EVE Search - NOOOO!!! Yet another thread on defenders.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

NOOOO!!! Yet another thread on defenders.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Master Han Order of Endruring Marshalls	Posted - 2007.01.17 18:05:00 - [1] Biggest problem with defenders as everyone knows are that you have to manually launch them. The second biggest problem is that you have to have some distance for the defenders to work properly. Why not have a launcher w/ defenders targeted on a single hostile ship? Whenever the ship launches a missile the defender launches in response. This would reduce player button mashing and perhaps lower the range you would need to be from target for the Defender to work. Of course anything that makes missiles less effective will draw lots of criticism from the large Caldari community. As with the American Missile Defense System, why not give defenders a 50% chance to hit and make a skill that increases defender hit chance. New Module (to give protection from multiple ships w/ launchers) - Defender Missile Launcher: Would activate if any ship that you have locked fires a missile. Skill reqs would be Missile Launcher Op-5 and Defender Missile-4. New Skill(if defenders have miss chance) - Missile Defense: +10%/level to defender missile chance to hit (x5 training time) Also I would like to see Defenders that don't go after rockets or at least the ability to turn off what missiles the Defenders would go after.
Smagd Encina Technologies Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.01.17 18:11:00 - [2] Edited by: Smagd on 17/01/2007 18:09:00 And make them go after more than just the closest incoming. As said before, if you have say a Zor in a Cataclysm spamming Raven sending you a love string of 30 cruise missiles from 90kms distance, you may have the distance, and you may be able to launch a lot of defenders before the first Cataclysm arrives, but they ALL shoot the leading Cataclysm and after that they're completely unable to catch up with the next 10.000 in the 2 seconds time they have. Might as well change the idea of "Defender" missiles you have to launch and that autotarget to "Chaff Charge" and not force them to have to catch up with super fast incoming missiles (but I'm sure some Caldari users wouldn't like that). Edit: Incidentally, the very first BPO I bought was for Defender missiles, so my point of view may be biased... ATTACK, and crash: You lose. RUN, and crash: Why WIN?
Sumayyah Minmatar Dynamic Endeavors	Posted - 2007.01.17 18:18:00 - [3] Originally by: Smagd Edited by: Smagd on 17/01/2007 18:09:00 And make them go after more than just the closest incoming. As said before, if you have say a Zor in a Cataclysm spamming Raven sending you a love string of 30 cruise missiles from 90kms distance, you may have the distance, and you may be able to launch a lot of defenders before the first Cataclysm arrives, but they ALL shoot the leading Cataclysm and after that they're completely unable to catch up with the next 10.000 in the 2 seconds time they have. Might as well change the idea of "Defender" missiles you have to launch and that autotarget to "Chaff Charge" and not force them to have to catch up with super fast incoming missiles (but I'm sure some Caldari users wouldn't like that). Edit: Incidentally, the very first BPO I bought was for Defender missiles, so my point of view may be biased... Agreed I think defenders might be more usful in they go after the missile that was lunched last. I wonder if thats hard to program. Also would be nice if defenders had better FoF reactions as in when a missels is distroyed they move onto the next I'm an ! I will always be an ! that is all I have to say But thats not all!!! Dynamic Endeavors is now Recuiting.!! Contact Jet Collins in game.
Cho Hkan	Posted - 2007.01.17 18:31:00 - [4] Edited by: Cho Hkan on 17/01/2007 18:27:52
Master Han Order of Endruring Marshalls	Posted - 2007.01.17 18:40:00 - [5] I like the idea of having an anti-missile ship in a blob to reduce damage to any ship in the blob. The launcher should only launch once per enemy missile or twice if 2 are needed to destroy the incoming missile. By the launcher activating only when the enemy launches and going after the missile just launched. Originally by: Smagd Might as well change the idea of "Defender" missiles you have to launch and that autotarget to "Chaff Charge" and not force them to have to catch up with super fast incoming missiles (but I'm sure some Caldari users wouldn't like that). I would like a chaff charge that would only protect you from any missile that gets too close to your ship. Maybe not totally destroy the missile but reduce the damage taken by prematurely detonating the missile before impact.
kisu tei	Posted - 2007.01.17 20:27:00 - [6] i would like some passive haywire lowslot module that messes with missile electronics and cause tghem to have something like a 10% chance of doing 0 damage(due to generlly missing, whitch can be increased with a skill to a max of 25% to 30% (missiles only) so torps and rockets still hit :P
Majin82 Caldari g guild	Posted - 2007.01.17 21:16:00 - [7] I think Defender Missiles need to be fixed. But Obviously they can't be changed to go after any and all missiles, they need to stay effective only on the ship being fired at. Otherwise you could create a ship with nothing but defender Missile launchers that would reduce incomming missile hits to zero and protect a whole gang. I would love to see defender missiles work like they do in Missions, NPC Defenders seem to work awesome. Defenders should have there own launcher It would take up a high slot as it does now. You turn it own and it would stay on and fire every 10 seconds (this can be lowered by training the Defender Skill). The Defender would fly out and hit the closest missile to the defender, the next defender CAN'T target the same missile as a current defender. So if a defender has yet to impact the missile, the next defender fired would go after a new missile, if no missiles are in space the missile would burn out after a set number of seconds (flight time). If you fit 2 or 3 or 5 Defender Missile launchers, you would have that much more protection if you fire them correctly, but at the cost of giving up high slots. I don't think Defenders should in any way be able to stop a missile ship 100% or even 50%. But being able to knock out a few missiles is always a good thing. If you want to fit more defenders you need to make the choice. But they in no way should target any missiles in space, only the ones fired at you. So make Defenders like regular missile launchers, just adjust the defenders to be smarter. ------------------------------------- The difference between a Pirate and an Anti-Pirate is that an Anti-Pirate fights ships fitted with guns! Passive Drake For The Win
Lucian Corvinus Gallente Expert Systems	Posted - 2007.01.17 21:21:00 - [8] Can I have a win-button too --------------------------------------- make the caldari e-peen worth showing!!
Sylus Grymme Caldari	Posted - 2007.01.17 21:53:00 - [9] Edited by: Sylus Grymme on 17/01/2007 21:49:48 Originally by: Majin82 I think Defender Missiles need to be fixed. But Obviously they can't be changed to go after any and all missiles, they need to stay effective only on the ship being fired at. Otherwise you could create a ship with nothing but defender Missile launchers that would reduce incomming missile hits to zero and protect a whole gang. I have to disagree with you on that point. A weapons plateforms with all defender missiles on it would not be unlike some frigates (or destroyers can't remember at the moment) use today in the Navy to protect Capital ships (CV's) against incoming missiles. A Flycatcher would be ideal in that roll. I'd love to see them fix the defender missiles and that's coming from a Caldari pilot! -- First I'll hit your cruise missile with my shields. Then I'll crush your rail gun with my armor. When I think you had enough... I'll blow up!
Majin82 Caldari g guild	Posted - 2007.01.17 22:04:00 - [10] Originally by: Sylus Grymme Edited by: Sylus Grymme on 17/01/2007 21:49:48 Originally by: Majin82 I think Defender Missiles need to be fixed. But Obviously they can't be changed to go after any and all missiles, they need to stay effective only on the ship being fired at. Otherwise you could create a ship with nothing but defender Missile launchers that would reduce incomming missile hits to zero and protect a whole gang. I have to disagree with you on that point. A weapons plateforms with all defender missiles on it would not be unlike some frigates (or destroyers can't remember at the moment) use today in the Navy to protect Capital ships (CV's) against incoming missiles. A Flycatcher would be ideal in that roll. I'd love to see them fix the defender missiles and that's coming from a Caldari pilot! Eve is not real life. You can't use the 'We have this today, why not in 28k years' argument. You need to think of how a flycatcher with 6 defender missile launchers or a Drake with 7, all firing away blindly, as dozens of Defenders swarm the missiles fired from several ships. Reducing the DPS output of these ships to almost zero. ------------------------------------- The difference between a Pirate and an Anti-Pirate is that an Anti-Pirate fights ships fitted with guns! Passive Drake For The Win

Tisanta Amarr Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom	Posted - 2007.01.17 22:13:00 - [11] give me my mother f*cking point laser defence ccp or im guna come down iceland and blaps you all up pow pow! (pewpew!) --- Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
Majin82 Caldari g guild	Posted - 2007.01.17 22:15:00 - [12] Originally by: Tisanta give me my mother f*cking point laser defence ccp or im guna come down iceland and blaps you all up pow pow! (pewpew!) Unless you live at the north pole, technically you would have to go 'UP' to Iceland. ------------------------------------- The difference between a Pirate and an Anti-Pirate is that an Anti-Pirate fights ships fitted with guns! Passive Drake For The Win
Tisanta Amarr Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom	Posted - 2007.01.17 22:18:00 - [13] mhmm true true but if you go down to someone then you must be above them meaning.. better or sumthing like that either way GIVE ME MY LASERS! --- Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
Tasty Burger	Posted - 2007.01.18 04:55:00 - [14] Why shouldnt they target all missiles coming from that ship? Tracking disruptors stop turrets on the enemy ship from hurting ANYONE. - It's great being Minmatar, ain't it?
welsh wizard 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.01.18 05:11:00 - [15] Edited by: welsh wizard on 18/01/2007 05:08:53 Originally by: Tasty Burger Why shouldnt they target all missiles coming from that ship? Tracking disruptors stop turrets on the enemy ship from hurting ANYONE. Multiple reasons: Tracking disruptors don't completely eliminate damage. Based on missile ships tanking methods and fitting, tracking disruptors are not an effective module to fit. *Missiles do less damage already. The Defender missile system walks a very thin line between weak and overpowered. There are of course counter-arguments to everything I've listed above, they only really make sense on paper though.... This is why prefer to point you to the evidence you gather by playing Eve every day; Gun ships are better 1v1 platforms, equally as good in small gang and significantly superior in fleet. Other forms of Ewar are already very effective against missile ships. General low damage from missile platforms coupled with travel time and the latter point already counter-balance the lack of a dedicated missile countermeasure. Basically if Defenders get any better missiles will cease to be a useful primary weapons system, in turn multiple missile platforms will cease to be useful in a pvp situation.
Gamesguy Amarr E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.01.18 06:17:00 - [16] Easy solution, Make it so that defenders do not fit in HAM/Rocket launchers, then buff them all you want. At the absolute worst case, all you have is one missile boat canceling out another missile boat.
Tasty Burger	Posted - 2007.01.18 07:49:00 - [17] Originally by: welsh wizard Edited by: welsh wizard on 18/01/2007 05:08:53 Originally by: Tasty Burger Why shouldnt they target all missiles coming from that ship? Tracking disruptors stop turrets on the enemy ship from hurting ANYONE. Multiple reasons: Tracking disruptors don't completely eliminate damage. Based on missile ships tanking methods and fitting, tracking disruptors are not an effective module to fit. Missiles do less damage already. The Defender missile system walks a very thin line between weak and overpowered. There are of course counter-arguments to everything I've listed above, they only really make sense on paper though.... This is why prefer to point you to the evidence you gather by playing Eve every day; Gun ships are better 1v1 platforms, equally as good in small gang and significantly superior in fleet. Other forms of Ewar are already very effective against missile ships. General low damage from missile platforms coupled with travel time and the latter point already counter-balance the lack of a dedicated missile countermeasure. Basically if Defenders get any better missiles will cease to be a useful primary weapons system, in turn multiple missile platforms will cease to be useful in a pvp situation. Meh, less damage my ass. They do about the same damage as projectiles for much more range and they always hit. Projectiles almost always fire in falloff range, too, further reducing damage. - It's great being Minmatar, ain't it?*
Smagd Encina Technologies Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.01.18 12:21:00 - [18] Originally by: Sylus Grymme I have to disagree with you on that point. A weapons plateforms with all defender missiles on it would not be unlike some frigates (or destroyers can't remember at the moment) use today in the Navy to protect Capital ships (CV's) against incoming missiles. A Flycatcher would be ideal in that roll. This is a bit beyond the current topic, but even today not everything works like it's supposed to. Here's a rather amusing example of how a Defender missile saved the day after two other anti-missile systems resulted in nothing better than four holes in a friendly. ATTACK, and crash: You lose. RUN, and crash: Why WIN?
welsh wizard 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.01.18 13:03:00 - [19] Originally by: Tasty Burger Originally by: welsh wizard Edited by: welsh wizard on 18/01/2007 05:08:53 Originally by: Tasty Burger Why shouldnt they target all missiles coming from that ship? Tracking disruptors stop turrets on the enemy ship from hurting ANYONE. Multiple reasons: Tracking disruptors don't completely eliminate damage. Based on missile ships tanking methods and fitting, tracking disruptors are not an effective module to fit. *Missiles do less damage already. The Defender missile system walks a very thin line between weak and overpowered. There are of course counter-arguments to everything I've listed above, they only really make sense on paper though.... This is why prefer to point you to the evidence you gather by playing Eve every day; Gun ships are better 1v1 platforms, equally as good in small gang and significantly superior in fleet. Other forms of Ewar are already very effective against missile ships. General low damage from missile platforms coupled with travel time and the latter point already counter-balance the lack of a dedicated missile countermeasure. Basically if Defenders get any better missiles will cease to be a useful primary weapons system, in turn multiple missile platforms will cease to be useful in a pvp situation. Meh, less damage my ass. They do about the same damage as projectiles for much more range and they always hit. Projectiles almost always fire in falloff range, too, further reducing damage. Ok, I'll stop the discussion now, it won't go anywhere.
Sylus Grymme Caldari	Posted - 2007.01.18 15:12:00 - [20] Originally by: Majin82 Eve is not real life. You can't use the 'We have this today, why not in 28k years' argument. You need to think of how a flycatcher with 6 defender missile launchers or a Drake with 7, all firing away blindly, as dozens of Defenders swarm the missiles fired from several ships. Reducing the DPS output of these ships to almost zero. Why not? It's a viable tactic? They teach Sun Su's The Art of War at West Point and that was written over 2,600 years ago? A good idea is a good idea no matter what century your in. With that said, I do agree that the current system for Defender missile probably would not work well with the example I made. Perhaps a sensor link with the ship you are trying to defend were whoever is targeting the ship is transfered to the (as an example) Flycatcher. Then the DD pilot activated the launcher to the corresponding target. If they fire missiles the launcher automatically tries to intercept them. I think today they even use gatlin (sp?) guns (ala the A-10 Warthog type of cannon) to down incoming missiles. Ooops, there I go again... talking about RL weapons systems. :) -- First I'll hit your cruise missile with my shields. Then I'll crush your rail gun with my armor. When I think you had enough... I'll blow up!

Sylus Grymme Caldari	Posted - 2007.01.18 19:23:00 - [21] got to reply to my own statement before someone else does... Some good ideas I can think of through the years: 1) Leeching 2) The Spanish Inquisition 3) Yugos Basically what I'm trying to say is as long as people use missiles to attack something there will be anti-missile systems to counter them. Be it now or 28,0000 years from now. -- First I'll hit your cruise missile with my shields. Then I'll crush your rail gun with my armor. When I think you had enough... I'll blow up!
Audri Fisher Caldari The Keep THE R0CK	Posted - 2007.01.18 19:43:00 - [22] Originally by: welsh wizard Edited by: welsh wizard on 18/01/2007 05:08:53 Originally by: Tasty Burger Why shouldnt they target all missiles coming from that ship? Tracking disruptors stop turrets on the enemy ship from hurting ANYONE. Multiple reasons: Tracking disruptors don't completely eliminate damage. Based on missile ships tanking methods and fitting, tracking disruptors are not an effective module to fit. *Missiles do less damage already. The Defender missile system walks a very thin line between weak and overpowered. There are of course counter-arguments to everything I've listed above, they only really make sense on paper though.... This is why prefer to point you to the evidence you gather by playing Eve every day; Gun ships are better 1v1 platforms, equally as good in small gang and significantly superior in fleet. Other forms of Ewar are already very effective against missile ships. General low damage from missile platforms coupled with travel time and the latter point already counter-balance the lack of a dedicated missile countermeasure. Basically if Defenders get any better missiles will cease to be a useful primary weapons system, in turn multiple missile platforms will cease to be useful in a pvp situation. I have issues with that last sentence, it implies that defender missles are useful at all in a pvp situation. As for dps issues, a lot of mission have rats that reduce a missle ship's dps by 30-40%, yet missle ships are still competitive running those missions.
Steppa Gallente Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e	Posted - 2007.01.18 19:51:00 - [23] I would like to see an aegis-class ship for fleet missile defense. The pilot of that ship should be able to set his weapons to track all incoming fire, incoming fire from particular locked targets, or only defend a particular locked friendly. I don't see why we can't have turrets as well as defenders that attack incoming missile fire. This would truly make a destroyer valuable if they could fit a full rack of anti-missile hardware.
Egil Kolsto Caldari Collwood Collective	Posted - 2007.01.18 20:23:00 - [24] Originally by: Smagd Edited by: Smagd on 17/01/2007 18:09:00 And make them go after more than just the closest incoming. As said before, if you have say a Zor in a Cataclysm spamming Raven sending you a love string of 30 cruise missiles from 90kms distance, you may have the distance, and you may be able to launch a lot of defenders before the first Cataclysm arrives, but they ALL shoot the leading Cataclysm and after that they're completely unable to catch up with the next 10.000 in the 2 seconds time they have. Might as well change the idea of "Defender" missiles you have to launch and that autotarget to "Chaff Charge" and not force them to have to catch up with super fast incoming missiles (but I'm sure some Caldari users wouldn't like that). Edit: Incidentally, the very first BPO I bought was for Defender missiles, so my point of view may be biased... If you really want to use the Defenders against incoming Cruise, why not just space the launch rate? I assume if you plan to shoot down that many Cruise missiles you also plan to use more than one launcher? Defender missiles are faster than Cruise missiles anyways, so wait for the first one to be shot down before you launch the next one. If the cruises are spaced out over 90k, chances are you have a few seconds (10-12 seconds for the last one roughly) to space out the launches. Persoanlly, I think the choice is to use the launchers to fire back at him..rather than try to shoot down his missiles..?


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.