|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
5
   |
Posted - 2015.06.23 04:20:15 -
[1] - Quote
Why do some guys want to apply Tracking Disruption on non-tracking weapon systems? How about using Damps to mitigate their range hmmm...?
Because when the evil missile boat and the beloved turret boat are both within engagement range, the turrets win on DPS alone.
Really looking forward to this! Next patch is going to be so brilliant [evil, maniacal cackling] |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
5
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 04:32:58 -
[2] - Quote
Porucznik Borewicz wrote:CCP Rise wrote:We would have liked to include disruption modules to go along with these enhancement modules but there are actually some technical hurdles we need to figure out and we didn't want to keep holding back on adding these in the mean time. Look for those sometime in the future. Looks interesting. I think having a single weapon systems disruptor would be enough. Just add functionality to the Tracking Disruptor that is already in the game, change the module name to something more general and make it run 4 different scripts, 2 for turrets and 2 for missile launchers.
No. If you do that, then I want a Drone Repellant in there as well. Please let there be difference between the weapon systems? Pretty please? Let there be Cyclone! Let there be Drake once more! Let there be Phoenix (provided dreads will still be any good come FozzieSov ;-) |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 20:26:13 -
[3] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:The only trouble would be balancing it with ships like the Typhoon with its plethora of lows.
...which is filled with Ballistic Control Units currently. Better application, less DPS? Still fair. |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 20:51:17 -
[4] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:You seem to have not been reading the thread, and your little over one year in this game lack of experience is showing. Anyway, if you have some philosophical objection to tracking disruption on a non tracking weapon system, where then is you consternation at tracking enhancement on those same weapon systems.  And no, the beloved turret boat does not win on DPS alone. Often the missile boat is shield and sometimes will fit a TD or two [dual TD Hookbill] to partially or completely screw over the turret dps. As for fleet battles and ewar, if CCP is going to be taking away the efficacy of firewalling it damn well better have something better to take its place. TD boats should be getting more use in this game against both turret and missile fleet comps. However, atm everything is ecm and damp boats for fleets. Lastly, damps are just as effective against turret boats as missile boats because, tada, lock range and/or lock time has nothing to do with whether you are using turrets or missiles. 
I shall read between objections based on "my experience" -- although tr%#@%% nope- not going there. Moving on.
I'll even humour you and grant you have half a point there. But still... NOT IN THE TRACKING DISRUPTOR! Make it a separate module, but don't extend the usefulness of the tracking disruptor to counter "all kinds of incoming DPS". Such a "can't hit me" mod already exists and it's called ECM.
It was mostly the extention of the TD that worried me. I do not object to a different module -- more tough choices, more variety is always better. That said, Yes I love my Hookbill and yes I put TDs (and other fun stuff) in there as well; but when people get all up close and personal I DO feel severely out-DPSsed. You don't? How jolly for you. I was under the impression short-range weapon systems did a lot more damage than long range weaponry (countered by damps); and when one looks closely at short range weapon systems, Rockets and HAMs deal sub-par damage.
But ... sub-par damage *that hits*. Which is good. Now if everybody starts fitting TDs because a couple of scripts make them roflstomp against anyone, then I must object. |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 12:13:18 -
[5] - Quote
Kadesh Priestess wrote:
2 t2 rigors, 1 t1 rigor on tq: 1++(1GêÆ0.2)++(1GêÆ0.2)++(1GêÆ0.15) = +83.8% application
2 MGCs scripted for accuracy: (1+0.15)++(1GêÆ0.15)+ù(1+0.15+ù0.87)++(1GêÆ0.15+ù0.87) = +75.9%
2 MGCs and single t2 rigor: 1++(1GêÆ0.2)+ù(1+0.15)++(1GêÆ0.15+ù0.87)+ù(1+0.15+ù0.87)++(1GêÆ0.15+ù0.57) = +104%
3 MGCs: (1+0.15)++(1GêÆ0.15)+ù(1+0.15+ù0.87)++(1GêÆ0.15+ù0.87)+ù(1+0.15+ù0.57)++(1GêÆ0.15+ù0.57) = +108.8%
Thus, 2 MGCs with additional rig/mgc already exceed old rigor spam values.
But ....... 2 Guidance Computers? Then where does my tank go?? If I sacrifice 2 midslots I really don't want to slap on rigs as well.
Oh and by the way, is anyone actually using "Precision" missiles? Because contrary to the advertisement on the package they are not very precise at all and ... well ... I don't like to resort to black/white thinking but Presicion Missiles = EPIC FAIL. They can't even hit or reach (range issues) the shipclass they're supposed to hit?!? Auto Targetting missiles? *ROFL* Defender Missiles? Worst spent 640 skillpoints ever. So basically, there's Faction and there's Fury. Not to mention locked in Kinetic in several cases. So, while you're at it ..... give the Precision some love?
following this thread, it's pretty clear TP owns this new Guidance Computer. As for the Guidance Enhancers (lowslot), is there any benefit in using them over Ballistic Control Units?
I am all in favour of low/midslots since I might finally be able to pick and choose a rig for my boat; but assuming we NEED at least two of those just to hit the shipsize the missile is designed for is somewhat skewed. If the bonusses are worth it, hell, why not-- but please do keep in mind we're not all flying these big ass fleetfights where the target is 5x Target Painted. I need my mids for tank and tackle; I need my lows for ... oh wait Caldari don't have lows (LOL) ... I guess what I'm trying to say is: I can spare one or two slots but I expect to feel a different flavour when I do.
I was really looking forward to some new, SURPRISING Heavy Missile P*wnmobiles; the kind of vessel you cannot predict beforehand if it'll be HAMs, RLMLs or Heavies -- with the possibility of building a custom "Gotcha MoFo LoLLL" Torpedo boat that could hit Battlecruisers surprisingly well at uncharacteristic ranges...
Options, options, options ..... not even released and already but a dream. A missed opportunity for new and exciting experiments. Someone else a couple of posts ago coined the idea of releasing somewhere between the first and the current stats, and I second that motion. Don't pre-nerf it. Let it roll off the assembly line and see what happens.
Another 2 cents from yours truly (cents not stacking penalized :-) |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
The Wraithguard.
34
|
Posted - 2015.10.19 19:09:55 -
[6] - Quote
For all those claiming RLML / RHML need to go ..... consider that this is exactly one of those things that makes missiles so unique: I can fit a small weapon on a medium sized ship, or a medium-sized weapon on a battleship. I use them for the application they provide.
Especially on non-droneboat hulls, these rapid launchers are the only thing that allow me to pop undersized targets. I wouldn't dismiss them so easily. Would be interested in a "gunship" battleship hull with a dual bonus for medium and large turrets, but for now, a few support launchers are my best bet. |
|
|
| |
|