Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1516
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 19:58:32 -
[1] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish 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.
Let us know what you think! So when drones, a delayed damage, destroyable weapon system got ODTLs and ODTEs there was no intent to add anti-drone EWAR, yet when you add similar modules for missiles, you intend to add anti-missile EWAR. Seems legit. I'm getting pretty ******* tired of drones being king. Drones are fragile turrets. They can be directly engaged by any other weapon rather than just smartbombs and defenders, the latter of which goes unused and the former requires dedicating fitting and numbers for the task. Further smartbombs can be a far greater threat to orbiting drones. They can also be individually TD'd but that falls short of practical.
The 2 aren't the apples to apples comparison you are presenting. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1517
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 20:49:21 -
[2] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Kalen Pavle wrote: Firewalls? Flying away really quickly? ECM? Damps?
Turrets have tracking disruptors and maybe neuts. Missiles can be negated by moving away from your target and smartbombs. Things do not have to be the same to be equal. Of course ecm and damps don't effect turrets as well  And flying in a way to reduce tracking doesn't either.  Your list is only firewall. That was never meant to be the counter to missiles. It was created to address the lack of a dedicated antimissile ewar when Drakes were everywhere. You don't need to fly in a way to "reduce tracking" for missiles, you just need to be moving. You can have a 0 angular velocity while moving and suffer no turret damage reduction but the fact that you are moving reduces missile damage application.
|

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1517
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 21:19:29 -
[3] - Quote
Leonardo Adami wrote:Edit, also you're not taking into account to fit these new modules you either a ) give up dps for trading in a BCU or b) give up EHP with losing a mid slot that would be used for shields This logic would leave TP's unused for the same reason. If you can't fit these because of slot counts you weren't fitting target painters but no one argues for their removal because of it. These are the same, those ships that have the room to spare will use them, those that can't won't. This isn't a bad thing. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1517
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 22:36:36 -
[4] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:So you are treating the symptoms again, rather than the disease. Speed meta is the disease. Is this change actually intended to treat any symptom of that issue, or is that just a minor side effect? |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1517
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 23:39:15 -
[5] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Vic Jefferson wrote:So you are treating the symptoms again, rather than the disease. Speed meta is the disease. Is this change actually intended to treat any symptom of that issue, or is that just a minor side effect? I would presume it is at least a little bit of the former. Rightfully so, people regularly ask when heavies and HAMs are going to be worthwhile; currently they can't apply their damage in most situations without lots of help. LMLs and RLMLs are at the top of the weapon system heap, half because they are so good, and half because everything out there worth flying is so fast and small. HAMs and heavies work just fine against battlecruisers and battleships, but they still aren't exactly common outside of niche situations, so fitting the bigger missule systems is often a poor choice. It would be better to see where HAMs and heavies fall after they tone down the speed and kite meta, which is a good deal of the reason why HAMs and heavies are so useless. No one would be complaining about HAMs if there were great herds of battlecruisers roaming the expanses of New Eden. I'm not in disagreement with the idea of light missiles being fine or larger platforms having issues in the current meta. I'm rather wondering how those facts translate to this specifically to the reasoning for this change. Granted the mods will likely find a home more commonly on larger platforms, I'm just not finding a strong association since, as you pointed out, it makes no sense since the effect would be negligible at best for most platforms effected.
Also didn't this idea start prior to the current meta and the rebalances that led to it? |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1517
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 00:16:43 -
[6] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Also didn't this idea start prior to the current meta and the rebalances that led to it? I'm not entirely sure where the idea actually originates from. Pretty much every permutation of giving one weapon or tank system's uniqueness to another has been suggested here or elsewhere for as long as I've been around. I don't think it's possible or relevant to know where it actually came from. The timing of it is suspicious is all, which implicates it as a response (re: band aid fix) for missiles to the meta. Before the warp changes, bigger missiles weren't actually too bad because people actually few BCs and sometimes even BS. Now that the warp changes have been around for a good while, and the full consequences of it are established on the meta, this seems a response to the terrible usage metrics of the bigger missile systems. Basically, its been wanted for a very long time, but only in an era when the bigger missile systems are functionally worthless is it seeing the light of day. Yet back when larger missiles "weren't to bad" is when CCP first proposed doing this IIRC. And likely it was delayed due to the very issues preventing ewar counters currently. If we ignore that then the implication may stand, but I don't feel that is fair. Basically if entire classes of ships are gathering dust I don't think anyone is suggesting transferring damage application to a different mod for a weapon that only applies to a subset of those ships is the answer.
The idea that missile damage application could solve any issues with BC's and BS's as a whole seems so absurd that I can't help but doubt it could be the reasoning, moreso than any implication the timing could create. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1517
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 00:58:16 -
[7] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: The idea that a missile damage application move could solve any issues with BC's and BS's as a whole seems so absurd that I can't help but doubt it could be the reasoning, moreso than any implication the timing could create.
No less absurd than fixing bombers by gutting fleet warp, but here we are. Fair enough... |
|
|