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) |
Koshka narkotikov
Black Omega Security The OSS
3
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:05:30 -
[61] - Quote
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. |
Fifth Blade
Jump Drive Appreciation Society Test Alliance Please Ignore
63
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:06:40 -
[62] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:If they're going to use the same skills/bonuses as Tracking Disruptors, why not just use missile disruption scripts for the existing Tracking Disruptors instead of a new module? As always ( ), my thinking here is geared toward small gang, who while roaming are not going to know if they're going to be facing turret ships or missile ships until they're facing them. Came here to say the exact same thing. From the same perspective (small gang). Please do this. |
Anthar Thebess
1317
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:06:44 -
[63] - Quote
Interesting. But instead lets make this totally different EWAR.
My proposal. 1. Make anti missile modules only available in pirate faction lp stores. 2. Make this module area effect , similar to Remote ECM burst - affected missiles will lose target and don't hit target 3. Give Scorpion the ability to use this modules in full extent 4. Buff missile EHP , to make smartbomb firewall hard to achieve
This way we will introduce totally new mechanic.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Beidorion eldwardan
Corporation Danmark Tactical Narcotics Team
39
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:08:48 -
[64] - Quote
did not read the commets
but i love ccp and even you Fozzie
i have been waiting for anti missile ewar for six years - thank you for telling me what i am getting for christmas |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1200
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:09:01 -
[65] - Quote
all e-war needs nerfs though and how about drone e-war next?
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name, remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3400
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:09:24 -
[66] - Quote
something tells me there will be a HAM, torp, cruise buff in conjunction with this mod. Because things like torp ravens will hate those new mods.
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Mario Putzo
1526
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:10:14 -
[67] - Quote
Out of curiosity, will there also be a "Remote Guidance Link" being implemented? In the sense Remote Tracking Links provide Optimal, fall off and Tracking benefits from a third party ship?
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1200
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:10:31 -
[68] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:something tells me there will be a HAM, torp, cruise buff in conjunction with this mod. Because things like torp ravens will hate those new mods.
HAM's and rockets need a range nerf .. they are both a class up atm from what they should be.
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name, remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
3288
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:10:35 -
[69] - Quote
Are the T1, names and T2 variants going to be pre-tericided?
Because as it stands electronic warfare modules suffer from the Meta 4 being objectively the best problem pretty much across the board. |
Clare Cooke
Low Risk
3
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:12:05 -
[70] - Quote
adding another mod because the other missile mods you introduced are now making it able for a titan to kill a bunch of frig sized ships....
ooops i broke it again! |
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2079
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:12:29 -
[71] - Quote
Fifth Blade wrote:Ripard Teg wrote:If they're going to use the same skills/bonuses as Tracking Disruptors, why not just use missile disruption scripts for the existing Tracking Disruptors instead of a new module? As always ( ), my thinking here is geared toward small gang, who while roaming are not going to know if they're going to be facing turret ships or missile ships until they're facing them. Came here to say the exact same thing. From the same perspective (small gang). Please do this.
Because it's FAR too strong on unbonused hulls; people don't do it today because it only gets turrets - but make it both and it's all you'll see. Ever. |
Knut Svanskern
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:12:49 -
[72] - Quote
As always changes bring fresh wind and new meta will come out of this ! |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
240
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:13:41 -
[73] - Quote
Riela Tanal wrote:As has been stated by others. If they go with the script method, every ship will fit just one of these tracking disruptors and swap the script out for whatever weapon type they are fighting.
Like everyone does with damps? Oh, wait....
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2079
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:16:42 -
[74] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:Riela Tanal wrote:As has been stated by others. If they go with the script method, every ship will fit just one of these tracking disruptors and swap the script out for whatever weapon type they are fighting. Like everyone does with damps? Oh, wait....
Unbonused damp does nothing against loads of hulls - who cares if a HAC loses 15km target range, for example.. This is not the case with these mods/TD. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
938
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:19:08 -
[75] - Quote
Ya!!!! Missiles are FINALLY doing good again!!! Wait.. what? Oh, anti-missile ewar?!?!?!?!?
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
On a more serious note, why couldn't defenders just be made functional as opposed to introducing yet another module?? |
Mr Hyde113
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
189
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:22:32 -
[76] - Quote
Quote:Their range bonuses don't need any more improvements, but we are currently planning on buffing their explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses by ~10%. We'd then observe how that change is received on TQ and decide if we want to go farther or not.
I agree 100%. When they were initially going to be released, I know CCP Rise announced that they were toning down the original bonuses. I thought this was a mistake on the precision side of things. Glad to see a change in direction, it will be a welcome buff, especially for bigger missiles. |
Arya Alderian
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:31:46 -
[77] - Quote
Make ot a script for regular tracking disruptor mod.
Ships wont fit 1 or each.
This idea of a new mod is terrible |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2297
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:35:43 -
[78] - Quote
Arya Alderian wrote:Make ot a script for regular tracking disruptor mod.
Ships wont fit 1 or each.
This idea of a new mod is terrible
A long range mod that counter any weapon system beside drones is a good idea? |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2101
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:38:51 -
[79] - Quote
Awesome. .. thumbs up on this one... cant wait to play with setups on sisi
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
253
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:40:58 -
[80] - Quote
rip missiles |
|
violtr
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:48:31 -
[81] - Quote
So, missiles are the only weapon type that people can reduce players dps with smart bombs and cut any incoming missiles dps, where as auto cannons, energy beams and hybrids turrets people cannont reduce their dmg out put so why mess with missiles more when they are already at a disadvantage over other weapons. Not to mention the sacrifice of not having a fall off range and instant dps ie blaping. Also missile users also have to battle explosion radius ontop of that as well. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14565
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:53:58 -
[82] - Quote
Don't some of those numbers seems rather... harsh? Especially when velocity and flight time are both being cut down by the module.
Combined with application debuffs as well? It just seems pretty harsh on the old missile user.
Granted, an anti missile module is extremely specialized since the majority of the ships in the game use turrets, but even then, having it act as such a hard counter is unwarranted in my opinion, particularly since projection is one of the few strengths of the missile weapon class as it is.
"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.
|
Zappity
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
2479
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:54:35 -
[83] - 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 proces behind creating a new module for this :) A single scripted module capable of mitigating both turret and missile damage would be practically compulsory and make drones even stronger. I like the idea of separate ewar modules even though it will be more difficult to use this way.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
1830
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:55:11 -
[84] - Quote
Clare Cooke wrote:adding another mod because the other missile mods you introduced are now making it able for a titan to kill a bunch of frig sized ships....
ooops i broke it again! considering ewar doesn't work on titans
also if you dedicate a bunch of slots to damage and application you are less effective else where. Although there are interesting interactions between webs, painters, rigors, flares, MGC, MGE, and crash booster, that do make things apply much better, it seems like a lot of effort where a gunship can just say haha transversal ka pow!
@ChainsawPlankto
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2558
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:57:26 -
[85] - Quote
My vote is for a weakening of the anti missile effect, especially the explosion speed & radius part, but having them as one module with TD.
Not only do I feel that it is unreasonable that all the other races get 1 Ewar that works against everyone, but also PvE If you have it as one module then a single TD in PvE affects all ships equally. Separate modules means you then have to create new missile disruptor ships in PvE. And I feel it is important that weapon systems be mostly equal in PvE and how NPC's disrupt them also. |
Arec Bardwin
1870
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:57:29 -
[86] - 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 proces behind creating a new module for this :) Guess which module would be mandatory to fit if you added missile disruption to the existing modules.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1200
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:57:50 -
[87] - Quote
if webs weren't so powerful that would make tracking mods more required especially for missile ships.
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name, remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
375
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 20:01:49 -
[88] - Quote
Hahaahhhaha I fell sorry for all of you missile pvpers. First they introduce new "mods". Now they nerf missiles without proper balance them. Just to use new mods they introduced lately. "Circle of life and death" - Mr. Zorg. It's like - CCP guys, ceptors won't work with new FOZZIESOV.
Ps. my resonable and calm feadback, Fozzman: you forget to buff galls at the same time.
"(...) I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas (...)"
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1381
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 20:15:25 -
[89] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:At the same time, we're planning on making a slight buff pass on the Missile Guidance modules that were introduced in Aegis. Their range bonuses don't need any more improvements, but we are currently planning on buffing their explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses by ~10%. We'd then observe how that change is received on TQ and decide if we want to go farther or not.
What CCP Rise taketh, CCP Fozzie giveth right back.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
1830
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 20:16:08 -
[90] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Chainsaw Plankton wrote:general buffs to missiles also incoming to balance this out? Outside of frigate sized missiles, missiles just don't seem like a great weapon type. that said I don't have the math wizardry or usage stats to really check, but it seems HML lose out on damage to MWDing cruisers to RLML even after reloads. add links and bleh. maybe just always fly with a rapier?
do people actually believe that rapid launchers aren't massively overpowered? at this point I doubt it. but I'm still going to question the effectiveness of other launchers
@ChainsawPlankto
|
|
|
|
|
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 |