| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
76
   |
Posted - 2015.06.05 06:07:21 -
[1] - Quote
People who think missiles would need to be nerfed to compensate are seriously kidding themselves. Any nerf to a missiles making even fitting a single new module required to it to bring it the the current power level is a nerf to all shield tanked. All missile systems aside from LML are in a horrible place right now for anything not PVE due to ever worsening speed creep. This module seems to me like a simplified way to rectify this without having to do a balance pass on every ship or completely redesigning the missile system itself which would include re-balancing several hull bonuses as well.
As of now missile boats (nearly all shield tanked) can fit tank and damage which is not enormously more powerful of a tank compared to their drone/turret armor based counterparts. These ships have the option to sacrifice tank for damage, and mids are considered utility for damage application/cap/prop/etc. People have been asking for years for the option of sacrificing tank for application for missile boats. This is not unbalanced, it's balance that has been sorely lacking since inception.
All that aside, once they are in the game (and hopefully same patch) I am certain many hull bonuses and missile damage/applications stats will need to be tweaked downward. But that doesn't mean this hasn't been sorely needed for a long time nor that EVERY missile type must now be nerfed. All we need now is fire walling to be made impossible, and defender missiles moved to a midslot defense module and actually made effective for all incoming missiles until you're out of charges rather than simply on target and a waste of a high slot. |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
77
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 01:48:07 -
[2] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:I sit here wondering if the meta would be so drastically changed if these were introduced with no nerfs whatsoever.
A strong voice in the back of my head says no. We'd still be drones online but it MIGHT just make missiles more viable in pvp... Especially if they added a health script sufficient enough to break firewalls.
/edit
By balance I refer to larger weapons. Lights are still rather healthy.
Firewalls just simply need to go. Offensive systems should never have been allowed to work in a defensive manner.
Defender missiles also need to be reworked to effectively mimic flares to reduce incoming damage from missiles by altering incoming missile explosion velocity/radius for a duration after each cycle against you. |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
77
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 04:33:22 -
[3] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:fire walls are fine missiles just need to be more resistant to them so that you need more than 8 or so that a missile has 99 resists in all but one type (so opposite of bombs)
That's pretty easily bypassed by having your command ships or specific doctrine ship fly between you and the hostiles equip with different smartbomb types. Not exactly hard to do since most command ships already do such a thing to handle l/m/h drones on fleet or annoying ecm bursting ceptors...
You can give them larger buffers requiring larger numbers of smartbombs to kill them, but that creates an issue of fleets taking more damage from friendly fire than the missiles themselves. So it begs the question, why should the ability of one offensive weapon be allowed to completely counter another even remain?
I'd rather smartbombs be relegated to their original design as (anti)close combat weapon systems and defender missiles given a reliable use/purpose in defending against incoming waves of missiles. Not asking for a buff to missiles here, just defense against them given to the module specifically designed to do so. |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
87
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 16:43:21 -
[4] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:Nope. The nerf is too ABs. Their 44% damage reduction against missiles only made the victim die slower.
I can't avoid 50% of the damage done to me by simply moving fast in any direction before resistances are even taken into effect! Oh god!
At least with guns it took a small amount of skill to watch your transversal, avoiding missile damage has always been as brainless as strapping on a prop mode and not holding still. You will never get pity from me with this whole "missiles always do damage" shtick when avoiding the majority of missile damage is determined by hull size, how fast you are, and then finally your resist profile. Meanwhile even large guns with proper positioning will blap small targets, something missiles will simply never do.
Anyway I called it - no missile buffs until after they see how this actually effects game play. We can all guess which hulls are going to see nerfs and which will finally see some love. I'm going to predict an end to kinetic locks on all remaining hulls in time.
As for the end to firewalls, kinda of called that one too, but I like the direction they are looking. Would rather it be inverse tho, I don't like the idea of an enemy fleet being able to dictate my damage choice in such a way. Better to force me to use 3 out of the 4 remaining damage types if I see EM smartbombs going off rather than being forced to fire into what is likely to be their highest resist profile or do literally no damage as my missiles hit the firewall. |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
89
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 22:39:37 -
[5] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:
edit - I do like the one guys suggestion that defender missiles act like flares, and reduce damage application from missiles. Unfortunately it doesn't overcome what appears to be heavy coding issues or the necessity for a launcher slot on the target hull. Better to have the necessary cooperative play of dedicated ewar TD boats imo. Better just to delete defenders from the game. They've never worked well and apparently never will.
That was my idea. Glad you agree with it, missiles have needed an overhaul for a while as far as how they are coded. So this would simply be a part of that much needed patch. Getting jammed/losing lock should never cause a missile to do no damage, one would assume once fired all the stats it was fired with are now a part of that missile which includes the target lock.
So missiles would get calculated twice
1) When fired they are set with target, speed, duration of burn, hull bonused damage, exp velocity, and exp radius.
2) When they reach the target the target's sig radius, speed, and external factors are calleded and damage is calculated.
Think of the new defender missile as a point blank defense weapon that create a bubble like field as far as the code is concerned. Basically when the missile reaches it's intended target a check is made similar to a current warp disruption bubble. And likewise stacking multiple defender missile flares would just gives you more coverage, not a stronger disruption. And since this form of defense would be charge based and the defense points static would make this defensive module as unique as the weapon system it is meant to counter.
Consider the gameplay that can develop around this: a few ships are fit with these and fly slightly ahead of the fleet creating a chain of flares for their fleet to fly through for protection. Since it is a non-direct defense system it has the potential to be far more powerful than a directed TD could be against larger fleets. It gives it near infinite scaling! Yet the trade off is that it cannot near-perfectly cancel out a ship like a well placed TD can accomplish. Add to this reload times, so the ships launching these would need to communicate to insure coverage and fleet movement. |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
93
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 04:47:35 -
[6] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:I am wary of the scripted togglable computer as it seems like a great way to let you do Time on Target salvos for double or triple alpha.
What?
Seriously, I'm trying to figure out what you mean here. It's simply damage application or range that can be increased by these. In the case of application (the only thing that can increase the damage dealt), you're talking about what we assume to be around a 30% increase to the base missile stats with stacking penalties. Missiles are still hard capped on their damage so they aren't going to magically crit you for anything more than that.
Basically the only way you're going to get hit for double/triple alpha is if you go from moving to not moving at all in a small ship and they're scripted precision. In which case, far worse will happen to you if you do that to a player using turrets since your size only effects their chance to hit, not their damage like with missiles. |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
93
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 06:43:03 -
[7] - Quote
Basically what Caldari said is the only way I see that happening with the very slow, long range missiles. Rate of fire and flight duration typically already make it so only the faster firing launchers can even see two (occasionally a third) flights in the air at the same time. Scripting will not speed them up that much to allow for maybe 3/4 flights out of a few launchers at max range/very fast targets unless the target literally loops back towards you or stopping I cant imagine them hitting in fast enough succession as you suggest. At which point it was pilot error that would cause this, not gaming of a module/mechanic. |
| |
|