EVE Search - Sticky:[Aegis] Missile balance package

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Aegis] Missile balance package

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
MeBiatch GRR GOONS 2085	Posted - 2015.06.19 21:39:11 - [151] - Quote Viribus wrote: Hanazava Karyna wrote: Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles. Missiles already have inherent disadvantages to guns, like destructibility and travel time, doesn't it make sense for them to have inherent advantages as well? Besides, at the fleet level they already have a really effective counter in the form of firewall. no it does not... in fact in real life ECM is used against missiles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_countermeasure There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote: Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 16246	Posted - 2015.06.19 21:41:11 - [152] - Quote My minds-a-tingling. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Vic Jefferson The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple 429	Posted - 2015.06.19 21:44:12 - [153] - Quote So you are treating the symptoms again, rather than the disease. Speed meta is the disease. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
Viribus DEEP.DARK.FANTASY 351	Posted - 2015.06.19 21:55:35 - [154] - Quote Hey CCP could you give some rationale for torps having the exact same range as HAMs despite supposedly being a larger weapon system? Every missile and turret in the game gets increased range as it goes up in scale, with the sole exception of torps Coincidentally, the only ships that actually use torps in PVP are bombers watch me be a scurb and get owned
Viribus DEEP.DARK.FANTASY 351	Posted - 2015.06.19 21:56:20 - [155] - Quote MeBiatch wrote: Viribus wrote: Hanazava Karyna wrote: Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles. Missiles already have inherent disadvantages to guns, like destructibility and travel time, doesn't it make sense for them to have inherent advantages as well? Besides, at the fleet level they already have a really effective counter in the form of firewall. no it does not... in fact in real life ECM is used against missiles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_countermeasure Oh okay if it's done in real life it makes complete sense for a sci-fi videogame set in a different galaxy watch me be a scurb and get owned
Viribus DEEP.DARK.FANTASY 351	Posted - 2015.06.19 21:59:14 - [156] - Quote Deacon Abox wrote: Viribus wrote: Besides, at the fleet level they already have a really effective counter in the form of firewall. Which appears to be getting various module and ammo treatments to dissuade the use of it. Watch the o7 show and read the blogs. Firewalll was an ingenious invention of players to address the lack of missile defense when Drake missile spam was omnipresent because drakes were omnipresent. And with the perma mwd drakes it wasn't always effective. But now it is getting nerfed. So there will be a need for a dedicated antimissile ewar. Honestly more than anything I don't think missiles need any more help being completely irrelevant in PVP (with the sole exception of light missiles) MIssiles are already so universally terrible the only reason people seem to want anti-missile EWAR is some weird desire for everything to be the same watch me be a scurb and get owned
Wizzard117 Wizzard117 Corporation 17	Posted - 2015.06.19 22:06:27 - [157] - Quote btw also How about Remote Missile Guidance modules for logistic ships?
stoicfaux 5926	Posted - 2015.06.19 22:22:22 - [158] - Quote Wizzard117 wrote: btw also How about Remote Missile Guidance modules for logistic ships? Target Painters. Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Ele Rebellion Dead Star Syndicate 48	Posted - 2015.06.19 22:23:26 - [159] - Quote Will the computers use scripts? If so, what will be effected by the scripts? I assume one script will effect 2 of the 4 areas? Will it be an explosion script for explosion velocity and radius and a flight script for speed and flight time?
ivona fly Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop 5	Posted - 2015.06.19 22:27:15 - [160] - Quote While you are changing the missiles mods.... Can you re balance the ballistic controls please take a look at the tech2 vs an afordable / but usable meta. I have used Hyrbids damage mods to compare but you can take any turret damage mod and it will be the same Ballistic controls come in 3 flavors "hard to fit tech2", "trash", or "really expensive" the same can be told for drone damage amps, tech2, trash, or really expensive.. except they don't volley your cpu fitting quite as much as bc ! Yet for turrets there are lots of options, and afforable fit-able options ballistic controll II fitting 40 +10 Damage -10.5% duration 800k isk Muon Coil bolt array 1 fitting 39 +8.4 Damage -9% duration 950k isk Magnetic Feild Stabilizer II fitting 30 +10% Damage -10.5% duration 800k isk Magnetic Vortex stabilizer I fitting 34 +9.8% damage -10.5% duration 270k isk

Sleepaz Den Artificial Memories 0	Posted - 2015.06.19 22:35:18 - [161] - Quote Rapid heavy Barghs look promising. 900dps with CN at 160km is a fair deal.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1517	Posted - 2015.06.19 22:36:36 - [162] - 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?
Syrias Bizniz KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 405	Posted - 2015.06.19 22:36:54 - [163] - Quote Ha. Haha. Hahahahahahaha. Ahahahahahaha. AHAHA...Ha.... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!121!121!!!1 tl;dr: Dis gon be gud.
Vic Jefferson The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple 431	Posted - 2015.06.19 23:05:38 - [164] - Quote 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. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
ivona fly Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop 5	Posted - 2015.06.19 23:15:59 - [165] - 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. This is true, it is not just that they are bad in terms of damage application balance, it is also that so many ships running oversized afterburners in the same class and smaller classes means they suffer even more.
ivona fly Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop 5	Posted - 2015.06.19 23:18:53 - [166] - Quote Sleepaz Den wrote: Rapid heavy Barghs look promising. 900dps with CN at 160km is a fair deal. yeah even rapid heavy on things like Armageddon (has the mids to use the mods + damage buff) look interesting
Ransu Asanari Powder and Ball Alchemists Union Mordus Angels 256	Posted - 2015.06.19 23:25:38 - [167] - Quote I'm very glad to see these are going to be added. The hint about missile disruption also suggests we may be coming to a rebalance of ECM soon as well. I'll post more specific feedback about these modules soon. Considering all of these changes, please also look at the SP investment for missiles compared to other weapon systems. Here is a thread which outlines the concerns and potential solutions: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5832789 Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2008"
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1517	Posted - 2015.06.19 23:39:15 - [168] - 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?
Deacon Abox Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 509	Posted - 2015.06.19 23:39:35 - [169] - Quote Viribus wrote: Deacon Abox wrote: Viribus wrote: Besides, at the fleet level they already have a really effective counter in the form of firewall. Which appears to be getting various module and ammo treatments to dissuade the use of it. Watch the o7 show and read the blogs. Firewalll was an ingenious invention of players to address the lack of missile defense when Drake missile spam was omnipresent because drakes were omnipresent. And with the perma mwd drakes it wasn't always effective. But now it is getting nerfed. So there will be a need for a dedicated antimissile ewar. Honestly more than anything I don't think missiles need any more help being completely irrelevant in PVP (with the sole exception of light missiles) MIssiles are already so universally terrible the only reason people seem to want anti-missile EWAR is some weird desire for everything to be the same No. Missiles actually aren't that bad where I fly. Im in FW. This is mostly small gang or solo even. Currently missile boats have lots of fun fitting TD to use on turret boats but not vice versa. The reason I or we want a dedicated anti missile ewar is because there is nothing left but try to tank or out dps missile boats. Of course garmurs and worms are broken op for other reasons. But giving them and RLML cruisers potential help with these new modules is not helping the situation. CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec 13476	Posted - 2015.06.19 23:53:14 - [170] - Quote 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? Not even treating the symptoms, it will actively make it worse, since missiles will see a huge power boost against everything in the game except the toxic speed creep. That said, missiles needed an update for a while now, so I am glad they are being looked at. And that further said, I do not think this is the way to go about it. But, one way or another, our feedback really hasn't mattered in a long time about things like this, so we will wait and see, and probably laugh about the inevitable unforeseen consequences of these changes. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.

Vic Jefferson The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple 432	Posted - 2015.06.20 00:04:09 - [171] - Quote 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. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1517	Posted - 2015.06.20 00:16:43 - [172] - 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.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec 13476	Posted - 2015.06.20 00:40:05 - [173] - Quote 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. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Viribus DEEP.DARK.FANTASY 352	Posted - 2015.06.20 00:55:59 - [174] - Quote Deacon Abox wrote: Viribus wrote: [ Honestly more than anything I don't think missiles need any more help being completely irrelevant in PVP (with the sole exception of light missiles) MIssiles are already so universally terrible the only reason people seem to want anti-missile EWAR is some weird desire for everything to be the same No. Missiles actually aren't that bad where I fly. Im in FW. This is mostly small gang or solo even. Currently missile boats have lots of fun fitting TD to use on turret boats but not vice versa. The reason I or we want a dedicated anti missile ewar is because there is nothing left but try to tank or out dps missile boats. Of course garmurs and worms are broken op for other reasons. But giving them and RLML cruisers potential help with these new modules is not helping the situation. Allow me to emphasize an excerpt from my post: Quote: Honestly more than anything I don't think missiles need any more help being completely irrelevant in PVP (with the sole exception of light missiles) watch me be a scurb and get owned
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1517	Posted - 2015.06.20 00:58:16 - [175] - 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...
Servant's Lord Radical Astronauts Plundering Eve WormHole Occupation and Resource Exploitation 89	Posted - 2015.06.20 01:36:09 - [176] - Quote Hello. CCPls. **** 'cray.
DHB WildCat Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 468	Posted - 2015.06.20 01:53:29 - [177] - Quote In my honest opinion Rise....... you should not implement these changes until the defensive equivilant modules are ready to go. 170 km on cerb with rlml. rhml from bharg hitting at over 140km with even better application now, not to mention that rediculous long point range.......... I can go on, but I hope you will see that without defensive mods you are going to break eve pretty fast. At least caldari will rule eve for a little while lol!
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec 13477	Posted - 2015.06.20 02:15:21 - [178] - Quote DHB WildCat wrote: At least caldari will rule eve for a little while lol! I wouldn't be happy about this were I you. I forsee this leading up to a savage nerf of missiles eventually, when CCP finally wakes up and tones down the speed creep, abrogating the necessity of this buff completely. And if they do anything, they don't nerf by halves. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Orca Platypus Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 3	Posted - 2015.06.20 02:25:04 - [179] - Quote Add some kind of Higgs Missile that hits fast objects hard but can't harm immobile ones. /speedcreep
stoicfaux 5927	Posted - 2015.06.20 02:29:13 - [180] - Quote Speed Creep + Valkyrie + VR - DUST 514 as a separate game - WiS/WoD[1] + CCP encouraging individual roles in fleets == EVE will become more twitchy in order to appeal to the future "army of one" playerbase. [1] Seeing as how Dust didn't do so well as a separate game from EVE, and due to the technical difficulties in importing WoD engine components into EVE as WiS, I wouldn't be surprised if the core aspects of Valkyrie (the speed, twitchiness, and VR) were incorporated into EVE proper (albeit slowed down a bit.) /tinfoil_in_bulk Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.



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

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.