Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 19:13:19 -
[361] - Quote
Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought process behind creating a new module for this :) Because if it blocked all weapons it would be an auto "I win!" module. Like if you combined the eccm module effect with SEBO's and now you counter Damps and ECM. or maybe fix warp stabs to also counter webs.. |
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 19:18:15 -
[362] - Quote
Ransu Asanari wrote:I've expected to see these for a while, and generally I'm in favor of them. I do wonder why you've chosen to give this new EWAR ability to Amarr however - yes it fits alongside Tracking Disruptors, but Amarr already get Tracking Disruption and Energy Neutralizers as a primary and secondary EWAR on their class ships. So now they're going to have Missile Disruption as well? Caldari ships only get ECM and... ECM. That's it - they have no secondary EWAR capability on their Electronic Attack Ships, or Recon Ships. Unless you are also planning on introducing a drone counter EWAR system, would it not make more sense to give this ability to Caldari ships? I understand that may take more work to revamp all of the ships, but if an ECM rebalance is in the works anyway, logically it would make sense to give drone and missile EWAR to Caldari ships. I've outlined a bit more detail on this here, and I believe Corbexx may have sent it your way: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3itkns/rogue_drone_battleship_grasping_robot_arms_have/cuke0v4 that they might have to look at ewar modules and balancing those and making a pass at ewar balancing.
That is going to bring a lot of positive/negative feedback when they.. i.e. if they add those in, they might actually have to make ecm one module and boost the multispectral ecm to current levels of the other ecm types to make it equal to other current ewar, instead of having to pack 6 for a rainbow fit on a falcon/scorpion and use a single plate for tank. |
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 20:33:06 -
[363] - Quote
Koshka narkotikov wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought proces behind creating a new module for this :) I like separate modules. Otherwise one ship can defend against any threat with a single mod. At least you have to choose the mod and cant just blanket every circumstance. Course mobile depots will work around this, but at least you cant change mid fight. Welp, its going to be sentinels, crucifiers, arbitrator, curse/pilgrim online after this. Like LS needs more of these flying around. Indirect drone buff as theyre the only weapon system that doesnt have an ewar counter. Will adapt as usual, but heavies are going to be even more useless except in niche scenarios. So you mean they would work like every other form of ecm where they work no matter what on every ship? Even ecm matched against the incorrect sensor type still has a chance to jam even if a low one. Id much rather see this as a script since as it is tracking disrupting is by far the most inflexible of the ecm variants. than you want to make it chance based like ecm? can the other ewartypes also be matched based as well than? play the RNG game. It gets annoying with them faction cruisers that have stronger sensors than T1 BC's. |
Onslaughtor
Occult National Security Phoenix Naval Systems
159
|
Posted - 2015.10.12 20:13:48 -
[364] - Quote
Poranius Fisc wrote:Koshka narkotikov wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought proces behind creating a new module for this :) I like separate modules. Otherwise one ship can defend against any threat with a single mod. At least you have to choose the mod and cant just blanket every circumstance. Course mobile depots will work around this, but at least you cant change mid fight. Welp, its going to be sentinels, crucifiers, arbitrator, curse/pilgrim online after this. Like LS needs more of these flying around. Indirect drone buff as theyre the only weapon system that doesnt have an ewar counter. Will adapt as usual, but heavies are going to be even more useless except in niche scenarios. So you mean they would work like every other form of ecm where they work no matter what on every ship? Even ecm matched against the incorrect sensor type still has a chance to jam even if a low one. Id much rather see this as a script since as it is tracking disrupting is by far the most inflexible of the ecm variants. than you want to make it chance based like ecm? can the other ewartypes also be matched based as well than? play the RNG game. It gets annoying with them faction cruisers that have stronger sensors than T1 BC's.
I think he means like every other Ewar, in which case he is correct. Every ewar except Tracking computers and these new modules work on every ship in the game that isnt ewar immune. It would be a massive oversight in balancing its actual usefulness if you needed diffrent mods. And the simple solution to the number one complaint here (that all ships will fit a Weapon disruptor) is that you debonus the module and add bonuses to the hull to compensate.
|
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2030
|
Posted - 2015.10.12 22:36:21 -
[365] - Quote
Poranius Fisc wrote:Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought process behind creating a new module for this :) Because if it blocked all weapons it would be an auto "I win!" module. Like if you combined the eccm module effect with SEBO's and now you counter Damps and ECM. or maybe fix warp stabs to also counter webs..
Well No. Ecm and damps are completely different. Ecm is a chanced based lock breaker while damps lessen your lock range/speed. Tracking disrupters should be used to reduce the effectiveness of a hostile ships weapons.
Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
|
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2015.10.13 16:41:22 -
[366] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Poranius Fisc wrote:Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought process behind creating a new module for this :) Because if it blocked all weapons it would be an auto "I win!" module. Like if you combined the eccm module effect with SEBO's and now you counter Damps and ECM. or maybe fix warp stabs to also counter webs.. Well No. Ecm and damps are completely different. Ecm is a chanced based lock breaker while damps lessen your lock range/speed. Tracking disrupters should be used to reduce the effectiveness of a hostile ships weapons.
TRACKING disrupters reduce the effectiveness of a hostile ships TRACKING, a missiles that explode dont track anything and fuel/speed for the missile dont need any tracking either |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
228
|
Posted - 2015.10.13 17:45:43 -
[367] - Quote
Haatakan Reppola wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Poranius Fisc wrote:Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought process behind creating a new module for this :) Because if it blocked all weapons it would be an auto "I win!" module. Like if you combined the eccm module effect with SEBO's and now you counter Damps and ECM. or maybe fix warp stabs to also counter webs.. Well No. Ecm and damps are completely different. Ecm is a chanced based lock breaker while damps lessen your lock range/speed. Tracking disrupters should be used to reduce the effectiveness of a hostile ships weapons. TRACKING disrupters reduce the effectiveness of a hostile ships TRACKING, a missiles that explode dont track anything and fuel/speed for the missile dont need any tracking either
which is why the new mod for missiles is called missile disruption and only effect missiles that are launched with the mod acting on the ship. The mod wont affect missile already in space. |
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2030
|
Posted - 2015.10.13 17:57:04 -
[368] - Quote
Yeah i think i am on board with the separate mods now. It would probably bee too op if it was one mod that disrupts all weapons.
ECM - Is balanced by being racial specific Damps - range damps can be mitigated by getting close the the target Tracking/missile disruption - will be balanced by bringing alternative weapon system
Seems fine.
Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
|
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2015.10.13 22:25:10 -
[369] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Kiki Abraxas wrote:why not fix things that are broken such as sov mechanics :) and then go back to adding new **** Sometimes I think that people just don't understand that not all development is created equal.
I just want to throw this out.. in a rare case, you could have a frigate gang running around with a couple of these and totally cripple battleships from bieng able to do anything. It can even make a marauder with its bonus to TP's moot if done wrong.
I forsee lots of ravens burning from this.
How much of the missile guidance module buff comes from this vs the hasty release?
Will the use of a tracking computer mitigate this as well as a Sebo does a Damp? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2785
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 03:54:58 -
[370] - Quote
Haatakan Reppola wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Poranius Fisc wrote:Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought process behind creating a new module for this :) Because if it blocked all weapons it would be an auto "I win!" module. Like if you combined the eccm module effect with SEBO's and now you counter Damps and ECM. or maybe fix warp stabs to also counter webs.. Well No. Ecm and damps are completely different. Ecm is a chanced based lock breaker while damps lessen your lock range/speed. Tracking disrupters should be used to reduce the effectiveness of a hostile ships weapons. TRACKING disrupters reduce the effectiveness of a hostile ships TRACKING, a missiles that explode dont track anything and fuel/speed for the missile dont need any tracking either https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_guidance
Quote:In every Go-Onto-Target system there are three subsystems:
Target tracker Missile tracker Guidance computer I have a nice little post a few pages back with explanation of you like. |
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
228
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 04:10:33 -
[371] - Quote
Poranius Fisc wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Kiki Abraxas wrote:why not fix things that are broken such as sov mechanics :) and then go back to adding new **** Sometimes I think that people just don't understand that not all development is created equal. I just want to throw this out.. in a rare case, you could have a frigate gang running around with a couple of these and totally cripple battleships from bieng able to do anything. It can even make a marauder with its bonus to TP's moot if done wrong. I forsee lots of ravens burning from this. How much of the missile guidance module buff comes from this vs the hasty release? Will the use of a tracking computer mitigate this as well as a Sebo does a Damp?
marauders are immune to ewar (well they can be) so no marauder is going to care about it just like they dont care about TC/damps/ecm |
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 05:47:57 -
[372] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Haatakan Reppola wrote:
TRACKING disrupters reduce the effectiveness of a hostile ships TRACKING, a missiles that explode dont track anything and fuel/speed for the missile dont need any tracking either
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_guidance Quote:In every Go-Onto-Target system there are three subsystems:
Target tracker Missile tracker Guidance computer I have a nice little post a few pages back with explanation of you like.
All these are used to make the missile hit the target, since missiles always hit when in range (ingame) we can ignore those 3 things. |
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 05:51:53 -
[373] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Poranius Fisc wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Kiki Abraxas wrote:why not fix things that are broken such as sov mechanics :) and then go back to adding new **** Sometimes I think that people just don't understand that not all development is created equal. I just want to throw this out.. in a rare case, you could have a frigate gang running around with a couple of these and totally cripple battleships from bieng able to do anything. It can even make a marauder with its bonus to TP's moot if done wrong. I forsee lots of ravens burning from this. How much of the missile guidance module buff comes from this vs the hasty release? Will the use of a tracking computer mitigate this as well as a Sebo does a Damp? marauders are immune to ewar (well they can be) so no marauder is going to care about it just like they dont care about TC/damps/ecm if you go bastion and leave yourself stuck. I meant in terms of the Golems bonus to TP's to deal damage, which is still in open discussion that it takes a golem 3 tp's to hit exceptionally anything frigate sized. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
228
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 06:44:46 -
[374] - Quote
Poranius Fisc wrote:Lady Rift wrote:Poranius Fisc wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Kiki Abraxas wrote:why not fix things that are broken such as sov mechanics :) and then go back to adding new **** Sometimes I think that people just don't understand that not all development is created equal. I just want to throw this out.. in a rare case, you could have a frigate gang running around with a couple of these and totally cripple battleships from bieng able to do anything. It can even make a marauder with its bonus to TP's moot if done wrong. I forsee lots of ravens burning from this. How much of the missile guidance module buff comes from this vs the hasty release? Will the use of a tracking computer mitigate this as well as a Sebo does a Damp? marauders are immune to ewar (well they can be) so no marauder is going to care about it just like they dont care about TC/damps/ecm if you go bastion and leave yourself stuck. I meant in terms of the Golems bonus to TP's to deal damage, which is still in open discussion that it takes a golem 3 tp's to hit exceptionally anything frigate sized.
shouldnt be that bad with cruse and those tps will massively help your drones. |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
241
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 14:13:41 -
[375] - Quote
You know, I'm convinced. Earlier I sided with people saying they wanted all this in one mod, but a lot of good points were made that if this were a scripted module, it'd be OP. It would be.
ECM is still an outlier, but only because every single facet of ECM is terrible. Need to devote a bunch of mids to rainbow (on a predominantly shield-based race, no less!), RNG-based mechanic, etc.
I see a lot of people voicing concerns over these modules and I see the root of the problem being missile mechanics. Can't have good missiles because missiles always hit, and that makes balancing missiles a b-----. That we have weapons in this game that provide something different than turrets is a good thing, but missiles as they currently are, are not fit to the game well. The game really shines with the complexity and skillful use of turrets, and falls flat with missiles. Missiles as a system need to be overhauled in their entirety before they well and truly work well within this game. Maybe give them a falloff area where there's a genuine % chance of miss? I don't know. But missiles are going to continue to be a sore spot and neigh-impossible to balance well for the foreseeable future.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2334
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 14:42:35 -
[376] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:You know, I'm convinced. Earlier I sided with people saying they wanted all this in one mod, but a lot of good points were made that if this were a scripted module, it'd be OP. It would be.
ECM is still an outlier, but only because every single facet of ECM is terrible. Need to devote a bunch of mids to rainbow (on a predominantly shield-based race, no less!), RNG-based mechanic, etc.
I see a lot of people voicing concerns over these modules and I see the root of the problem being missile mechanics. Can't have good missiles because missiles always hit, and that makes balancing missiles a b-----. That we have weapons in this game that provide something different than turrets is a good thing, but missiles as they currently are, are not fit to the game well. The game really shines with the complexity and skillful use of turrets, and falls flat with missiles. Missiles as a system need to be overhauled in their entirety before they well and truly work well within this game. Maybe give them a falloff area where there's a genuine % chance of miss? I don't know. But missiles are going to continue to be a sore spot and neigh-impossible to balance well for the foreseeable future.
Every time they add modifier like those disruptor to the equation of missile balancing it makes the damn thing even more of a clusterfuck to balance. |
Zakks
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 01:18:14 -
[377] - Quote
RL missiles are countered in a number of different ways. From stealth (unable to lock or 'home' the missile), to chaff and flares, or to various intercepting techniques. Understandably Eve cannot have that level of complexity, but I do like that this is an active module and offers some form of electronic counter to the missile weapon systems.
That said I think it goes a little too far and will make missiles virtually useless. Invariably it can also be seen as a buff to drones at a time that they were being reigned in. The defender missiles would have made an excellent anti-drone weapons choice.
Oh well, I'm still early in my training and can choose where to put my ISK. Drones seem the best choice for my money. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
125
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 03:03:53 -
[378] - Quote
This is just a blurb attempting to explain some major differences in missile theory and why "hard scifi" generally does things the way they do. Hopefully it will explain why interfering with the ship is more likely than actually messing directly with the missiles.
On a planetary body missiles eventually cap out in size as technology advances. Once you have a powerplant capable of traveling the diameter of the planet you dont really need more range. Thus you can design missiles to be self contained "smart" weapons as you miniaturize the power system. Maximum size is always a concern however because of atmospheric flight issues and the fact that you have a gravity well. Navigation is also considerably easier as you have a fixed body to run any positioning by.
In space... all these tricks go away and mass of missiles is no longer a significant concern. This is a massively radical shift in both methods and technology needed. This is furthur compounded by the fact that a ship will always have superior sensors, computers, and telemetry than a missile. Generally in a space situation the firing ship would become the "anchor" for navigation purposes. The ships superior optics and sensors would become the eyes on the long trip to the target. All the missile has to do is maintain link with its ship and accelerate like mad. Once its limited optics and computer systems is within range to be effective youd only have seconds left anyway.
Thus in many ways a missile in space will most likely have more in common with a "fly by wire" missile system than it does with an actual smart weapon on earth today. The majority of its flight will be controlled by the ship that launched it until it can acquire its target itself.
Thus.. as in most hard scifi.. the means to stop yourself from getting hit revolve around making the ship harder to acquire(signature) and screwing with the telemetry systems of the firing ship(disruptors). The eve universe carries on this tradition of jam the ship not the missile in lore. It seems weird but it actually has foundations in logic and design theory. Space changes many of the ways you look at doing things. |
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 22:41:38 -
[379] - Quote
Zakks wrote:RL missiles are countered in a number of different ways. From stealth (unable to lock or 'home' the missile), to chaff and flares, or to various intercepting techniques. Understandably Eve cannot have that level of complexity, but I do like that this is an active module and offers some form of electronic counter to the missile weapon systems.
That said I think it goes a little too far and will make missiles virtually useless. Invariably it can also be seen as a buff to drones at a time that they were being reigned in. The defender missiles would have made an excellent anti-drone weapons choice.
Oh well, I'm still early in my training and can choose where to put my ISK. Drones seem the best choice for my money. Auto missiles.. which are not all that intuitive. Yup. drones are only done in by shooting them down, which also only works with missiles which can be "firewalled" like drones and shot down using defender missiles.
I rally haven't seen much talk about the new missile guidance computers.. it looks like fit for fir the TP's still win (except at long ranges, that missiles do not really see much use (from what I've seen, constant blasts to the pheonix as its a "poco basher"). |
Resinball
The Dysfunctionals Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.16 03:08:05 -
[380] - Quote
need to buff their damage if your going to make them target disrupt-able.
not powerful enough due to the fact it's the only system that requires time to hit the target..... |
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2787
|
Posted - 2015.10.16 05:23:52 -
[381] - Quote
Resinball wrote:need to buff their damage if your going to make them target disrupt-able.
not powerful enough due to the fact it's the only system that requires time to hit the target..... *looks at drones* |
Zakks
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2015.10.16 05:44:52 -
[382] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Resinball wrote:need to buff their damage if your going to make them target disrupt-able.
not powerful enough due to the fact it's the only system that requires time to hit the target..... *looks at drones*
Sentries?
|
kelvin oriley
Un4seen Development Sev3rance
6
|
Posted - 2015.10.16 17:33:27 -
[383] - Quote
dear ccp
please make this far more simple and use the weopen disruption moduals that allready exist and just add the scrips for the missiles
the choices on the market are too many all ready when it comes to ewar and from a training new bros point of view this is just going to make it far more painfull
adding this would make it far more intresting deciding what scrip and when in the heat of battle just like what damege type to use it keeps the heart pumping and keeps the pvp to the grid and not the meta having it your way means the battles are decided before you undock
|
Mario Putzo
1548
|
Posted - 2015.10.16 18:13:34 -
[384] - Quote
So are we getting Remote Guidance systems (akin to Remote Tracking Links)? Yes or no? If not why not? |
Norn Thilnir
Naragnir
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.17 11:56:29 -
[385] - Quote
Two comments:
(1) While I like the idea of fitting options and compromises, I am worried that the current dev resources EVE management are committing to balancing will be insufficient to properly balance the increased complexity.
The fact that missiles had no disruption made them unique. In fact, there was a time that optimal range disruption did not affect falloff. While it arguably made weapon disruption a poor choice against AC/Artillery, it did provide AC and artillery with an advantage. Taking these advantages away, meant that they required further balancing in other ways.
(2) Arguably the strongest other argument against missile disruption is that it takes away from the uniqueness of missiles.
|
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Paisti Syndicate
559
|
Posted - 2015.10.17 12:26:13 -
[386] - Quote
Norn Thilnir wrote:Two comments:
(1) While I like the idea of fitting options and compromises, I am worried that the current dev resources EVE management are committing to balancing will be insufficient to properly balance the increased complexity.
The fact that missiles had no disruption made them unique. In fact, there was a time that optimal range disruption did not affect falloff. While it arguably made weapon disruption a poor choice against AC/Artillery, it did provide AC and artillery with an advantage. Taking these advantages away, meant that they required further balancing in other ways.
(2) Arguably the strongest other argument against missile disruption is that it takes away from the uniqueness of missiles.
Same argument can also be used against RMLs and missile upgrades. Missiles were uniquely weak at applying damage to smaller and faster targets, not anymore. So you missile users gain some, lose some.
Imho missiles are a bad mechanic and should be completely removed instead of trying to make them fit in EVE combat with all these gimmicky fixex. |
bunzing heet
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2015.10.17 13:02:14 -
[387] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:Norn Thilnir wrote:Two comments:
(1) While I like the idea of fitting options and compromises, I am worried that the current dev resources EVE management are committing to balancing will be insufficient to properly balance the increased complexity.
The fact that missiles had no disruption made them unique. In fact, there was a time that optimal range disruption did not affect falloff. While it arguably made weapon disruption a poor choice against AC/Artillery, it did provide AC and artillery with an advantage. Taking these advantages away, meant that they required further balancing in other ways.
(2) Arguably the strongest other argument against missile disruption is that it takes away from the uniqueness of missiles.
Same argument can also be used against RMLs and missile upgrades. Missiles were uniquely weak at applying damage to smaller and faster targets, not anymore. So you missile users gain some, lose some. Imho missiles are a bad mechanic and should be completely removed instead of trying to make them fit in EVE combat with all these gimmicky fixex.
They dont need to be removed that's just overkill I don't like that all weapon system are becoming similar to each other And I fear this will just kill most caldari ships due to better options Fleets and solo PvP will be affected a lot I don't like being the negative nancy But I really and trully hate these upcoming missile disruption modules We will see what happens
Fly safe keep killing
And remember
I'm watching you !!!!
|
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
213
|
Posted - 2015.10.17 17:48:44 -
[388] - Quote
bunzing heet wrote:Aiyshimin wrote:Norn Thilnir wrote:Two comments:
(1) While I like the idea of fitting options and compromises, I am worried that the current dev resources EVE management are committing to balancing will be insufficient to properly balance the increased complexity.
The fact that missiles had no disruption made them unique. In fact, there was a time that optimal range disruption did not affect falloff. While it arguably made weapon disruption a poor choice against AC/Artillery, it did provide AC and artillery with an advantage. Taking these advantages away, meant that they required further balancing in other ways.
(2) Arguably the strongest other argument against missile disruption is that it takes away from the uniqueness of missiles.
Same argument can also be used against RMLs and missile upgrades. Missiles were uniquely weak at applying damage to smaller and faster targets, not anymore. So you missile users gain some, lose some. Imho missiles are a bad mechanic and should be completely removed instead of trying to make them fit in EVE combat with all these gimmicky fixex. They dont need to be removed that's just overkill I don't like that all weapon system are becoming similar to each other And I fear this will just kill most caldari ships due to better options Fleets and solo PvP will be affected a lot I don't like being the negative nancy But I really and trully hate these upcoming missile disruption modules We will see what happens
I agree, but i'd say it's going to hit the non range bonused missiles even harder and that's mostly minmattar and amarr.
Support a fairer loyalty point market for faction war:
The sinews of war; infinite money.
|
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
4697
|
Posted - 2015.10.18 16:36:55 -
[389] - Quote
When is the issue of large missile implants conflicting with Omega implants finally going to be addressed?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
O2 jayjay
Sickology Together We Solo
32
|
Posted - 2015.10.18 23:07:10 -
[390] - Quote
Not trying to be negative but youre slowly making all the ships the same. These changes are trimming down what makes ships unique. Missles have a flight time which delays damage and can also be out ran. No need to have the ability to distrupt their guidance system. My 2-ó |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |