EVE Search - Missile Guidance Enhancer?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Missile Guidance Enhancer?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Caldari 5 D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Affirmative. 411	Posted - 2015.06.04 22:26:22 - [1] - Quote Screenshots from SiSi http://gyazo.com/08f9d8f3241777b7873a55e690bf3888 The descriptions http://gyazo.com/08f9d8f3241777b7873a55e690bf3888 nothing on the attrib tab http://gyazo.com/c87f5fdcd5941e09a639867b6628f1b6 they are listed on the market as Tracking Enhancers Given the above I'm guessing that they are low slot items and will follow a similar set of fittings to other Tracking Enhancers? Is there going to be a Dev Post in here soon about it?
Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 9888	Posted - 2015.06.04 22:31:45 - [2] - Quote Ask in the test server subforum (check the sticies first obviously). That's interesting though I'll keep an eye. =]\|[=
Christopher Mabata The Interstellar Manipulation Consortium 387	Posted - 2015.06.04 22:42:27 - [3] - Quote I agree with Ralph, better put int the Test Server Feedback. But this is interesting, very very interesting GÖú Theory-Crafter GÖú Free Agent GÖú Immortal Space Pirate GÖú "Better the Devil you Know than the devil you don't" -Observing and dismantling F&I Discussion Threads since 2013Gäó
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 453	Posted - 2015.06.04 22:52:49 - [4] - Quote People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it. "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Haatakan Reppola Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 20	Posted - 2015.06.04 22:54:56 - [5] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it. Lets all wait for the nerf that mean any missile ship need 2-3 of these modules to get back to where they are now...
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 453	Posted - 2015.06.04 23:14:55 - [6] - Quote Haatakan Reppola wrote: Sobaan Tali wrote: People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it. Lets all wait for the nerf that mean any missile ship need 2-3 of these modules to get back to where they are now... That's exactly what I'm afraid of happening...and this is exactly what could do just that. Remember freighters? "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Haatakan Reppola Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 21	Posted - 2015.06.05 00:06:52 - [7] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: Haatakan Reppola wrote: Sobaan Tali wrote: People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it. Lets all wait for the nerf that mean any missile ship need 2-3 of these modules to get back to where they are now... That's exactly what I'm afraid of happening...and this is exactly what could do just that. Remember freighters? yes, tried to tell people befor the freighter changes that it would come with some serious nerf to "compensate" for the ability to fit module/rig If they can add tracking modules without gimping the base stats on missiles it would be a good change. Frig/Cruisers dont realy have the room or need for tracking module and battleship/dread need could use some help with application. Its not like battleships/phoenix are OP with missiles, everyone would be using them so trading tank/dps (low or med slot) for application cant be that OP either :P
unidenify Plundering Penguins 114	Posted - 2015.06.05 00:15:35 - [8] - Quote Haatakan Reppola wrote: Sobaan Tali wrote: People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it. Lets all wait for the nerf that mean any missile ship need 2-3 of these modules to get back to where they are now... let we hpope it won't be heavy missile nerf style
Wynta KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 16	Posted - 2015.06.05 01:20:17 - [9] - Quote I agree that the main problem with Heavy Missile and HAM's are foundational problem that need to be addressed ouside of adding an additional modules. There are also problem with Missiles that arise from the Caldari Kinetic Lock and the huge weaknesses in the BC class. I think at the very least this will open up the Drake Navy Issue to some use, it will allow the Cerberus to use Heavy and HAMs, and it will open up more RLML anti-frigate fits. What needs to happen along with the implementation of these modules is a Heavy and HAM missile rework, and a mass caldari hull bonus rework. Either switch all the Kinetic lock bonuses with reload time bonuses that the jackdaw got, or give them simple 5% damage or rof bonuses instead of the usual 7.5% kinetic damage.
unidenify Plundering Penguins 114	Posted - 2015.06.05 01:23:30 - [10] - Quote Wynta wrote: I agree that the main problem with Heavy Missile and HAM's are foundational problem that need to be addressed ouside of adding an additional modules. There are also problem with Missiles that arise from the Caldari Kinetic Lock and the huge weaknesses in the BC class. I think at the very least this will open up the Drake Navy Issue to some use, it will allow the Cerberus to use Heavy and HAMs, and it will open up more RLML anti-frigate fits. What needs to happen along with the implementation of these modules is a Heavy and HAM missile rework, and a mass caldari hull bonus rework. Either switch all the Kinetic lock bonuses with reload time bonuses that the jackdaw got, or give them simple 5% damage or rof bonuses instead of the usual 7.5% kinetic damage. it would also make torp boat much more viable outside of Stealth bomber/Golem

Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 556	Posted - 2015.06.05 01:35:35 - [11] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: Haatakan Reppola wrote: Sobaan Tali wrote: People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it. Lets all wait for the nerf that mean any missile ship need 2-3 of these modules to get back to where they are now... That's exactly what I'm afraid of happening...and this is exactly what could do just that. Remember freighters? O suspect that on a case by case basis you will be correct and wrong. Some missiles will get punted hard like lights and cruises while others will probably end up only marginally worse with things like webs taking up most of the slack ie rockets and torps. In fact torps would probably remain unchanged. These new modules - what will they affect? Both ev nd es? Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
unidenify Plundering Penguins 114	Posted - 2015.06.05 01:37:52 - [12] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: Sobaan Tali wrote: Haatakan Reppola wrote: Sobaan Tali wrote: People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it. Lets all wait for the nerf that mean any missile ship need 2-3 of these modules to get back to where they are now... That's exactly what I'm afraid of happening...and this is exactly what could do just that. Remember freighters? O suspect that on a case by case basis you will be correct and wrong. Some missiles will get punted hard like lights and cruises while others will probably end up only marginally worse with things like webs taking up most of the slack ie rockets and torps. In fact torps would probably remain unchanged. These new modules - what will they affect? Both ev nd es? I have discussion with my corp, most feel that it may be same as tracking enchancer, so around 9% dps and 12-15% range for T2
scorchlikeshiswhiskey Totally Abstract O X I D E 396	Posted - 2015.06.05 03:48:18 - [13] - Quote Unless this comes out paired with an active, scripted mid-slot module, I am against any kind of missile specific TD's. Why? Because Caldari ships do not typically have enough low slots to fit these in addition to Ballistic Controls which means that fitting one of these will inherently come at the expense of damage and missile speed. Allowing TD's to effect missiles on the basis of missiles FINALLY getting a specialized application mod would be a huge blunder and, I believe, a masked nerf to missile ships. In addition to losing damage and missile speed to fit one of these modules, missiles would still be vulnerable to firewalls as well as firing into a pre-repped ship due to flight time. For these reasons I am currently against TD's affecting missiles. Who's with me? Also, hopefully this will come with missile tweaks that will fix some of the more... glorious of missile... features(?). fingers crossed
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 685	Posted - 2015.06.05 03:54:37 - [14] - Quote scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: Who's with me? I am. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
unidenify Plundering Penguins 114	Posted - 2015.06.05 03:59:10 - [15] - Quote scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: Unless this comes out paired with an active, scripted mid-slot module, I am against any kind of missile specific TD's. Why? Because Caldari ships do not typically have enough low slots to fit these in addition to Ballistic Controls which means that fitting one of these will inherently come at the expense of damage and missile speed. Allowing TD's to effect missiles on the basis of missiles FINALLY getting a specialized application mod would be a huge blunder and, I believe, a masked nerf to missile ships. In addition to losing damage and missile speed to fit one of these modules, missiles would still be vulnerable to firewalls as well as firing into a pre-repped ship due to flight time. For these reasons I am currently against TD's affecting missiles. Who's with me? Also, hopefully this will come with missile tweaks that will fix some of the more... glorious of missile... features(?). fingers crossed consider that, as you said low slot would force pilot to make decision between raw dps or application dps. I am fine with this choice. however, if they add mid-slot module as you ask. They will need to nerf missile to balance on fact every missile BS will immediate replace their TP with said module (Golem may be exception).
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 556	Posted - 2015.06.05 04:08:52 - [16] - Quote You already do have to make fitting decisions between raw dps and application, that's not the problem. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey Totally Abstract O X I D E 396	Posted - 2015.06.05 04:10:46 - [17] - Quote unidenify wrote: scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: Unless this comes out paired with an active, scripted mid-slot module, I am against any kind of missile specific TD's. Why? Because Caldari ships do not typically have enough low slots to fit these in addition to Ballistic Controls which means that fitting one of these will inherently come at the expense of damage and missile speed. Allowing TD's to effect missiles on the basis of missiles FINALLY getting a specialized application mod would be a huge blunder and, I believe, a masked nerf to missile ships. In addition to losing damage and missile speed to fit one of these modules, missiles would still be vulnerable to firewalls as well as firing into a pre-repped ship due to flight time. For these reasons I am currently against TD's affecting missiles. Who's with me? Also, hopefully this will come with missile tweaks that will fix some of the more... glorious of missile... features(?). fingers crossed consider that, as you said low slot would force pilot to make decision between raw dps or application dps. I am fine with this choice. however, if they add mid-slot module as you ask. They will need to nerf missile to balance on fact every missile BS will immediate replace their TP with said module (Golem may be exception). Just a point, I did not ask for a mid-slot module. I only stated that, without a low and mid-slot module, I am against missile-specific EWAR or TD's affecting missiles. Also, the module would not have to infringe upon the TP, it might compliment the TP or work separately since CCP has free rein with how they would incorporate and design such a module, IF they design such a module. It is likely though that they will aim another Phoenix sized nerf bat at missiles if they do. In which case, I think I would like some time with this single module first, before my missiles once again gather dust in a hangar.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 556	Posted - 2015.06.05 05:01:32 - [18] - Quote I've never understood the need or desire for missile td. Just turn on an afterburner you floozies. It's proven that you can mitigate 44% of missile dps using simply one non-ewar module. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
unidenify Plundering Penguins 114	Posted - 2015.06.05 05:41:01 - [19] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: I've never understood the need or desire for missile td. Just turn on an afterburner you floozies. It's proven that you can mitigate 44% of missile dps using simply one non-ewar module. then there are defender missile, and smartbomb.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 76	Posted - 2015.06.05 06:07:21 - [20] - 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.

FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1036	Posted - 2015.06.05 07:16:39 - [21] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: People who think missiles would need to be nerfed to compensate are seriously kidding themselves. Whether it is necessary or not: people who think CCP would not add new modules to buff missiles without some corresponding kick in the teeth to missiles do not know CCP very well. It's always at least two steps forward, one step back, and often it's one step forward, two steps back. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Janeway84 Def Squadron Pride Before Fall 167	Posted - 2015.06.05 07:24:49 - [22] - Quote Like the idea of missile tracking enhancers but Im against any nerf to missiles overall since they aren't that great. Exception being light missiles. Imo they should do like with drone tracking links, 1 low slot module and a midslot module and it would be fair for armor and shield tanked missile boats
Tappits North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 92	Posted - 2015.06.05 07:41:11 - [23] - Quote Caldari 5 wrote: Screenshots from SiSi http://gyazo.com/08f9d8f3241777b7873a55e690bf3888 The descriptions http://gyazo.com/08f9d8f3241777b7873a55e690bf3888 nothing on the attrib tab http://gyazo.com/c87f5fdcd5941e09a639867b6628f1b6 they are listed on the market as Tracking Enhancers Given the above I'm guessing that they are low slot items and will follow a similar set of fittings to other Tracking Enhancers? Is there going to be a Dev Post in here soon about it? I hope there's an active mid slot version like Tracking computers then. O and about god dam time.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 454	Posted - 2015.06.05 07:58:20 - [24] - Quote Problem with an active module is that missiles tend to bug out when you apply stat changing properties to them while they are in flight. "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Tappits North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 92	Posted - 2015.06.05 08:20:02 - [25] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: Problem with an active module is that missiles tend to bug out when you apply stat changing properties to them while they are in flight. Activate the mod 1st then... and if the mod goes offline while in flight the missiles go dud...
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 314	Posted - 2015.06.05 14:08:06 - [26] - Quote Wynta wrote: instead of the usual 7.5% kinetic damage. Been reading this a lot lately and wondering where this comes from. taking a quick look through the official attributes for the Caldari ship line up and I do not see a bonus to kinetic damage listed anywhere. Using EvE HQ, PYFA and EvE Droid as a reference it appears that there are no bonuses either as the Caldari ships all seem to have the same DPS output level no matter what damage type you put into the launchers/guns. Since all of these apps show the DPS boost other ships get that do have a bonus to a specific damage type(rattle and kinetic/thermal) I have to wonder if this is one of those popular misconceptions, or a relic from times past that is no longer true. If you or anyone else has a link to any information that would help shed light on this I would appreciate you sharing it. Otherwise, from the available information I would have to surmise that this kinetic damage lock is a fairy tale.
unidenify Plundering Penguins 114	Posted - 2015.06.05 14:21:15 - [27] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: Wynta wrote: instead of the usual 7.5% kinetic damage. Been reading this a lot lately and wondering where this comes from. taking a quick look through the official attributes for the Caldari ship line up and I do not see a bonus to kinetic damage listed anywhere. Using EvE HQ, PYFA and EvE Droid as a reference it appears that there are no bonuses either as the Caldari ships all seem to have the same DPS output level no matter what damage type you put into the launchers/guns. Since all of these apps show the DPS boost other ships get that do have a bonus to a specific damage type(rattle and kinetic/thermal) I have to wonder if this is one of those popular misconceptions, or a relic from times past that is no longer true. If you or anyone else has a link to any information that would help shed light on this I would appreciate you sharing it. Otherwise, from the available information I would have to surmise that this kinetic damage lock is a fairy tale. You need to look again here is list of missiles boat that has kinetic bonus hawk Drake osprey navy issue Corax Cerberus Onyx Rook
Lugh Crow-Slave 1121	Posted - 2015.06.05 14:24:38 - [28] - Quote Haatakan Reppola wrote: Sobaan Tali wrote: People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it. Lets all wait for the nerf that mean any missile ship need 2-3 of these modules to get back to where they are now... this :/ Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 1859	Posted - 2015.06.05 14:30:57 - [29] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Nasar Vyron wrote: People who think missiles would need to be nerfed to compensate are seriously kidding themselves. Whether it is necessary or not: people who think CCP would not add new modules to buff missiles without some corresponding kick in the teeth to missiles do not know CCP very well. It's always at least two steps forward, one step back, and often it's one step forward, two steps back. The stupidest part is how the missile ships are technically in a balanced state right now but will now require additionnal sacrifice to achive what they already do. Missile boat already use all their slots and are balanced but not you will have to make sacrifice slot wise to get back to where you are application wise while losing raw dps, tank or utility. It's a net loss...
t3hWarrior Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6	Posted - 2015.06.05 14:37:42 - [30] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: Wynta wrote: instead of the usual 7.5% kinetic damage. Been reading this a lot lately and wondering where this comes from. taking a quick look through the official attributes for the Caldari ship line up and I do not see a bonus to kinetic damage listed anywhere. Using EvE HQ, PYFA and EvE Droid as a reference it appears that there are no bonuses either as the Caldari ships all seem to have the same DPS output level no matter what damage type you put into the launchers/guns. Since all of these apps show the DPS boost other ships get that do have a bonus to a specific damage type(rattle and kinetic/thermal) I have to wonder if this is one of those popular misconceptions, or a relic from times past that is no longer true. If you or anyone else has a link to any information that would help shed light on this I would appreciate you sharing it. Otherwise, from the available information I would have to surmise that this kinetic damage lock is a fairy tale. I dont know if you are just dumb, blind, or just lazy, so here are ships that are locked to kinetic for you: Ibis Condor Crow Buzzard (lol) Hawk Corax Flycatcher Jackdaw Osprey navy issue Cerberus Rook Onyx Tengu Drake Nighthawk Leviathan On the other hand, the ships that are not locked to kinetic: Kestrel Caracal Caracal navy issue Drake navy issue Raven Raven navy issue Scorpion navy issue Widow Phoenix did i miss anything?



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: 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.