Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
916
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 03:47:10 -
[1141] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:Actually one of the few hulls I don't see mentioned by pretty much anyone is the RHML snake. It's one of the few CPU limited hulls that can't "quite" use its full potential... unless you slap RHMLs on it. MGCs work more effectively in this case by giving a range option without really hurting application since obviously you are using HM. Bling of course not required.. This fit skirts with a vindicator for top end damage with a significantly higher tank and considerably more effective range.
[Rattlesnake, RHML Flex]
Imperial Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Imperial Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Imperial Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Pithum C-Type Medium Shield Booster Kinetic Deflection Field II Thermic Dissipation Field II Omnidirectional Tracking Link II (no script.. actually allows for earlier application of damage) Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script 100MN Afterburner II
Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Drone Link Augmentor II
Large Drone Speed Augmentor II Large Drone Speed Augmentor II Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst II
That is the most Odd fit I've ever seen. Did I miss something, cause snakes used to be passive shield tanking kings..
IDK.. that fit just seems.... weird.. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
586
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 03:59:15 -
[1142] - Quote
Yeah, the rarity of use where these modules are actually better or even on par with TPs or other already used modules sucks, but the rig penalties and prospects of a dedicated missile EWAR module in the future to add to it is what stung me the most, too. Granted, the HP buff is nice as it negates NPC defenders quite nicely (though that's an unintended side-effect) and the torpedo volume being halved is okay, the nerfs hurt nearly anyone using missiles and neither the modules nor the honestly laughable damage buff on heavies make up for it. Feels like it was a timid shuffle forward and two hops backwards to me.
"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."
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
586
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 04:03:15 -
[1143] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Nafensoriel wrote:Actually one of the few hulls I don't see mentioned by pretty much anyone is the RHML snake. It's one of the few CPU limited hulls that can't "quite" use its full potential... unless you slap RHMLs on it. MGCs work more effectively in this case by giving a range option without really hurting application since obviously you are using HM. Bling of course not required.. This fit skirts with a vindicator for top end damage with a significantly higher tank and considerably more effective range.
[Rattlesnake, RHML Flex]
Imperial Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Imperial Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Imperial Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Pithum C-Type Medium Shield Booster Kinetic Deflection Field II Thermic Dissipation Field II Omnidirectional Tracking Link II (no script.. actually allows for earlier application of damage) Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script 100MN Afterburner II
Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Drone Link Augmentor II
Large Drone Speed Augmentor II Large Drone Speed Augmentor II Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst II
That is the most Odd fit I've ever seen. Did I miss something, cause snakes used to be passive shield tanking kings.. IDK.. that fit just seems.... weird..
Now, hit reload...
Granted, Snake drones do well even on their own, but I've never seen a rapid launcher build for PVE work I've liked. Also, Snakes use to be nothing but tank because we didn't always have drone mods to throw in the lows or good reasons for BCSs and fewer drone mods to throw in the mids that made sense, so more room for SPRs and Extenders. They can still tank, but can now serve up some nice Vindi-level woop-ass too.
"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."
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
759
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 04:52:05 -
[1144] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote: That is the most Odd fit I've ever seen. Did I miss something, cause snakes used to be passive shield tanking kings..
IDK.. that fit just seems.... weird..
RLML I can't comment on....the reload headaches I hear make them not so liked to some people. Others like them though so to each their own as always. Will try at some point but have not rushed to it tbh.
Not being passive though...snakes run very decent being active tanked. This can get you a 3 slot mid slot tank (passives usually 4, so a 1 slot saving there for something else) and frees up all lows for damage and such. Has the 100mn AB and not all the sig radius hits of passive tank/mods...while not great at it being a BS its also getting some damage reduction with ghetto sig tanking (ghetto as well besides mach....this not really a BS's thing lol).
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
917
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 05:53:44 -
[1145] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:Joe Risalo wrote: That is the most Odd fit I've ever seen. Did I miss something, cause snakes used to be passive shield tanking kings..
IDK.. that fit just seems.... weird..
RLML I can't comment on....the reload headaches I hear make them not so liked to some people. Others like them though so to each their own as always. Will try at some point but have not rushed to it tbh. Not being passive though...snakes run very decent being active tanked. This can get you a 3 slot mid slot tank (passives usually 4, so a 1 slot saving there for something else) and frees up all lows for damage and such. Has the 100mn AB and not all the sig radius hits of passive tank/mods...while not great at it being a BS its also getting some damage reduction with ghetto sig tanking (ghetto as well besides mach....this not really a BS's thing lol).
My problem is, I hate combo damage bonuses because it makes it harder to build a viable fit especially with missiles. If you fit for drones, then your missiles are almost useless due to low damage and application, and your drones aren't that powerful. If you fit for missiles, your drones are almost useless in the same manner. If you try to optimize both, then you end up gimped on tank and/or utility.. This isnt as big of an issue for turret/drone bonus, as your turrets or your drones can have good applied damage with low or no traversal.
I kinda wish it took a different route on the missile bonus, such as bonus to rapid lights instead of heavies and up. I say this because it would make it a more versatile ship, which its tank suits, while keeping lower damage than most pirate hulls.
But, that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. However, with this ship, TPs are again better suited as they support both drones and missiles. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 06:30:33 -
[1146] - Quote
Using RHML in PVE is more thought engaging than cruise or torps. You do have to volley count especially at ranges in excess of 50km. That fit handles reloads just fine and can wipe out several battleships before it needs to reload. With a 3km/s gecko or 2km/s+ faction drone you don't really have to wait to apply full 1900 nearly perfectly applied damage to anything within 50km.
Operationally its one of the more fun fits you can fly. Yes RHML reloads are a rather terrible design choice.. but I personally view bad design as a challenge to overcome. |
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1853
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 07:07:25 -
[1147] - Quote
If RHML did not have the long reload times, they would be HML and thus not have the spike DPS. They wouldn't even exist. So, it's not a terrible design choice, it's what defines the RHML's function.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 07:36:47 -
[1148] - Quote
No it is a terrible design choice. The ideology is a burst DPS weapon. Locking a user out for half a minute does not promote active gaming.
Its more effective to use volley mechanics or small clip sizes with a moderate reload speed. A 10 Missile clip with a 5s reload would actually give tactical flexibility, burst dps, and make it considerably less of a headache to use. 90s firing time+25s reload for 25 rounds vs 36s firing time + 5 s reload for 10 rounds Identical DPS.. better flexibility. Mission goal of burst DPS accomplished. |
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1853
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 08:40:07 -
[1149] - Quote
Not in the slightest. You can fire a lot longer and a lot more often with your approach than with the current approach. This removes a lot of consideration for which targets to engage with remaining missiles in the launcher and to live with the results if you too a wrong choice. Rapid launchers are supposed to require you to take the long reload into consideration when you evaluate which targets to engage. If there is no long reload time, this entire tactical assessment process is gone.
Your approach with even shorter reload times than standard launchers is more akin to their steady DPS and not to Burst DPS.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1923
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 09:07:29 -
[1150] - Quote
My biggest peeve with Rapid XX is that they completely bugger the balance between "weapon damage increased by X%" and "ROF increased by X%" |
|
Arthur Aihaken
Chig
4622
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 15:08:05 -
[1151] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:Using RHML in PVE is more thought engaging than cruise or torps. You do have to volley count especially at ranges in excess of 50km. That fit handles reloads just fine and can wipe out several battleships before it needs to reload. With a 3km/s gecko or 2km/s+ faction drone you don't really have to wait to apply full 1900 nearly perfectly applied damage to anything within 50km. Yes, but that's paper DPS under optimal conditions. It doesn't take into account things like mission travel time, launcher reload time, drone transit time - or just in-game maneuvering. Your Rattlesnake fit doesn't have a MWD or MJD for getting around, so with a 100MN afterburner you will rarely be able to apply maximum damage with your RHMLs or Geckos. Without a tracking script Geckos can't consistently hit frigates and even with MGCs you're going to burn through a lot Fury ammo against smaller ships.
I'll take my 1200+ DPS/4.48 AU/s Golem and stack it up against this Rattlesnake fit any time.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Chig
4622
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 15:28:11 -
[1152] - Quote
Anyway, back on topic... The main advantage with MGCs is that they free up your rig slots. This gain is most apparent on battleships as you can then utilize Hyperspacial rigs instead of rigors (+50% warp speed and a huge cost savings). There's almost no benefit to MGEs unless you have an extra low slot (rare) and really need the range. If you're running any kind of rapid fit a MGE is a better choice than a fourth BCU, but this is generally the exception rather than the rule.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
591
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 17:02:35 -
[1153] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Anyway, back on topic... The main advantage with MGCs is that they free up your rig slots. This gain is most apparent on battleships as you can then utilize Hyperspacial rigs instead of rigors (+50% warp speed and a huge cost savings). There's almost no benefit to MGEs unless you have an extra low slot (rare) and really need the range. If you're running any kind of rapid fit a MGE is a better choice than a fourth BCU, but this is generally the exception rather than the rule.
Maybe they ought to drop the current stats off the MGEs and throw in a sort of Mordus Legion style velocity buff/flight time nerf. It wouldn't really help Mordus ships and the like that already have ridiculous velocity, but that would make me think about dropping a BCS on a torp ship...maybe. Bad idea, I know, but the current MGEs are just as bad an idea to begin with, might as well roll around in the mud and see if another bad idea happens to be better.
"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."
|
Arthur Aihaken
Chig
4622
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 17:48:09 -
[1154] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:Maybe they ought to drop the current stats off the MGEs and throw in a sort of Mordus Legion style velocity buff/flight time nerf. It wouldn't really help Mordus ships and the like that already have ridiculous velocity, but that would make me think about dropping a BCS on a torp ship...maybe. Bad idea, I know, but the current MGEs are just as bad an idea to begin with, might as well roll around in the mud and see if another bad idea happens to be better. I would have preferred if they just stuck with a bonus to missile velocity instead of missile velocity and flight time. It would make both the MGC and particularly the MGE infinitely more valuable, and then they could buff the values on the MGE since it would be stacking-penalized. Range is almost never the issue - it's the slow application of damage due to missile velocity.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
918
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 18:24:47 -
[1155] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Anyway, back on topic... The main advantage with MGCs is that they free up your rig slots. This gain is most apparent on battleships as you can then utilize Hyperspacial rigs instead of rigors (+50% warp speed and a huge cost savings). There's almost no benefit to MGEs unless you have an extra low slot (rare) and really need the range. If you're running any kind of rapid fit a MGE is a better choice than a fourth BCU, but this is generally the exception rather than the rule.
They free up rig slots, but present the same or less bonus as rigs. Personally, Hyperspacial rigs aren't as worthwhile as range rigs for torps, application rigs for rapid heavies, and damage/ tank rig for cruise missiles.
Granted, this is measured by Golem fitting, but can be applied on other BS class missile hulls as well.
We'll use a Raven. (all fits are based on PVE, lvl 5 skills, with no mods apart from MGC, TP, and missile rigs) Intended target is an all skills V Worm, with no prop, and no tank factored. (rigs will be focused on missiles, so I will use as many missile rigs as possible)
Torps - 2x TP - T2 hydraulic, t2 rocket fuel, t1 hydraulic. Rage - 39dps / 41km Jav - 51dps / 74km (not factoring TP falloff/optimal) T1 - 60dps / 49km
Torps - 2x MGC - T2 rigor, t2 flare, range scripted Rage - 18dps / 37km Jav - 24dps / 67km T1 - 28dps / 45km
Torps - 2x MGC - t2 rigor, t2 flare, precision scripted Rage - 28dps / 25km Jav - 36dps / 45km T1 - 42dps / 30km
TP with range rigs wins
Cruise - 2x TP - t1 calefaction, t1 rigor, (leaves rig slot open for t2 EM resist or flare) (range doesn't matter) Fury - 56dps Precision - 130dps T1 - 81dps
Cruise - 2x MGC - rigs remain the same, precison scripted Fury - 30dps Precision - 77dps T1 - 43dps
No need for a MGC range scripted
TP wins again.
RHML - 2x TP - t2 hydraulic, t2 rocket fuel (last rig slot optional for tank or application) Fury - 79dps / 68km Precision - 201dps / 45km T1 - 151dps / 90km
RHML - 2x MGC - t2 rigor, t2 flare, range scripted Fury - 67dps / 70km Precision - 187dps / 46km T1 - 133dps / 93km
RHML - 2x MGC - t2 hydraulic, t2 rocket fuel, precision scripted Fury - 77dps / 68km Precision - 205dps / 45km T1 - 148dps / 90km
TP maintains highest DPS, while MGC range scripted has best range... However, the low addl range does not overvalue the reduced damage.
Therefore, TP with range rigs wins again.
Mind you, these are optimal PVE fits for a Raven, being that 2 midslots are best used for application/projection, as well as two rigs..
While You could combine ranged rigs with range scripts, the heavily reduced application is not worth it, not to mention the stacking penalties makes it generally sub-optimal. The same would be said for stacking precision scripts and precision rigs.
Now, someone will likely argue that MGCs are applicable for all ranges, while TPs are limited in range. However, that argument isn't valid within 100km, which applies more specifically to torp and RHML, while cruise are typically not used outside 100km either. That factor applies to both PVP and PVE, due to the time it takes for missiles to hit a target.
Now, there's also fitting costs. TPs use more cap, but are less than half the CPU costs, which matters more than cap, IMO. |
Arthur Aihaken
Chig
4622
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 21:07:43 -
[1156] - Quote
The only ship that can really pull off torpedoes in PvE is the Golem, and this is mainly because you have to sacrifice so much to extend range to be somewhat on par with cruise missiles - so damage application is essential. At best, torpedoes will pop the occasional Elite rattleship in one less volley at a slighter faster rate. At worst, you lose any DPS gain by being out of position and having to either maneuver or switch missiles.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
826
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 22:29:20 -
[1157] - Quote
Which is very exciting but doesn't fix heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles. The solution is already on the table and nullsec can entosis themselves in the meantime.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Arthur Aihaken
Chig
4623
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 01:08:22 -
[1158] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Which is very exciting but doesn't fix heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles. The solution is already on the table and nullsec can entosis themselves in the meantime. Sorry, what's the solution again?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
592
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 01:13:09 -
[1159] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:elitatwo wrote:Which is very exciting but doesn't fix heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles. The solution is already on the table and nullsec can entosis themselves in the meantime. Sorry, what's the solution again?
Well, a 5% damage buff certainly isn't it. Keyword is "Application".
"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."
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
918
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 02:01:22 -
[1160] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:elitatwo wrote:Which is very exciting but doesn't fix heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles. The solution is already on the table and nullsec can entosis themselves in the meantime. Sorry, what's the solution again? Well, a 5% damage buff certainly isn't it. Keyword is "Application".
It's more than just that. There's a lot of missile balance that needs to happen, and one of them is a nerf.
1) Bonuses to light missile range needs to be removed from all cruiser and BC (if applicable) class hulls. this will help to balance RHML and make HML and HAM more viable on cruisers.
2) HAMs and HMLs need to have their fitting costs reduced to be more viable on cruisers. Missile BCs would have their fitting capability reduced in order to stay balanced.
3) HAMs and HMLs need to have their application increased to be more viable against cruiser class hulls, thus making heavy fitted cruisers more viable, and making missile BCs more viable.
4) Torps and possibly cruise missiles need to have their velocities increased at the cost of flight time, thus retaining the same range. Alternate 4) I would prefer to see all missiles have their velocity and flight time balanced in a way to where there is only ever 1 volley in the air at a time. Thus alleviating us from the headache of volley counting and waisted volleys.
5) I'm not too familiar with LML and Rockets, so it would be up to someone else to say what's wrong with them.
6) MGE needs to be removed.. It is a worthless module
7) MGCs need to be given individual scripts for flight time, velocity, explosion velocity, and explosion radius. This is to negate stacking penalties, which I feel are the crippling factor that makes these modules less viable than their rig counterparts.
8) I would love to see exp velocity done away with. It is a jacked up mechanic that does nothing but keep missiles from every being able to do full damage on a moving target, regardless of sig, unlike turrets.
|
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
593
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 02:30:04 -
[1161] - Quote
As far as number 5 goes, neither am I, but I remember people stating that one of the application stats on rockets and LMs need to be swapped.
Something else to add, defenders need either to be removed or repatriated into a high slot mod that is no longer hardpoint bound (or make one for missile users and different one for gunships; defenders and ballistic point defense), be far more autonomous than how it works now, and have a fleet capacity rather than only protecting the host ship. I would vote for it being replaced with a more EWAR like mod if that's what CCP intends, but I'd be contempt with a Defenders 2.0 rebalance.
"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."
|
Arthur Aihaken
Chig
4623
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 03:54:10 -
[1162] - Quote
I thought the bug with scripting MGCs had been squashed? ie: When you load a script into the MGC then unload it, it doesn't revert to the default values of the MGC (it retains the scripted value) You have to dock or refit the MGC to clear the values.
Also, even though most of us aren't exactly thrilled (perhaps that's an understatement) with the MGC and MGEs, will we be seeing any Faction versions anytime soon?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
829
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 06:40:31 -
[1163] - Quote
Light missiles and rockets are fine, hams and heavy missiles aren't, torpedos and up aren't. Oh and rapid launchers can go into the abyss. The solution was to fiddle with the explosion velocity and radius values - just put the rocket values on - and missiles are fine.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Arthur Aihaken
Chig
4623
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 10:08:53 -
[1164] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Oh and rapid launchers can go into the abyss. I liked the original RLML and first draft of the RHML.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
862
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 12:08:32 -
[1165] - Quote
Rapid missiles are still dominating the meta, we need a rebalance and the missile td modules.
RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
920
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 14:21:09 -
[1166] - Quote
Baali Tekitsu wrote:Rapid missiles are still dominating the meta, we need a rebalance and the missile td modules.
I dislike the idea of missile TDs.
1) because apart from Rapids, missiles are already the weaker option.
2) Because more MGCs and other modifying options are not powerful enough to ever help counteract.
3) because if scripted to negate missile range, you're being redundant, as they already have too much range to counter, or are close enough for it not to matter. A Raven has more than enough range with any missile system for PVP, yet that range is rarely used. That would basically only work for the alliance tournament.
4) if scripted for application TD, then there's no point in using missiles, as missiles are already too heavily effected by application. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
829
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 14:45:29 -
[1167] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:elitatwo wrote:Oh and rapid launchers can go into the abyss. I liked the original RLML and first draft of the RHML.
So did I but now they are trying to make a missile launcher into a machine gun and it only works because of the server ticks. Hashtag temporalmechanics
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
761
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 14:50:59 -
[1168] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Baali Tekitsu wrote:Rapid missiles are still dominating the meta, we need a rebalance and the missile td modules. I dislike the idea of missile TDs. 1) because apart from Rapids, missiles are already the weaker option. 2) Because more MGCs and other modifying options are not powerful enough to ever help counteract. 3) because if scripted to negate missile range, you're being redundant, as they already have too much range to counter, or are close enough for it not to matter. A Raven has more than enough range with any missile system for PVP, yet that range is rarely used. That would basically only work for the alliance tournament. 4) if scripted for application TD, then there's no point in using missiles, as missiles are already too heavily effected by application.
This really.
It be more possible if the new missile mods performed on par with turret TC and TE. This however was something ccp clearly avoided even on sisi with their alterations.
With some turrets I get lots of options. Good hull tracking bonus, tc/te, drop down to smaller bores....I can mitigate to varying levels some TD hits. Missiles lack this.
Rapids "fix"this really by the good old mantra that has been the basis of suppressive fire for years. You shoot lots of rounds down range really fast...something is gonna get hit and hit more often than a slower rate of fire weapon. Does it work? yes. Should it be the basis to nerf slower firing launchers? No.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Chig
4624
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 17:27:35 -
[1169] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:I dislike the idea of missile TDs. Pretty much this.
We already have damps and ECM as counters, in addition to the potential to actually outrun missiles under certain conditions. This doesn't even include smartbombs, Defender missiles and time to impact. While missiles do deliver fixed damage - they also can't hit for critical damage, either. So if the current iteration of MGCs and MGEs are more or less fixed in stone (and I think it's unlikely we'll see any changes at this point), missile TDs will just nerf missiles again.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium
128
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 19:25:21 -
[1170] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:elitatwo wrote:Which is very exciting but doesn't fix heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles. The solution is already on the table and nullsec can entosis themselves in the meantime. Sorry, what's the solution again? Well, a 5% damage buff certainly isn't it. Keyword is "Application". It's more than just that. There's a lot of missile balance that needs to happen, and one of them is a nerf.
9) fix error with fit cost between Cruise Launcher and Torpedo Launcher.
Short range weapon should use less CPU/PG than long range weapon
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |