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) |
Dani Maulerant
Order of the Valkyrie LOADED-DICE
22
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 04:49:53 -
[181] - Quote
If this allows for TD's to affect missiles, I hope it's not a whole different module, but rather scripts for the current TD modules. |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
568
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 08:11:03 -
[182] - Quote
I have felt for a long time that heavies just needed more raw damage. I would quote my own posts but that's a lot of work for no reason.
Thanks to the balance team for taking this route with heavies. Indeed they might even need another small damage boost in a while.
As far as the missile mids and lows go I'm not sold on the idea but reserve criticism for later. 5% of one application stat or another is not the same as turret mids which give crazy **** like 15% to multiple stats.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
333
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 08:58:52 -
[183] - Quote
Kelron Renalard wrote:Quote:Heavy Missile Damage is being increased by 5% for all Heavy Missile Types Does this include Heavy Assault Missile? I'm not sure about it.
HAM's are already incredibly powerful and does not need a buff. |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
290
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 09:15:40 -
[184] - Quote
I don't like the way this modules being implemented. Without promised ewar how do they estimate in what state missiles are? If they become OP, nerfbat will come and missiles guidance modules will be necessity ( and we will have tanking problems here). This isn't nerfing Ishtar by 2,5% at stat. I feel it's like "we don't know what to do with missiles, so let's introduce new modules and see what happen". S*** storm will happen. Rise admited somewhere that there's a thin line between missiles being underpowered and overpowered.
For those who want "tracking disruptors" working on missiles. There's no such thing as "tracking" with missiles. What stat should be affected then? It's not that simple as with turrets tracking.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Kadesh Priestess
This Game Is Terrible Warlords of the Deep
470
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 09:31:41 -
[185] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:For those who want "tracking disruptors" working on missiles. There's no such thing as "tracking" with missiles. What stat should be affected then? It's not that simple as with turrets tracking. Just rename to weapon disruptors, why won't it work?
|
Arla Sarain
506
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 10:10:07 -
[186] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Why won't it work?
Keras Authion wrote: -The missile tracking disruption is tacked on to tracking disruptor. Result: tracking disruptor becomes a really lucrative if not a must-have defensive module and missile ships lose tank/utility/dps to the MGE or MCE if they want to keep the current level of effectiveness. True for gunboats too in a part as the tracking disruptor becomes more common in fits.
Staple fits will include tackle, TD and drones for damage.
Hence no missile TD. Anything that these module will bring can be countered by damps. |
Duchess Starbuckington
Starbuckington Manor
341
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 10:16:13 -
[187] - Quote
This is fantastic stuff. However:
Hanazava Karyna wrote:Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles.
... I will admit I'm kinda in agreement with Hanazava. The cynical side of me (read: 90% of me) expected you to nerf missiles and require these new mods just to keep them workable. You didn't, and I kinda want to hug the devs in charge of it, but I think the time has come for maybe alternate TD scripts? Or a missile specific TD.
TLDR: Overjoyed that missiles are getting some love, and think this is great stuff, but I think it's now the right time to add in a countermodule. |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery Prolapse.
2453
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 10:50:19 -
[188] - Quote
Capqu wrote:[Talwar, tfi]
Type-D Attenuation Signal Augmentation Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II
5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Targeting Range Script
Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile
Small Ionic Field Projector II Small Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Small Warhead Calefaction Catalyst I
110~km range 150 dps 10 mil
Lock range 72km.
Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob
We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
290
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 10:59:38 -
[189] - Quote
As Arla Sarain wrote. Damps will be good to countermeasure that modules.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Gorski Car
628
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 12:10:54 -
[190] - Quote
These modules are really strong.
Collect this post
|
|
Mornak
Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE
50
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 13:23:07 -
[191] - Quote
What will happen if i turn off / swap script of one of these modules while missiles are already on there way? ...is the missiles boni defined at launch or recalculated mid-flight? |
Lisa Sophie d'Elancourt
Empusa.
17
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 13:31:17 -
[192] - Quote
I like this.
What could you do else here CCP? 1. decrease volume of HMs and HAMs too 2. remove kinetic lock 3. do something with garmur and orthrus - they ruin the game (as well as svipul) and need nerf. |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
102
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 13:36:50 -
[193] - Quote
Lisa Sophie d'Elancourt wrote:I like this.
What could you do else here CCP? 1. decrease volume of HMs and HAMs too 2. remove kinetic lock 3. do something with garmur and orthrus - they ruin the game (as well as svipul) and need nerf.
Svipul and Confessor got nerfed already. |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
252
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 14:30:17 -
[194] - Quote
I also have some concerns that without adequate stacking penalties, these modules could greatly enhance the power of gank stealth bombers. A Nemesis or Manticore with mids and lows full of these guidance modules could apply massive damage to cruisers, destroyers, and even frigates. With no recalibration delay and the element of surprise, torpedoes will far surpass rockets for assaulting small targets, including Asteros.
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
102
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 15:11:51 -
[195] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:I also have some concerns that without adequate stacking penalties, these modules could greatly enhance the power of gank stealth bombers. A Nemesis or Manticore with mids and lows full of these guidance modules could apply massive damage to cruisers, destroyers, and even frigates. With no recalibration delay and the element of surprise, torpedoes will far surpass rockets for assaulting small targets, including Asteros.
I don't get why everyone assumes those wouldnt have stacking penalties. What do you base such assumptions on? |
Porucznik Borewicz
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
39
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 15:24:00 -
[196] - Quote
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. |
Mr LaboratoryRat
Confederation of DuckTape Lovers
57
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 18:47:13 -
[197] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Jassmin Joy wrote:Any thoughts on the effectiveness of SmartBombs on missiles and the ability to firewall them? Yes, but we haven't had a chance to post that thread quite yet.
Dear Fozzy,
SmartBombs are reaaaaaalllly overdue for a revise. Please please please |
Xequecal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
333
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 18:47:56 -
[198] - Quote
Airi Cho wrote:Chance Ravinne wrote:I also have some concerns that without adequate stacking penalties, these modules could greatly enhance the power of gank stealth bombers. A Nemesis or Manticore with mids and lows full of these guidance modules could apply massive damage to cruisers, destroyers, and even frigates. With no recalibration delay and the element of surprise, torpedoes will far surpass rockets for assaulting small targets, including Asteros. I don't get why everyone assumes those wouldnt have stacking penalties. What do you base such assumptions on?
The rigs don't have them. |
stoicfaux
5927
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 19:07:40 -
[199] - Quote
Airi Cho wrote:Chance Ravinne wrote:I also have some concerns that without adequate stacking penalties, these modules could greatly enhance the power of gank stealth bombers. A Nemesis or Manticore with mids and lows full of these guidance modules could apply massive damage to cruisers, destroyers, and even frigates. With no recalibration delay and the element of surprise, torpedoes will far surpass rockets for assaulting small targets, including Asteros. I don't get why everyone assumes those wouldnt have stacking penalties. What do you base such assumptions on? The potential imbalance is that TPs, MGC/MGEs, Rigor/Flare rigs, and Webs do not stack against each other and since their effects on the 2nd part of the missile damage formula are multiplicative, it could potentially lead to something nasty.
For example, rough numbers show that a Cruise Phoenix with 4 MGCs/wScripts, coupled with a Hyena or Rapier(?) that can land 3 bonused TPs and a 60% web on a shield tanked MWD'ing Ishtar can one shot the Ishtar (however links might save the Ishtar.) I wouldn't consider that a particularly imbalanced edge case though.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2085
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 19:19:08 -
[200] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:As Arla Sarain wrote. Damps will be good to countermeasure that modules.
against range scripts yes... but for close range setups damps wont cut it.
What i would propose...is this
Currently Caldari have only one form of ewar and that is ECM.
ECM is very strong because of this. I would nerf ECM so that it only breaks the lock and remove the targeting delay penalty (think of target spectrum breaker)
This would then open Caldari to a second type of ewar which IMO should be the EQ of TD but for Missiles.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2085
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 19:20:19 -
[201] - 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.
if you did this TD would be the new multi spec ECM we used to see on every ship... cant say that i support... it should be a separate mod all together
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Matt Faithbringer
Red Horde Rising
5
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 19:44:12 -
[202] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:As Arla Sarain wrote. Damps will be good to countermeasure that modules. against range scripts yes... but for close range setups damps wont cut it. What i would propose...is this Currently Caldari have only one form of ewar and that is ECM. ECM is very strong because of this. I would nerf ECM so that it only breaks the lock and remove the targeting delay penalty (think of target spectrum breaker) This would then open Caldari to a second type of ewar which IMO should be the EQ of TD but for Missiles.
Not sure if makes sense lore-wise.. caldari, the missile race would have ewar AGAINST missiles? If it should be racial ewar, it should be gallente IMHO |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
509
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 20:22:18 -
[203] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote: if you did this TD would be the new multi spec ECM we used to see on every ship... cant say that i support... it should be a separate mod all together Which is precisely why they should nerf the base stats on TDs, and then do a counterbalancing buff on TD boats. This would essentially be doing to TD boats what was done to ECM boats years ago. Make them desired ships to have in fleets. It should also be done for damp and painter boats as well. Currently the only ewar mods that don't function worth a crap on non bonused hulls are ecm modules. That was entirely to bury the ecm of doom fitting regimen.
Matt Faithbringer wrote: Not sure if makes sense lore-wise.. caldari, the missile race would have ewar AGAINST missiles? If it should be racial ewar, it should be gallente IMHO Yeah it wouldn't make sense to have ecm be antimissile ewar. However, as much as it would make lore sense to do it to damps, damps and damp usage are already rather strong.
Having TDs affect missiles would be consistent with lore now that Minmatar has a missile boat line of ships. And as long as the TDs themselves get a base stat nerf, the ecm module treatment, TDs will not become the new multispecs of doom.
This is also why I proposed in a thread a couple months ago that painters be given a secondary anti drone effect. The lore would make sense in that Amarr now has a comprehensive line of drone boats. The technobabble explanation could be that being painted causes a lot of em communication interference between a host ship and its drones. Thus the drone control range could receive a hit. This would address a lot of the nano sentry Ishtar complaints. As long as the effect is slight enough it would necessitate some further fitting and rig choices on drone boats.
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.
|
Matt Faithbringer
Red Horde Rising
5
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 21:06:48 -
[204] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:MeBiatch wrote: if you did this TD would be the new multi spec ECM we used to see on every ship... cant say that i support... it should be a separate mod all together Which is precisely why they should nerf the base stats on TDs, and then do a counterbalancing buff on TD boats. This would essentially be doing to TD boats what was done to ECM boats years ago. Make them desired ships to have in fleets. It should also be done for damp and painter boats as well. Currently the only ewar mods that don't function worth a crap on non bonused hulls are ecm modules. That was entirely to bury the ecm of doom fitting regimen. Matt Faithbringer wrote: Not sure if makes sense lore-wise.. caldari, the missile race would have ewar AGAINST missiles? If it should be racial ewar, it should be gallente IMHO Yeah it wouldn't make sense to have ecm be antimissile ewar. However, as much as it would make lore sense to do it to damps, damps and damp usage are already rather strong. Having TDs affect missiles would be consistent with lore now that Minmatar has a missile boat line of ships. And as long as the TDs themselves get a base stat nerf, the ecm module treatment, TDs will not become the new multispecs of doom. This is also why I proposed in a thread a couple months ago that painters be given a secondary anti drone effect. The lore would make sense in that Amarr now has a comprehensive line of drone boats. The technobabble explanation could be that being painted causes a lot of em communication interference between a host ship and its drones. Thus the drone control range could receive a hit. This would address a lot of the nano sentry Ishtar complaints. As long as the effect is slight enough it would necessitate some further fitting and rig choices on drone boats.
well, you can already shoot down drones... |
Arla Sarain
507
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 22:00:46 -
[205] - Quote
Nerf rockets during the missile balance package.
They project further than small ACs, have same paper DPS but apply damage better, and apply full damage to a single webbed target. ACs on the other hand deal roughly 80% of their DPS at half fall-off. Outside of 50% falloff bonused hulls, this range is usually at around 5-6km. |
ivona fly
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
5
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 22:51:00 -
[206] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:As Arla Sarain wrote. Damps will be good to countermeasure that modules. against range scripts yes... but for close range setups damps wont cut it. What i would propose...is this Currently Caldari have only one form of ewar and that is ECM. ECM is very strong because of this. I would nerf ECM so that it only breaks the lock and remove the targeting delay penalty (think of target spectrum breaker) This would then open Caldari to a second type of ewar which IMO should be the EQ of TD but for Missiles.
Yes this interesting all other races have dual ewar........ to think about this look at electronic attack ships
Keres Point range + damps Sentinel TD + Neut Range/ neut strengh Hyena Web Range + TP Kitsune ECM ? infact most people simply opt to fly the griffin, not to say it is a bad ship but expensive 1 trick pony and cant fight in novice plex |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
102
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 00:01:00 -
[207] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Airi Cho wrote:Chance Ravinne wrote:I also have some concerns that without adequate stacking penalties, these modules could greatly enhance the power of gank stealth bombers. A Nemesis or Manticore with mids and lows full of these guidance modules could apply massive damage to cruisers, destroyers, and even frigates. With no recalibration delay and the element of surprise, torpedoes will far surpass rockets for assaulting small targets, including Asteros. I don't get why everyone assumes those wouldnt have stacking penalties. What do you base such assumptions on? The potential imbalance is that TPs, MGC/MGEs, Rigor/Flare rigs, and Webs do not stack against each other and since their effects on the 2nd part of the missile damage formula are multiplicative, it could potentially lead to something nasty. For example, rough numbers show that a Cruise Phoenix with 4 MGCs/wScripts, coupled with a Hyena or Rapier(?) that can land 3 bonused TPs and a 60% web on a shield tanked MWD'ing Ishtar can one shot the Ishtar (however links might save the Ishtar.) I wouldn't consider that a particularly imbalanced edge case though.
webs, TP arent missile specific
turrets have similar range/tracking rigs that give the same benefit. (although you dont see them used that often) The modules for the turrets on the other hands are kinda popular ... so i dont see why this would suddenly unbalance the meta so badly. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
37
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 02:20:09 -
[208] - Quote
ivona fly wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:As Arla Sarain wrote. Damps will be good to countermeasure that modules. against range scripts yes... but for close range setups damps wont cut it. What i would propose...is this Currently Caldari have only one form of ewar and that is ECM. ECM is very strong because of this. I would nerf ECM so that it only breaks the lock and remove the targeting delay penalty (think of target spectrum breaker) This would then open Caldari to a second type of ewar which IMO should be the EQ of TD but for Missiles. Yes this interesting all other races have dual ewar........ to think about this look at electronic attack ships Keres Point range + damps Sentinel TD + Neut Range/ neut strengh Hyena Web Range + TPKitsune ECM ? infact most people simply opt to fly the griffin, not to say it is a bad ship but expensive 1 trick pony and cant fight in novice plex This seems to make pretty good sense. Like any module it can be used by anyone but Caldari ewar ships would get a 2nd bonus. This would also force them them to choose the value of equipping such a module over ECM.
|
Silverbackyererse
The Church of Awesome Heiian Conglomerate
142
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 02:33:17 -
[209] - Quote
I likey.
Gotta make a trade-off choice when fitting either of these mods on most launcher ships.
Seems like a welcome change to a very average medium sized couple of weapons systems.
Also +1 to removing the launcher kinetic/explosive lock on those hulls that have them. |
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
100
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 07:24:28 -
[210] - Quote
Rise, have you thought about remote missile tracking enhancement? |
|
|
|
|
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 |