:13 -
[246] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:The more you try the itrollu.jpg the more obvious it becomes for everyone about how you're not to be taken serious in anything at all. So please, keep at it. And with that, I'll leave this thread alone because the only thing that happens here is circle jerking using flawed logic and (not so) hidden agendas. Good luck with that.
Emphasis mine. Do not speak for me, ever.
Also, project much?
Back to OP's suggestion, having HMs do the most damage at the farthest range is imo an interesting mechanic that would separate them from HAMs (and other long range missiles from shorter ranged ones), but higher base damage. It leads one to wonder why the idea was abandoned even after the relevant stats were added to missiles.
I feel that missiles have enough useful stats and variations within a single category to be balanced between range, application, and base damage. But we also have to consider that each category of missile is fitted into a range category of launcher within its size-group.
Someone mentioned that there is a "Charges per cycle" attribute in the items database. The online DB shows this. But I cannot find it in the SDE. Still, if the code would simply loop based on the number of charges consumed and we can set our launchers to fire up to the maximum number of rounds in the launchers...
Lets see, 27 rounds of Scourge Fury Cruise missiles can fit in a T2 launcher... 8 launchers on a Navy Raven... with just 3 BCS IIs thats 7300 alpha times 27 rounds = 197k volley. Yep. Would totally like to see a fleet of Navy Ravens alphaing caps off the field every 10 seconds. And it would look absolutely AWESOME! To hell with server stability. Death to all supers!
Balance? We don't need no stinkin' balance!
In case you're wondering, no, I'm not serious. This will never happen. But it would look really awesome. Might be fun to enable on the test server for a day.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Cirrius Technologies O X I D E
357
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 18:16:43 -
[247] - Quote
I do think that the future of missiles should be a greater difference between short and long range and the way they do damage. Personally, I like my idea whereby long range missiles at short range deal less damage because kinetic energy. That, however, is an issue with mechanics and not application so to stay on topic I will say that I like the idea of reducing the nerf to explosion velocity for heavy missiles as, at the least, a temporary solution. I am cautious to get into the question of damage type, that is a very involved problem that is not to be taken lightly. IF missiles were to see a change in damage type, I think there are many ways to approach it. You could lock all missiles, with few exceptions, into kinetic and 1 other for game balance, or you could apply some basic logic and pair kin/exp and therm/EM. This would open the door for a different type of scripted TC for missiles, similar to wire guided torpedoes/missiles, where the TC can boost one damage type. Think of it as the TC guiding the missile for a better kinetic hit and less exp, or more exp and less kinetic. Just a thought, could be good or it could be very bad. To get back on topic, I would very much like to see what the devs think of the state of missiles, both in general and each type specifically. Do the devs think that heavy missiles, and all missiles really, are actually balanced because theyre "easy" and will always do some damage? Or have they not found the time/right solution to make a constructive change? Also, if the devs are short on time, what do they think about crowdsourcing? Their are plenty of people, as we have seen time and time again on the forums, who have both the time and inclination to test detailed scenarios, is this a resource they do/should tap for complex issues? I'm going to go back and reread the OP before class and, when I have time, edit so this will be a relevant post instead of filler.
(Lots of questions, I know, but it is my hope that we will get the attention of someone who can answer our questions) |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
461
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 03:25:45 -
[248] - Quote
Tusker Crazinski wrote:
I was referring more to the Lack of manual input needed to make missiles work, with a weapon system that always hits they're either OP if they apply good damage or garbage if they don't. there's really no middle ground. fix that part instead.
that being said I do think all weapons should lose damage selection.
drones- EM / Therm.... they don't use ammo projectiles- kin / exp..... they're bullets missiles- either kin / therm or kin / exp.
The thing about missiles is the premise of a kinetic missile doesn't really "work". Unless it's a bunker buster. This would leave you with either straight EM, explosive or explosive/thermal. Kinetic damage from a missile is more like antitank missiles which have armour penetrating heads due to the cone of their explosion, a feature totally unsuitable for anything but citadel missiles and bombs.
Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
|
Tusker Crazinski
Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels
16
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 05:40:34 -
[249] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Tusker Crazinski wrote:
I was referring more to the Lack of manual input needed to make missiles work, with a weapon system that always hits they're either OP if they apply good damage or garbage if they don't. there's really no middle ground. fix that part instead.
that being said I do think all weapons should lose damage selection.
drones- EM / Therm.... they don't use ammo projectiles- kin / exp..... they're bullets missiles- either kin / therm or kin / exp.
The thing about missiles is the premise of a kinetic missile doesn't really "work". Unless it's a bunker buster. This would leave you with either straight EM, explosive or explosive/thermal. Kinetic damage from a missile is more like antitank missiles which have armour penetrating heads due to the cone of their explosion, a feature totally unsuitable for anything but citadel missiles and bombs.
Actually missiles in space would only be kinetic, warheads become completely superfluous when considering the sheer velocity they can accumulate in a friction-less environment. and EVE missiles have a set speed of 4.5-6km/s.... that a telephone pool going 5 times faster than our fastest bullets.
anyway was just say'n from a balance perspective, why do all the capless weapon systems also get damage selectivity.
|
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
461
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 05:44:58 -
[250] - Quote
Didn't the X-9 hit 11km/s back in the 70's? Hardly impressive to pull that little speed. Also launch velocity for a modern space shuttle is about as fast.
Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
|
|
Tusker Crazinski
Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels
16
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 06:06:21 -
[251] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Didn't the X-9 hit 11km/s back in the 70's? Hardly impressive to pull that little speed. Also launch velocity for a modern space shuttle is about as fast.
NO IT DID NOT, low earth orbit is about 7km/s. any man made thing going 11km/s in the stratosphere would be vaporized. matter in fact going to start doing math I think 11km/s is about escape velocity.
Mach 11 sounds a bit better, but still absurd.
and I'd like to make something abundantly clear. speed is a real slippery term when talking about space. the important question is velocity relative to what? in EVE everything is on a stationary grid, in space that's not really the case.
oh and yeah at those velocities pebbles will hit with the energy of our biggest tank shells.
|
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
461
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 08:04:59 -
[252] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:It all depends on the scenario. The second a frigate realises your Deimos/Eagle is rail kite fit is the second he'll spiral into scram range and get under your guns. Can it be countered? Sure but the fact remains that long range turrets can very easily be entirely useless, which is my point. Yes turrets can apply really good dps but they can also apply zero dps. Missiles do not have these highs and low and do more average dps instead.
- less than turrets when turrets are doing fine - more than turrets when turrets struggle
Neither is better or worse, it's just different. My point is that one can't froth over how missiles do less than turrets when turrets are working fine, because there's many scenarios where they don't work fine, or at all.
Again, for the zillionth time, I'm not saying that HML couldn't use a small dps boost, but it would have to come at the cost of losing some range. As they are their dps is inline with he ranges they can achieve.
What you just said there is EXACTLY what the OP is stating to fix heavy missiles. You can apply this to all long-range missiles and have it work. You literally just proved his point. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1497
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 15:12:07 -
[253] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Tusker Crazinski wrote:
I was referring more to the Lack of manual input needed to make missiles work, with a weapon system that always hits they're either OP if they apply good damage or garbage if they don't. there's really no middle ground. fix that part instead.
that being said I do think all weapons should lose damage selection.
drones- EM / Therm.... they don't use ammo projectiles- kin / exp..... they're bullets missiles- either kin / therm or kin / exp.
The thing about missiles is the premise of a kinetic missile doesn't really "work". Unless it's a bunker buster. This would leave you with either straight EM, explosive or explosive/thermal. Kinetic damage from a missile is more like antitank missiles which have armour penetrating heads due to the cone of their explosion, a feature totally unsuitable for anything but citadel missiles and bombs.
The kinetic part of a missile would be anything like a shaped change to punch a hole in an armored structure to expanding rod in anti-air missile sending chunck of metal in all direction to punch holes in relatively fragile planes. |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
461
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 15:52:55 -
[254] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:Tusker Crazinski wrote:
I was referring more to the Lack of manual input needed to make missiles work, with a weapon system that always hits they're either OP if they apply good damage or garbage if they don't. there's really no middle ground. fix that part instead.
that being said I do think all weapons should lose damage selection.
drones- EM / Therm.... they don't use ammo projectiles- kin / exp..... they're bullets missiles- either kin / therm or kin / exp.
The thing about missiles is the premise of a kinetic missile doesn't really "work". Unless it's a bunker buster. This would leave you with either straight EM, explosive or explosive/thermal. Kinetic damage from a missile is more like antitank missiles which have armour penetrating heads due to the cone of their explosion, a feature totally unsuitable for anything but citadel missiles and bombs. The kinetic part of a missile would be anything like a shaped change to punch a hole in an armored structure to expanding rod in anti-air missile sending chunck of metal in all direction to punch holes in relatively fragile planes.
I see someone is also vaguely rememberig schlock mercenary.
Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
|
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1029
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 20:51:01 -
[255] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:
The thing about missiles is the premise of a kinetic missile doesn't really "work". Unless it's a bunker buster. This would leave you with either straight EM, explosive or explosive/thermal. Kinetic damage from a missile is more like antitank missiles which have armour penetrating heads due to the cone of their explosion, a feature totally unsuitable for anything but citadel missiles and bombs.
The kinetic part of a missile would be anything like a shaped change to punch a hole in an armored structure to expanding rod in anti-air missile sending chunck of metal in all direction to punch holes in relatively fragile planes.
A purely kinetic missile works just fine. It merely has to directly impact the target to do anything. Plenty of kinetic energy there, especially if its traveling at several thousand m/s. This is how armor piercing rounds work. Railguns also work like this. They simply throw a mass at a target with as much relative velocity as possible.
Missiles work even better in space because in space there is no atmosphere to drag on the projectile and slow it down. So missiles can achieve much higher velocities before running out of propellant. In addition, since there is no atmosphere, puncturing the skin of a space craft causes it to vent atmosphere, possibly killing any crew and passengers.
A big flashy explosive detonation would not work well in space because in the vacuum of space there is no medium through which a shockwave can travel. Shrapnel from the missile case or warhead and super-heated expanding gases would be projected outwards and could cause significant damage at close range.
In the event of a direct impact from an explosive round, they would work just fine. In this case, you would prefer a shaped-charge or HEAT warhead to direct as much of the energy of the explosion at the target, rather than letting it blow harmlessly into the surrounding vacuum.
Nuclear detonations would project tons of high energy EM radiation over extremely long ranges. But again, without a medium for the expanding mass to push against, there would be almost no shockwave and any kinetic or thermal energy would dissipate very quickly. US Air Force testing of high altitude nukes have proven this.
So how does all of this translate into Eve? Well, for a purely kinetic missile, a faster-flying missile would do more damage than a slower one with the same mass. Since that missile has to actually accelerate to that speed, the higher the missile's velocity at its time of impact the higher its applied damage up to its maximum flight time, at which point it simply expires.
From an application standpoint, certain damage types could care more about velocity than others. For eve we can translate this into low or higher base damage and better or poorer acceleration, or even more or less mass. So rather than having damage application based on sigRad/expRad and/or expVel/vel, it would be based more on classical methods that scale in relation to relevant eve-o stats. Big missiles would accelerate slowly. But having longer flight times means they would deal excellent damage at long ranges while doing terrible damage at short range. Smaller missiles would accelerate quickly and have lower base damage. But that damage would apply well at much closer ranges.
Certain damage types could depend less on velocity than others. For example, an EM bursting missile really should give a whit about how fast the missile is going. Explosive I think would be another type that cares less about velocity and more about raw damage potential, since it would be something like a shaped-charge HEAT round or EFP. Thermal missiles would then be 2nd to kinetic in velocity effect on damage.
Since missiles with a long flight time and higher acceleration would only reach maximum damage at maximum range, they would then be candidates for long range ammo. Meanwhile, something that doesn't care so much about velocity at impact would be a better candidate for short-range ammo (less acceleration) and should have a higher base damage.
So it seems to me that we have cases for several different variations on ammo in every size category. We already have some idea of how this works because some of our current missiles are based on these premises.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
461
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 03:02:08 -
[256] - Quote
At high enough velocities the impacts would be more like explosive damage than kinetic due to the friction of the impact partially vapourising the materials involved. If anything, a super-high-velocity missile (and we're talking about one that reaches its absolute newtonian-determined maximum speed) would be more explosive/thermal than kinetic for that reason.
If you're making a case for changing how missiles work in game based on that mechanic then I'd support it. If your motivation is different however I am skeptical and reserve support for a later time.
Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
675
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 09:26:14 -
[257] - Quote
You know, if it wasnt too much server load missiles could be given a flight time and an acceleration attribute - and no max speed. They get faster the longer they're in flight. Might help a little with the whole "oh, red boxed by a raven/cerberus...best align out and warp off before I get hit" thing.
However what would be easier is morduing them ALL in base stats (and leaving mordus bonuses in place) |
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Cirrius Technologies O X I D E
357
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 18:41:55 -
[258] - Quote
afkalt wrote:You know, if it wasnt too much server load missiles could be given a flight time and an acceleration attribute - and no max speed. They get faster the longer they're in flight. Might help a little with the whole "oh, red boxed by a raven/cerberus...best align out and warp off before I get hit" thing.
However what would be easier is morduing them ALL in base stats (and leaving mordus bonuses in place) As far as i know, there is already an acceleration that functions like warp acceleration, meaning behind the scenes. This is why, i believe, your actual engagement range is roughly 90% of your theoretical, on average. So, HAMs with a range of 30km, more accurately have a range closer to 27km. I could be wrong, but i've always heard this is a good rule of thumb. This could stay behind the scenes but if they were to tweak the values of different missiles they could then change max V and flight time to get similar results but still keep to the "space is full of stuff so you can't go faster even though your engines are on" mechanic. |
Hookage Hoeslice
APLE WOD BRSTOL
4
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 12:27:45 -
[259] - Quote
For me, the only good thing about HML is that my tengu can do lvl 4 missions with faction ammo and get 100k range so I don't have to chase stuff down. Basically, I'm lazy lol.
As far as pvp goes, I really don't do it often as I am only a few years into the game and seems that when I do try PvP I die before I even make it thru peoples shields. I guess the only thing I've noticed is that missile seem to be for PvE and nothing else. Definitely a joke in PvP and is why I made an alt to fly gunships for PvP. I've tried HAM and RL during PvP but still fall short. And yes, I do have maxed missile skills along with maxed shield skills. Even with that I pretty much never win PvP using missiles. Maybe I suck or maybe missiles could use a little love. IDK. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
536
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 12:34:46 -
[260] - Quote
Hookage Hoeslice wrote:For me, the only good thing about HML is that my tengu can do lvl 4 missions with faction ammo and get 100k range so I don't have to chase stuff down. Basically, I'm lazy lol.
As far as pvp goes, I really don't do it often as I am only a few years into the game and seems that when I do try PvP I die before I even make it thru peoples shields. I guess the only thing I've noticed is that missile seem to be for PvE and nothing else. Definitely a joke in PvP and is why I made an alt to fly gunships for PvP. I've tried HAM and RL during PvP but still fall short. And yes, I do have maxed missile skills along with maxed shield skills. Even with that I pretty much never win PvP using missiles. Maybe I suck or maybe missiles could use a little love. IDK.
Frigates is where its at for PvP and rockets are amazing in pvp and if you would rather kite then missiles will get you over 60km on some ships.
so yes heavy missiles are a joke in pvp but not all missiles
Fuel block colors
|
|
Damjan Fox
Fox Industries and Exploration
85
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 13:53:49 -
[261] - Quote
Quote:You know, if it wasnt too much server load missiles could be given a flight time and an acceleration attribute - and no max speed. I don't think, the damage calculation for this would cause any further load on the server. It would be roughly the same amount, as existing weapon systems do today. Just take the distance to target, when missile is fired. For example, if you know your target is 100km away and you fire a missile at it, if you know the set acceleration of the missile, you'll know what velocity the missile will have in 100km distance.
Yes, ideally you would have to take into account the flight time of the missile and the velocity of the target. Until the missile hits its target, the distance to it, could have changed. But, to keep things simple, you could just ignore this step. |
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
860
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 19:44:14 -
[262] - Quote
Suitonia wrote:I propose to add the following mechanic to Heavy Missiles; Heavy Missiles gain %bonus damage+Application based on the time they have spent in the air, the longer the flight time, the more powerful Heavy Missiles become. Goodbye Ishtars: Online and hello Cerberus: Online!
This would be hugely unbalanced given the wide range of missile velocity, damage, flight time related ship bonuses we have atm. It would be awful (for example) with the new Mordus ships which all have +200% missile velocity and -50% flight time.
Targeting, Sensors and ECM Overhaul
|
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Cirrius Technologies O X I D E
358
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 21:49:55 -
[263] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:Suitonia wrote:I propose to add the following mechanic to Heavy Missiles; Heavy Missiles gain %bonus damage+Application based on the time they have spent in the air, the longer the flight time, the more powerful Heavy Missiles become. Goodbye Ishtars: Online and hello Cerberus: Online! This would be hugely unbalanced given the wide range of missile velocity, damage, flight time related ship bonuses we have atm. It would be awful (for example) with the new Mordus ships which all have +200% missile velocity and -50% flight time. I suggest a slightly amended version of the original idea: Heavy Missiles gain % bonus to application based on the time they have spent in the air, not "damage + application" The only thing it would do would encourage long range missiles to be used at long range. The general consensus, among those that agree with the OP, is that the damage would stay the same as it currently is, but cruise missiles at 5km would be less effective than cruise missiles at 100km. (For example)
On another note: The AC balance thread must have been noticed by someone, given the changes coming in the next release. Any guesses as to how many more release cycles we'll have to sit through before someone decides to un-nerf heavy missiles? Maybe we'll see something useful being done when the Caldari T3 Destroyer is released. Or, and I think that this is more likely, the Caldari T3 will be a hybrid platform and CCP will go on ignoring us. |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
469
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 01:40:31 -
[264] - Quote
I should hope that the t3 destroyers for caldari and gallente are spruced up corax and algos' respectively
Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
|
CW Itovuo
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
55
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 03:30:41 -
[265] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
On another note: The AC balance thread must have been noticed by someone, given the changes coming in the next release. Any guesses as to how many more release cycles we'll have to sit through before someone decides to un-nerf heavy missiles? Maybe we'll see something useful being done when the Caldari T3 Destroyer is released. Or, and I think that this is more likely, the Caldari T3 will be a hybrid platform and CCP will go on ignoring us.
Yup, funny how AC's get a small unannounced buff.
Missiles still languish; no DEV feedback, even after multiple threadnaughts.
|
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
470
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 05:27:45 -
[266] - Quote
So long as we don't return to the days of set-orbit and winmatar, then I couldn't give a damn about ACs.
Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
|
Kalihira
Ultramar Independent Contracting
32
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 12:09:28 -
[267] - Quote
Heavy missiles are fine, and in line with the other long range medium weapon systems.... Why are ppl advocating ideas that promote power creep? |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
699
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 12:17:02 -
[268] - Quote
Kalihira wrote:I didnt read the thread, or the evidence or the damage charts from CCP, but guys Heavy missiles are fine
Fixed that for you. |
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Cirrius Technologies O X I D E
358
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 12:19:05 -
[269] - Quote
Kalihira wrote:Heavy missiles are fine, and in line with the other long range medium weapon systems.... Why are ppl advocating ideas that promote power creep? Heavy missiles are not fine and the ideas being promoted are, if you had bothered to read, advocating balance as opposed to power creep. Heavy missiles are still reeling from the nerf bat blow that was delivered to "fix" the Drake years back. I won't reiterate the points that have been made, there's 13 other pages for that, so why not go find out how thin the margin is by which heavy's are better than rails, for example. |
Scorpionstrike
Bogan Nation
12
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 13:33:41 -
[270] - Quote
Why not put some imagination into missile's don't limit it to modern day missiles, why not attach the technology of the micro jump drive to the missile itself creating missiles that are "almost instant" - with a small spool up time
could only be for heavy missiles but that could be expanded
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |