Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Messenger Of Truth
Butlerian Crusade
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 04:35:40 -
[31] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Tarsas Phage wrote:Please clarify the case of missiles being launched from grouped launchers.
If I had, for example, eight launchers grouped, will the singular "missile" that is spawned when they fire be HP*8, or is there a stacking penalty involved? Or is it just the same HP as 1 missile? That mechanic isn't changing. The combined entity that flies through space has 8x the HP of one missile, but whenever it loses 1/8 of its HP it loses 1/8 of its damage. Missile grouping was implemented quite well back in the day.
What happens if it loses 1/16th of its HP? Nothing? Or something? |
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
2313
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 04:36:01 -
[32] - Quote
Onslaughtor wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Tarsas Phage wrote:Please clarify the case of missiles being launched from grouped launchers.
If I had, for example, eight launchers grouped, will the singular "missile" that is spawned when they fire be HP*8, or is there a stacking penalty involved? Or is it just the same HP as 1 missile? That mechanic isn't changing. The combined entity that flies through space has 8x the HP of one missile, but whenever it loses 1/8 of its HP it loses 1/8 of its damage. Missile grouping was implemented quite well back in the day. So for the sake of clarification, does that mean that if I have 8 missiles. And I fire them in a group of 4, and 4 individually. And they got firewalled, the 4 individuals would be destroyed, but the group might survive with a 1/4 of its combined health it would only do 1/4 of its combined damage?
Yes. |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1861
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 05:58:43 -
[33] - Quote
These HP increases are super low! And so is the resistance percentage.
Have you ever seen a firewall in action fozzie? Its usually composed of a bit more than one medium smartbomb...
Since we have to take grouping into consideration, I would at least expect 300hp for heavy missiles.
EDIT: What about T2 missiles? Clearly caldari navy ones are the most used, does an increase in HPs for these would be interesting?
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
|
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
869
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 06:44:40 -
[34] - Quote
A bunch of questions.
- What about other faction missiles? - What damage type defenders deal? - If grouping mech is done well, why there are these complaints about defenders hardly hitting anything past one missile? Are they just that bad? |
Skydott
Burnin plasma ball
28
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 06:52:35 -
[35] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello folks! We're planning on making a set of changes to the hitpoints of subcapital missiles, which are currently all 70hp (except for Torpedoes at 280hp). The significant implication would be to GÇ£firewallGÇ¥ tactics where people use smartbombs to destroy incoming missiles in fleet warfare. Firewalling is an example of very clever use of game mechanics and can involve a ton of player skill. We really like the tactic in general but as players have improved their techniques over time it has gotten a bit too strong and tends to stifle the use of interesting missile fleet concepts. Ideally weGÇÖd want to provide more interesting play around firewalling without nerfing it out of existence. These changes would consist of: - Moderate buffs to the HP of most missiles, with higher HP for larger missiles and higher HP for shorter range missiles within each size.
- An extra HP increase for the Guristas (but not Dread Guristas) line of faction missiles (which have the lowest damage of the faction missiles and are therefore missing a useful role).
- Each missile would gain 20% damage resistance to its own damage type, allowing for some advanced counterplay for large fleets that use and face firewall tactics.
The new hitpoint numbers would be: Light Missiles: 60hp Guristas Light Missiles: 80hp Rockets: 90hp Guristas Rockets: 120hp Heavy Missiles: 120hp Guristas Heavy Missiles: 160hp Heavy Assault Missiles: 180hp Guristas Heavy Assault Missiles: 240hp Cruise Missiles: 240hp Guristas Cruise Missiles: 320hp Torpedoes: 360hp Guristas Torpedoes: 480hp This would mean that for instance two T2 small smartbombs or one medium T2 would be required to take down a Heavy Missile (with that threshold rising to two mediums or one large for Guristas faction Heavy missiles) and Cruise missiles would require two T2 mediums or one large smartbomb (rising to three mediums or one large faction smartbomb for Guristas versions). When facing smartbombs of the same damage type that threshold would rise even further. We hope that these changes will provide more interesting gameplay for pilots flying in fleets with or against missile ships. Let us know what you think! ALL HAIL RAIL TENGU! |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
207
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 06:58:53 -
[36] - Quote
Altrue wrote: These HP increases are super low! And so is the resistance percentage. Have you ever seen a firewall in action fozzie? Its usually composed of a bit more than one medium smartbomb... Since we have to take grouping into consideration, I would at least expect 300hp for heavy missiles. EDIT: What about T2 missiles? Clearly caldari navy ones are the most used, does an increase in HPs for these would be interesting?
while i have to agree that this is a a step in the right direction, i can also agree with what altrue said ^^;
a dedicated fleet firewall will include allot more that 1 medium smartbomb, so i think the increase in resistance on the missiles is too small; the hp buff overall seems ~ok, but the 20% res increase is way too small to really count; make it 80-90% and then changing missile types to avoid firewall midfight will become a valid tactic;
Also, capital missiles NEED to be put in this, even more that the subcaps; while in common fleet combat firewall ships are not that many and the range of smartbombs can be avoided with some positioning, a carrier/super blob will have always enough smartbombs running to negate most of missile dmg incoming; also, since SIEGED dreads are immobile, it's quite easy to refit and place a smarbombing ship(carrier) between them and your caps, thus making most of the incoming dmg into spacedust ;
|
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
524
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 07:09:14 -
[37] - Quote
I would like to propose completely different approach:
How about just giving us a proper anti missile module (either buf for tracking disruptor or new module so we can affect missile power. We now have modules for missile range and damage application to compensate.
Why should there be an ultimate defence against missiles that if performed correctly just mitigates all dama of fleet? We don't have turret counterpart. Missile fleets already have disadvantage of delayed alpha.
While I claim no knowledge of actuall impact of missiles on lag i remember that missiles used to be significant factor back when war with lag started. Maybe removal of intractability of missiles with environment (no damage from aoe, no locking, etc...) would affect servers performance as less operations on missiles would be performed each cycle?
Fix defender missiles, so they can be used in actual scenarios or remove them completely. There are many ideas on defenders so i just name two: - non targetet module that attacs all incoming missiles (contradicts previous point on non-interactbility of missiles) - make them a sort of remote eccm. Buff a friend (or yourself with personal version) so that missiles hitting him/you have penalty to sig/exp speed
So to sum it up: - remove missile interaction with environment (no more firewall) - introduce "tracking distruptor" like module or give td anri-missiles power - fix defenders
While i very like concept of firewall maybe its not a tactict that should be viable? Or maybe introduce anti-turret counterpart?
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
FireFrenzy
Satan's Unicorns
483
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 07:13:48 -
[38] - Quote
As for the "NERF GOON" from a page back, if they make eve easier you buff goons because well its easier and they have more people to use the easier status quo. And if you make eve harder (by removing somethign from the api say) they have more people to share in the new added work load of keeping an eye on the POSes for syphons (or whatever) and thus (indirectly) buff goon...
Welcome to people and organization making everything easier! |
Aeon Veritas
Lobach Inc. Easily Offended
7
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 07:26:54 -
[39] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:These changes would consist of: - Moderate buffs to the HP of most missiles, with higher HP for larger missiles and higher HP for shorter range missiles within each size.
- An extra HP increase for the Guristas (but not Dread Guristas) line of faction missiles (which have the lowest damage of the faction missiles and are therefore missing a useful role).
- Each missile would gain 20% damage resistance to its own damage type, allowing for some advanced counterplay for large fleets that use and face firewall tactics.
The new hitpoint numbers would be: Light Missiles: 60hp Guristas Light Missiles: 80hp Rockets: 90hp Guristas Rockets: 120hp Heavy Missiles: 120hp Guristas Heavy Missiles: 160hp Heavy Assault Missiles: 180hp Guristas Heavy Assault Missiles: 240hp Cruise Missiles: 240hp Guristas Cruise Missiles: 320hp Torpedoes: 360hp Guristas Torpedoes: 480hp So these changes without adapting the defender missiles is a confirmation that they are useless?
Because at the moment light defender missiles (LDM) deal 60 explosive damage and heavy defender missiles (HDM) deal 70 explosive damage. (+10% for skills at V) Which means they will be less effective against all nova missiles. Maybe the dealt damage should be distributed equal to all damage types. Further at least the damage of the HDM should be adapted to 120. That way one HDM can take out one heavy Missile, which is ok since with they have the same RoF with the heavy missile launcher, but it's still quite useless against the rapid heavy missile launcher... Maybe the rapid launchers should be able to load defender missiles, they still have a hughe reload time...
General module tiericide thoughts
|
Anthar Thebess
1094
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 08:35:59 -
[40] - Quote
Ehp needs more buff.
People are talking about 1 smart bomb, but usual firewall tactics is putting 1 or 2 battleship equipped only in large smart bombs in the middle of the fleet.
What about Smart bomb Re balance? Why not do both on the same time - whatever will you do to smart bombs it will then have heavy impact on all other items that will or could be rebalanced before. - missiles - interdiction probes - bombs - drones ( and all the modules connected to them at the same point) - etc.
Smart bomb re balance could be wise to have at the beginning of this process.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
|
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
209
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 08:43:20 -
[41] - Quote
oh, and also, have you considered the new "structure smartbombs"? since they will be implemented in the game,and assuming a decent range on them, it looks like fighting in range of one of those it's not really an option for missile ships, or just that a fleet need to go in range (or between) one of those to get rid of the incoming missile dps, while turret dps will have no problem with that |
Drechlas
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
15
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 08:54:19 -
[42] - Quote
Orca Platypus wrote:Fozzie, is there something you can do without buffing goons in process? Or is it your sole purpose in CCP? So because goons seem to find loopholes in many decisions or changes that ccp implements... that must mean ccp is working for goons...
Somehow you're logic is flawed
PS Free tin foil hats at the exit |
edeity
Dirt 'n' Glitter Test Alliance Please Ignore
24
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 11:11:07 -
[43] - Quote
There is obviously only one fix needed for Missiles.
QUAKE 3 ROCKET JUMP.
|
Generic Marketting Character
Super Capital Proliferation Ltd
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 11:41:51 -
[44] - Quote
We don't like fights where bringing more people automatically means you're going to win.
So we're going to introduce a change where just adding 1 more smart bombing BS completely negates the change and makes firewalling entirely viable again? |
Anthar Thebess
1094
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 12:10:24 -
[45] - Quote
Generic Marketting Character wrote:We don't like fights where bringing more people automatically means you're going to win.
So we're going to introduce a change where just adding 1 more smart bombing BS completely negates the change and makes firewalling entirely viable again? Apparently CCP thinks that people are using medium smartbombs for killing missiles. I think when the drake swarms where alive people where using medium fitted smartbomb command ships , but this is long gone.
All doctrines that i know ( especially the battleship one ) use always the large bombs - mostly to kill also incoming bombs. When there is big missile engagement , people always use additional smartbombing battleships that sit in the middle of the fleet and adjust position as needed. They have full set of omni damage bombs that allow also kill all potential smartbombs.
In case of the cruiser to cruiser engagements medium smatbomb could be only viable option - but i think this will simply shift to machariels using specific fits. They will be warping as fast as other fleet have tons of EHP , and get cap for the smartbombs from the logistics wing.
Next thing assuming subcapital VS slowcat engagement , carriers will be using sets of large smartbombs totally negating missile damage.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Generic Marketting Character
Super Capital Proliferation Ltd
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 12:23:24 -
[46] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Generic Marketting Character wrote:We don't like fights where bringing more people automatically means you're going to win.
So we're going to introduce a change where just adding 1 more smart bombing BS completely negates the change and makes firewalling entirely viable again? Apparently CCP thinks that people are using medium smartbombs for killing missiles. I think when the drake swarms where alive people where using medium fitted smartbomb command ships , but this is long gone. All doctrines that i know ( especially the battleship one ) use always the large bombs - mostly to kill also incoming bombs. When there is big missile engagement , people always use additional smartbombing battleships that sit in the middle of the fleet and adjust position as needed. They have full set of omni damage bombs that allow also kill all potential smartbombs. In case of the cruiser to cruiser engagements medium smatbomb could be only viable option - but i think this will simply shift to machariels using specific fits. They will be warping as fast as other fleet have tons of EHP , and get cap for the smartbombs from the logistics wing. Next thing assuming subcapital VS slowcat engagement , carriers will be using sets of large smartbombs totally negating missile damage.
Yep, when in a scenario where a utility high is available most comps make use of it with a large, or a medium in the unlikely event a large wont fit. This means every single DPS boat is carrying a smart bomb.
On top of that you get, as you said - dedicated anti missile/bomb/drone ships which make use of a full rack of disco smart bombs.
Considering the entosis change was to take away from blob warfare etc, it seems odd to implement a change which can be entirely nullified by adding a couple more battleships with smartbombs. (In reality in a lot of fleet fights there is already going to be enough smart bombs on grid to firewall even post-change)
Small/Medium gang, firewalling isn't really as much of an issue, as can be seen with the prevalence of comps such as ham legions, and all forms of caracal.
While the issue of missiles in PvP DOES need to be addressed, and it's good to see that CCP are looking at it, this change really does seem to be pissing in the wind.
|
Lithium Nightmare
Herrscher der Zeit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 12:27:06 -
[47] - Quote
fozzie pls. fix defender missiles the only use for firewalling is because defender missiles are broken |
stoicfaux
5928
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 12:31:24 -
[48] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: These changes would consist of: [list] Moderate buffs to the HP of most missiles, with higher HP for larger missiles and higher HP for shorter range missiles within each size. What testing scenarios were used when determining the HP buff?
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
stoicfaux
5928
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 12:41:22 -
[49] - Quote
Lithium Nightmare wrote:fozzie pls. fix defender missiles the only use for firewalling is because defender missiles are broken Defender missiles are beyond help, assuming that PC defenders use the same intercept code as NPC defenders. The increased speed of missiles (speed buff, Mordu ship 200% velocity bonus) means that defenders do not work at close range (defenders cannot launch and intercept due to the short flight time of incoming missiles,) and, for some reason at long range (they launch but never hit a missile fired at long range.)
On the plus side, an NPC's missile damage multiplier applies to NPC defenders which can result in a single defender killing multiple missile in an incoming missile group. So, in theory, it should be possible to do the same with PC defenders.
IMO, PC defenders should be removed and the skill points reimbursed until CCP can overhaul the code or rethink the mechanic.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Generic Marketting Character
Super Capital Proliferation Ltd
5
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 12:50:22 -
[50] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Lithium Nightmare wrote:fozzie pls. fix defender missiles the only use for firewalling is because defender missiles are broken Defender missiles are beyond help, assuming that PC defenders use the same intercept code as NPC defenders. The increased speed of missiles (speed buff, Mordu ship 200% velocity bonus) means that defenders do not work at close range (defenders cannot launch and intercept due to the short flight time of incoming missiles,) and, for some reason at long range (they launch but never hit a missile fired at long range.) On the plus side, an NPC's missile damage multiplier applies to NPC defenders which can result in a single defender killing multiple missile in an incoming missile group. So, in theory, it should be possible to do the same with PC defenders. IMO, PC defenders should be removed and the skill points reimbursed until CCP can overhaul the code or rethink the mechanic.
Don't forget firewalling is also used because 5 players can negate N players, defender missiles to negate N players you essentially need N+1, and even then as you said due to missile changes you're unlikely to mitigate all that much. |
|
Anthar Thebess
1094
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 13:11:34 -
[51] - Quote
No one will fit a smartbomb for a gang PVP. Firewall works only in large scale fleet engagements , and then you usually have both. Dedicated smartbombing battleships and utility smartbombs on ships.
We still don't have smarbomb changes , and we are applying boosts to alter current mechanics , why not first "rebalance" smartbombs and then alter missile EHP and resistances?
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Christy Cloud
Hostile. PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
40
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 13:19:32 -
[52] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:No one will fit a smartbomb for a gang PVP. Firewall works only in large scale fleet engagements , and then you usually have both. Dedicated smartbombing battleships and utility smartbombs on ships.
We still don't have smarbomb changes , and we are applying boosts to alter current mechanics , why not first "rebalance" smartbombs and then alter missile EHP and resistances?
Smartbombs are fit in gang pvp, but it's to counter drones, not firewall. |
Medria Lennelluc
Deep Stellar Coalition Enterprises
3
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 14:22:10 -
[53] - Quote
Don't forget to increase defender missile attack power too. Don't make them even worse please. |
Drakken Lowenhertz
EVE University Ivy League
8
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 14:26:53 -
[54] - Quote
I support anything that means missiles become more viable in PvP scenarios but I seem to recall (very possbile I'm wrong here) when they new mid and low modules were announced that they were initally held back as there was planning for an ewar counter to missiles. Assuming that missile specific ewar is still in the pipeline then they would have the same counters as turreted weapons but with the extra threat of firewall which is still very real with these changes.
If defender missiles get some love aswell that gives 2 additonal ways to reduce / negate missile damage that gun systems don't suffer from. Add in the delay (which I'm fine with) allowing people to at time warp out before missiles can land and it's still the weakest weapon system for fleet fights.
Still appreciate any love your giving to missiles though
|
Generic Marketting Character
Super Capital Proliferation Ltd
29
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 14:33:03 -
[55] - Quote
Drakken Lowenhertz wrote:I support anything that means missiles become more viable in PvP scenarios but I seem to recall (very possbile I'm wrong here) when they new mid and low modules were announced that they were initally held back as there was planning for an ewar counter to missiles. Assuming that missile specific ewar is still in the pipeline then they would have the same counters as turreted weapons but with the extra threat of firewall which is still very real with these changes. If defender missiles get some love aswell that gives 2 additonal ways to reduce / negate missile damage that gun systems don't suffer from. Add in the delay (which I'm fine with) allowing people to at time warp out before missiles can land and it's still the weakest weapon system for fleet fights. Still appreciate any love your giving to missiles though
This isn't love, it's like the token gesture of a hug you give that you really awkward person in your social circle. |
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
705
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 14:51:44 -
[56] - Quote
aaaaaaaand you've completely broken the back that was made out of a kitkat for defender missiles.
At least they still had some, and I do mean tiny when I say some, function in PvE vs Guristas and burner missions. Yes, they do actually work in that instance to reduce the incoming dps from kitey stuff..
Now you might as well delete defender missiles.
Why don't we have functioning, smart, point defense systems? A point defense system that would shoot down drones and incoming missiles? It would actually make far more sense than a "Missile Tracking Disruptor" and I imagine would be far easier to code as you have admited you have technical problems with a "Missile Tracking Disruptor".
I can't tell you how much I would love a Destroyer hull fitted out with point defense flying amonst the fleet performing the "Screening" role. You could even have a T2 version!
It could even be racial! Amarr point defense lasers would be best vs missiles - instant damage, good range but poor tracking vs drones at short range. Caldari point defense missiles would be the "all rounder". Okay vs drones and missiles due to not requiring tracking but travel time Galente Point Defense Blasters would be best vs drones - poor range but excellent application and damage Minmatar Point Defense Guns would be another all rounder but lower projection with higher RoF.
Guess what else all of this would fix?
Bombers!
Yes, a fleet of battleships protected by a squadron of point defense Destroyers would be immune to bombers.
Also, Destroyers are squishy so it wouldn't be difficult to clear the field of enemy Point Defense.
It would actually create a lot of new gameplay.
Smartbombs are not smart or bombs at all so I would like to see them renamed into "Energy Pulse Weapons".
|
Generic Marketting Character
Super Capital Proliferation Ltd
41
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 14:54:46 -
[57] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Smartbombs are not smart or bombs at all so I would like to see them renamed into "Energy Pulse Weapons".
You mean name the module off the skill it requires? Madness. |
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
705
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 15:48:39 -
[58] - Quote
Generic Marketting Character wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:
Smartbombs are not smart or bombs at all so I would like to see them renamed into "Energy Pulse Weapons".
You mean name the module off the skill it requires? Madness.
The funny thing is that I didn't realize that until you pointed it out! |
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1312
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 17:47:53 -
[59] - Quote
Araneatrox wrote:Disco firewalls incoming.
QFT.
@CCP Fozzie, Can we make the different damage type smart bombs' AoE graphic effect different colors? Pretty plz?
As for the numbers, I figured the resists would be higher. A small T1 SB does 50 damage. So it will take 2 smartbombs to do that job no matter the damage type.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1312
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 17:50:44 -
[60] - Quote
I have advocated for a defender reword multiple times, as some sort of a bomb screening module. Bring Heretics, or other missile destroyer. Jackdaw anyone? Fit multiple launchers. lol at bombs as you shoot them down en masse.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |