| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rinekar
   |
Posted - 2004.01.06 16:03:00 -
[31]
With the trends in ship design and modification since Castor I am led to believe that CCP is pushing to move ship combat into more of a fleet engagement role rather than the side with the most battleships winning. Look at the stats for the new elite frigates that are on EVE Database they are awesome. Imagine a taskforce comprised of combat wings that work cohesively and wholly as a unit. Imagine the tactics and the drama that can unfold. I personally do not like the H-50s being nerfed either, but if it leads to more balanced and specialized fleet engagements then I am all for it...
Koensayr Drive Yards [KOEN] Website
|
KIAEddZ
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 16:05:00 -
[32]
If that be the case, the build costs need to be balanced.
Otherwise all you are gonna see, is the side with the most pilots win. Frigate vs Frigate.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=176347
www.kia-corp.co.uk/killboard
CEO of KIA Corp - Been doing it for the Laydeez since 1993, now we i |
KIAEddZ
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 16:07:00 -
[33]
PLease also note the names of the different classes.
Frigate
Cruiser
BattleShip
I am not for one moment saying they need not have a place in war, I am saying that place needs to be both justified, and thought about, and certianly not over bearing.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=176347
www.kia-corp.co.uk/killboard
CEO of KIA Corp - Been doing it for the Laydeez since 1993, now we i |
Galavet
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 16:13:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Galavet on 06/01/2004 16:16:22
I would look to the realworld navy for balance. I see the kestrel in the same light as the old PT boats.
Now as for the size diffrence between a torpedo and a cruise missle in the modern sense, I think they are close to equal.
Found the following on a PT website:
The Patrol Torpedo Boat was a wooden craft, about 80 feet long and displacing about 55 tons. It was powered by three Packard Marine engines that developed close to 1,500 horsepower each. The boats carried 3,000 gallons of 100 octane aviation fuel for power. They could accelerate from 8 to 40 knots in about eleven seconds, with a top speed of about 48 knots. As far as armament goes, you couldn't come near one without having something lethal pointed in your direction. The PT Boat carried more firepower per pound than any other craft in the Navy. The typical boat carried most of the following:
40 mm Bofors cannon, aft.
Twin 50 cal. machine guns port and starboard
20 mm Oerlikon forward
37 mm Automatic forward
4 MK VIII torpedoes in tubes,
later boats had 4 MK XIII torpedoes on racks
Depth Charges
Mortar
Rockets
Smoke Generator
Small Arms
Hand Grenades
Note the torpedos on a fast,small & manuverable ship.
|
Rinekar
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 16:15:00 -
[35]
 Quote:
PLease also note the names of the different classes.
Frigate
Cruiser
BattleShip
I am not for one moment saying they need not have a place in war, I am saying that place needs to be both justified, and thought about, and certianly not over bearing.
Agreed, Battleships must retain there role in combat. It seems however with the current changes to them they now fall more into a defensive rather than an offensive role in fleet engagements. As for ship cost the new "elite frigates" will be a lot more expensive than current frigates and a lot more versatile. From what I can gather the new "elite frigates" will reprise the role of a Destroyer and Bomber class and the current frigates will being much more like a fighter. Think of it this way, you sit back in your Raven with a frigate wing and cruiser squadron running support for you as you lay down missile fire that withers the enemyÆs resolve and sends them into full retreat with your support squadrons in hot pursuit...
Koensayr Drive Yards [KOEN] Website
|
Zarquon Beeblebrox
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 16:20:00 -
[36]
Quote:
Quote:
Thank you Jim Raynor and KIAEddz for pointing out what i clearly dont know about PVP. Well actualy there is about 1460% more that i dont know about PVP but i was hoping to learn some by standing by KIA's side in the long and hard battles comming.
*smiles* Thank you sir's
I meant it as now Slurr my friend, just a pointing out of the facts. :)
Missiles cost A LOT, people forget this also.
Frigates should only be allowed to mount 1 cruise missile at a time, and the relaod should take much longer than that of a bs. heavy Missiles should be given a much higher flight speed, to give them a point in battle. Light missiles should be ridiculously fast.
heavy missiles should be the weapon oof choice for the fast firing Frigs. But lets not be stupid, a Frigate costs 1 1000th of what a bs costs.! :)
I know you didnt =)
--
Lady Beeblebrox
Teddybears movies
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 16:21:00 -
[37]
Edited by: j0sephine on 06/01/2004 16:22:07
"Look at the stats for the new elite frigates that are on EVE Database they are awesome."
Oh, yes:
Amarr Race Bonus: -30% Energy turret capacitor need.
Caldari Race Special: 30% Hybrid turret range bonus.
Gallente Race Bonus: 30% Small Hybrid turret dmg bonus.
Minmatar Race Bonus: 30% Small projectile turret dmg bonus.
all these mean fixed 150% bonus in practice, as the ships require frigate skill at lvl.5
... nice to see some things don't change, i guess. :s
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 16:21:00 -
[38]
Devs have a hard-on for ruining all Caldari ships, huh?
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
KIAEddZ
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 16:23:00 -
[39]
Although the frigate argument is part and parcel of the over-all h50 argument.
Lets not deflect the attention from that it should be about wther or not nerfing the frigates, should in turn nerf the Missile based BS.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=176347
www.kia-corp.co.uk/killboard
CEO of KIA Corp - Been doing it for the Laydeez since 1993, now we i |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 16:25:00 -
[40]
Simple solution = increase missile volume to an extent it cannot be loaded onto an M-12 launcher and at the same time increase H-50 powergrid to such an extent it cannot be loaded on any frigate.
Then increase the large launchers (h-50 upwards) volume so they hold the same amount as before.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 16:26:00 -
[41]
Quote:
Caldari Race Special: 30% Hybrid turret range bonus
Awesome!
Now we can hit for **** at even longer range.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
fras
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 16:28:00 -
[42]
Personally I think the best suggestion I have read is for the larger the missile the less manouverable it should be. Missile size and launcher size should be left the same.
I don't remember who wrote it but it was something like:
Battleship: Guaranteed hit with any missile type.
Cruiser: Possibility of dodging cruise and torp with skilled mwd use.
Frigate: Should be able to dodge, torp, cruise and 50/50 heavy.
I think this solution would even out frigate v frigate alot and not effect what could be a bad nerf for Battleship and Cruiser pilots.
An idea like this should be reasonably easy to introduce now ship speeds and manouverabilty is fixed with castor, it would just be a case of playing with some figures I guess?
Lets face it, in frigate v frigate with speeds in excess of 2000 m/s a frig without a missile launcher is doomed. I know small turrets track fast..but not that fast!
|
KIAHicks
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 16:31:00 -
[43]
Edited by: KIAHicks on 06/01/2004 16:32:59
Quote:
Have you flown a frigate lately? Go give it a try. When you do, you'll note that the speeds they now travel at make turrets useless waste of slots.
There isn't a turret made that can track your target when you're moving 2.2km/s+ (that's with speed set to 1/2 on a Rifter).
If your having trouble hitting things when your in a frigate then slow your speed down. Yes it makes you easier to hit, but then thats the trade off you have. You can go all the way to 0 if need be.
Regarding the missiles. If the change is to prevent kestrels doing the damage they are, then its a silly change. Would be better just to limit frigates to using frigate sized launchers or longer reload times, or not able to use cruise at all.
If its because all missile ships are too powerful, then fair enough, although I'd disagree with that.
Until we know why the change is happening, we can't really say what would be a better method for doing so.
I've no problem with kestrels, they can't kill a large ship if the large ship can target them, or has defenders or has fof. But kestrels can be way more powerful than other frigate/cruiser size ships due to the number of launcher points. So maybe frigates/cruisers shouldn't be able to carry as large a missile type?
But the change should be made without reducing the effect of every missile carrying battleship in the game.
Keenon: "After sitting in the system for FIVE hours without even a (go away)"...
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 16:35:00 -
[44]
"Awesome!
Now we can hit for **** at even longer range."
Well, in theory it means you will be able to load antimatter ammo and fire from over twice as long distance as before doing 50% more damage compared to iron charges.
Of course in practice the Gallente and Minmatar will be at the same time doing 150% more damage and they get to pick the combat range, but whose concern is that, really. ;s
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 16:39:00 -
[45]
I'm sorry I ever said a Kestrel with cruise is overpowered. I mean, I think it's kind of cheesey, but it's not like a Kestrel can't be taken out in 1 shot. And you really need a small fleet of Kestrels to down anything larger than a cruiser.
CCP.. it's not worth making missles useless. Get over it. Make missles better (FIX THE FACT YOUR OWN MISSLES BLOW EACH OTHER UP PLZ PLZ PLZ), not worse. =]
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 16:40:00 -
[46]
Let's all blame Jim.
*points the finger*
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Morkt Drakt
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 16:42:00 -
[47]
Get on IRC and whinge like crazy at TomB - its the only way it wil change as, atm, he is being advised the changes are good by people who've never left empire space, let alone PvP'd.
|
SpawnOfEvil
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 16:49:00 -
[48]
If they are goning to nerf missiles, at least make the damage output bigger.
|
Galavet
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 16:52:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Galavet on 06/01/2004 16:54:45
If you limit the frigs to heavy missles then you are more or less pulling them from all fleet combat.
Just last saturday in the big NVA/EPA fight after my BB was blown to hell I came back in a kestrel. I did get off alot of cruise missles but thats probably because I was not seen as much of a threat. When EPA finally did target me I lasted maybe 10 seconds. (that is with a mwd and 2 abs running as I tried to escape)
My Idea would be to change the load times to reflect the mass of the weapon you are loading into it. Dont just nerf the kessy for no reason other than to make it just another ordinary frig. (and by screwing around with missle size and laucher capacity you are nerfing the kestrel)
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 16:52:00 -
[50]
Quote:
Get on IRC and whinge like crazy at TomB - its the only way it wil change as, atm, he is being advised the changes are good by people who've never left empire space, let alone PvP'd.
Heh, where is this IRC at?
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 17:25:00 -
[51]
Quote:
Edited by: KIAHicks on 06/01/2004 16:32:59
Quote:
Have you flown a frigate lately? Go give it a try. When you do, you'll note that the speeds they now travel at make turrets useless waste of slots.
There isn't a turret made that can track your target when you're moving 2.2km/s+ (that's with speed set to 1/2 on a Rifter).
If your having trouble hitting things when your in a frigate then slow your speed down. Yes it makes you easier to hit, but then thats the trade off you have. You can go all the way to 0 if need be.
Regarding the missiles. If the change is to prevent kestrels doing the damage they are, then its a silly change. Would be better just to limit frigates to using frigate sized launchers or longer reload times, or not able to use cruise at all.
If its because all missile ships are too powerful, then fair enough, although I'd disagree with that.
Until we know why the change is happening, we can't really say what would be a better method for doing so.
I've no problem with kestrels, they can't kill a large ship if the large ship can target them, or has defenders or has fof. But kestrels can be way more powerful than other frigate/cruiser size ships due to the number of launcher points. So maybe frigates/cruisers shouldn't be able to carry as large a missile type?
But the change should be made without reducing the effect of every missile carrying battleship in the game.
For a frigate, speed is life. Always has been. Except prior to Castor they were slower than dirt.
A frigate standing off from a target outside webfiy range needs speed in order to avoid anything but large turrets (and some of the short range large turrets have little trouble hitting them there too). Now which do you prefer:
1) Leaving frigates with cruise missiles, a limited threat to anyone that actually tries to counter a missile
2) Frigate pilots start campaigning for tracking nerfs on cruiser/battleship turrets so they aren't squish material
Given I fly everything from a shuttle to a Tempest, I'd rather deal with a Kestrel with cruise missiles.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 18:21:00 -
[52]
Now I admit, I don't know much about the numbers or the dynamics of all this stuff. Like Jash I prefer to sit in a Tempest and blast with 1400's. But it seems to me the problem being addressed is not....
That the Kestral can cruise missile bomb cruisers, indies and battleships.
That seems reasonable given the ships role as a missile/bomber.
But that in 1v1 vs other frigates the cruise missile makes the other ships a bit irrelevent.
(hence the mandatory rules changes in frigate contests).
How about leaving everything alone and simply reducing the manouverability of cruise missiles a bit.
(To let other frigates have a chance of evading them - probably upping the manouverability of heavy missiles might be sensible too as compensation)
I do agree with the pro-caldari people that this does seem a crazy change at the cruiser and battleship level.
jO has already given me very convincing damage/by/time arguments.
JF Public Forum |
pooti
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 19:00:00 -
[53]
frigates with cruise missiles = retarded, sorry. not a proper balance at all. and i'm a huge abuser, ask cfs.
im all for h-50s holding few as well, as long as it becomes possible to outfit battleships with siege launchers & carry enough missiles to actually get through a couple fights.
personally i think dropping the capacitiy of h-50s/m-12s & decreasing the size of defenders/rockets/small/heavy missiles would be a better solution
|
pooti
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 19:06:00 -
[54]
re: cruise missiles vs. frigates, basically if you turn on a mwd you will NOT get hit.
still missiles frigs & caracals are retardedly overpowered. a caracal can do as much damage as a scorpion.
|
Drutort
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 19:08:00 -
[55]
this is messed up... and me being caldari only, i had to change and after the scorp nerf i went to train for a tempest  and now to only hear that my missile skills are going to be screwed with this ship as well!! this just ****es me off!! either way i turn to some other class its getting nerfed
pretty soon you will need to be able to fly every ship class because you will not know which one will be nerfed
also how about caldari cruisers... all of them and the blackbird are going to get hurt by this... if the h50 is nerfed well you can say they dont stand much chance... im already going to train for a thorax anyway because i see ccp just screwing around
why not make the m12 or whatever not be able to hold the cruise missile at all... simple as that but make heavy and light missiles smaller in size so that they will fit well in the m12 just like before!!
support Idea: QuickInfo an alternative to ShowInfo
my MoBlog |
Winterblink
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 19:09:00 -
[56]
Quote:
re: cruise missiles vs. frigates, basically if you turn on a mwd you will NOT get hit.
still missiles frigs & caracals are retardedly overpowered. a caracal can do as much damage as a scorpion.
Yes, but the tradeoff there is that a Caracal has reduced shielding and armor. It can dish out a lot of pain, but it sure as hell can't take it. It's awesome to use in a mixed fleet situation, but one on one? Hmm...
___winterblink/warp_drive_active/eve_nature_vraie// |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 19:14:00 -
[57]
I'd take on any other cruiser in a Caracal. tbh.
One thing to keep in mind is this: A pilot basing his fighting style on missiles only has a lot less skills to train than a pilot basing his fighting around turrets.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 19:21:00 -
[58]
Quote:
I'd take on any other cruiser in a Caracal. tbh.
One thing to keep in mind is this: A pilot basing his fighting style on missiles only has a lot less skills to train than a pilot basing his fighting around turrets.
A pilot using turrets needs a lot less resources in terms of pure mineral and isk than the guy using the missles.
Let's not forget the insane amount of money it takes to use missles frequently, mmm k?
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Morkt Drakt
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 19:21:00 -
[59]
Quote:
I'd take on any other cruiser in a Caracal. tbh.
One thing to keep in mind is this: A pilot basing his fighting style on missiles only has a lot less skills to train than a pilot basing his fighting around turrets.
Thats because there are Foxtrot-All missile skills.... which is another gripe and negative, not a positive or in some way a favourable factor for missiles Joshua.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2004.01.06 19:23:00 -
[60]
"One thing to keep in mind is this: A pilot basing his fighting style on missiles only has a lot less skills to train than a pilot basing his fighting around turrets."
... Which is a drawback of missiles, if anything.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |