EVE Search - Ideas for balancing Caldari PVE and missiles

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Ideas for balancing Caldari PVE and missiles

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.09.02 16:05:00 - [181] Edited by: Tovarishch on 02/09/2007 16:06:30 Originally by: Aramendel Nice try with numberjuggling, but you missed the 1 damagemod version. Nevermind that zero damagemod setups for it make zero sense and 1 damagemod setups should be rather rare as well. Stop trying to twist numbers to make it appear weaker than it is. There is no twisting of numbers. Once again, it's called a mean average, and I was simply using it as a substitute for any/all of the direct examples that I could give for any missile fired from a given distance. I'll explain it again - I'm not going to bombard people with six graphs for six missiles when that one basic example highlights the issue. Originally by: Aramendel Which does not mean it has to be at max range always. Smart use of a ship with a range advantage is to use the full extend of that advantage when it is needed and not always under any conditions. Staying at max range is for any ship not a good idea since it is too easy for a target to get out of range there. I entirely agree, but that wasn't what your example illustrated. Your example was placing AC or blaster ships far out of their operational range... and then going on to compare them to a ship firing missiles from its proper operational range. I'm not talking about 'max range' examples here. A Cerb firing missiles from 100k out (or a Raven, as another example) are not operating at max range (for the missiles or the ship). However, flight time under those circumstances still remains a massive disadvantage. Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos My current idea would be to increase the damage output, leave the max velocity as it is and reduce the starting velocity significantly. Most people would agree that currently, nanofitted missile ships are king amongst missile ships: Orbit just within scram but outside web range, spew missiles and run if it gets hairy. What this would do is reduce the efficacy of such setups, but vastly increase the benefits of using missiles at their maximum range - they will be able to reach their maximum potential speed, and hence hit with the maximum potential damage. I think increasing the DPS of missiles is a very imbalancing proposition... due to the dynamics of how they work. While I agree with you that there may be a way to counterbalance the issue... my one hesitation in many of the propositions put forward is that many rely on a dynamic missile velocity that changes during flight. Such a scheme is very math intensive, and creates far more work for the server. I'd prefer to see things kept simple... and have server-side calculations simplified rather than made more complicated. Lag is already an issue in mid to large-scale battles. More math would only exacerbate the problem. My crusade for faster missiles.
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2007.09.02 17:52:00 - [182] Partly on the (unconfirmed) theory that increasing the maximum missile velocity much is a structural issue, how about this as a start: - Increase all missile velocities by 50% - Reduce all missile flight times by 33% - Replace all missile velocity bonuses, probably in most cases with precision or flight time. Also, could somebody go over why increasing missile damage is such a bad idea? Because another thing that comes to mind is to increase the damage-specific missile bonuses, probably to 7.5%. Both ideas together seem like a fairly moderate way to approach the problem, improving the performance of missile ships, but not dramatically changing their character to be more turret-like. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.02 21:50:00 - [183] Originally by: Tovarishch There is no twisting of numbers. Once again, it's called a mean average Exept you were not using that. You get your "average" from combining 3 out of 5 possible setups instead of all 5. Which is therefore flawed. And nevermind that fitting 0-1 damagemods on a cerb makes zero sense. Do you want to include setups with 1, 2, 3 and 4 missile launchers used as well? You know, that you get the average of all setups. You are trying to give at first glance believable, but in the end too low dps numbers in a poor attempt to favor your argumentation. Quote: I was simply using it as a substitute for any/all of the direct examples that I could give for any missile fired from a given distance. I'll explain it again - I'm not going to bombard people with six graphs for six missiles when that one basic example highlights the issue. If you do that write so and do not claim to be using a specific missile type. Quote: I entirely agree, but that wasn't what your example illustrated. Your example was placing AC or blaster ships far out of their operational range... and then going on to compare them to a ship firing missiles from its proper operational range. I'm not talking about 'max range' examples here. A Cerb firing missiles from 100k out (or a Raven, as another example) are not operating at max range (for the missiles or the ship). However, flight time under those circumstances still remains a massive disadvantage. IF the targets dies quickly. My problem with your posts is that they continuously suggest that a) missiles do very little dps and b) delayed damage is reducing their effective dps even further. b) is correct, a) however most definately not. Missiles do for their effective range very high dps (which is one reason why they are used in the tourney so often). A zealot or muninn deal at 100k with t2 ammo and 3 damagemods around 230 dps. A cerb with navy ammo and 3 mods has a theoretical maximum of 385 dps. And his missiles needs 12 sec to reach its target. This means, yes, that it does 0 dps vs targets which do not survive 12 seconds. However what is missing is that it does 230 dps - just as much as turret HACs - for targets which survive at least 30 seconds. And for targets which survive for more than 30 secs it does more dps than its turret equivalents. Considering you yourself said that "30 seconds is a fair estimate of an average target takedown time for most ships under capital class." I do not see how you can claim that it is at "a massive disadvantage". It does vs a 30 sec target the same effective dps as turret hacs. It is at a disadvantage for bigger gangs/fleets where targets die quicker and at an advantage for smaller gangs/fleets where targets die slower.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.09.02 22:34:00 - [184] Edited by: Tovarishch on 02/09/2007 22:37:10 Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Tovarishch There is no twisting of numbers. Once again, it's called a mean average stuff I have no idea why you irrationally split hairs. But I'm going to explain this slowly and simply for you one last time. Read what you quoted of my post. The only single reference to a specific missile type was the phrase 'notably - HAMs'. Not once did I use HAMs (or any other missile type) as a specific example. I have no idea why you insist that I did, when I clearly did not. I went on in the post to speak of 'longer range missiles' and such... which is a clear indicator that I was speaking of missiles in general. A very basic grasp of reading makes it clear that I was speaking im generalities. If you do not understand this concept I cannot help you further and I'll simply go back to ignoring your fascination with nit-picking things off-topic. Originally by: Aramendel If you do that write so and do not claim to be using a specific missile type. Read above. If you'd like to point out something other than an inference to 'notably - HAMs' that mentions a 'specific missile type' then please feel free. In fact, knock yourself out. Originally by: Aramendel My problem with your posts is that they continuously suggest that a) missiles do very little dps and b) delayed damage is reducing their effective dps even further. b) is correct, a) however most definately not. Missiles do for their effective range very high dps (which is one reason why they are used in the tourney so often). If you would/could read many of my posts you would see that I in fact argue against a boost to missile DPS. Where you get the idea that I believe missiles to very little DPS is beyond me (other than the window of flight time, which is the entire point of this thread, which you are missing entirely.... again). I've stated it before, and I'll state it again... very slowly... just for you. Missile DPS is fine. In fact, if a velocity increase of the magnitude I'm talking about is genuinely considered then a slight decrease in missile DPS should probably be considered as well (this is all stated in this thread that you will not/can not read). My entire issue is with the window of missile flight time that creates a reduction (or entire negation) of DPS. My primary issue with this is that most Caldari missile boats are given bonuses (and disadvantages) that make them far more advantageous to operate at the precise range where this window of flight time becomes a severe penalty. I've stated all this in the thread already. It is there to be read. PS. However, I will add that I'm very glad that you continue to bump this thread. Thank you. My crusade for faster missiles.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.09.02 22:38:00 - [185] Seven pages and no Dev response. My crusade for faster missiles.
Katashi Ishizuka	Posted - 2007.09.03 04:51:00 - [186] Are you expecting one? Remember the 100+ page Amarr whine thread? Remember how it was that CCP got around to boosting the Deimos on SISI ?
Ciara Daag	Posted - 2007.09.03 06:47:00 - [187] Originally by: Murpie Edited by: Murpie on 21/06/2007 22:34:22 lol - why do not wipe all other race-ships and leave only caldari in eve... honestly... I can't see this caldari-online I-win-button conversation any more.. You caldari peoples just need to be the best in every section? You have the best mission-ships - all other races imho suck in mission running. You get faster into t2 items because of less required SP than other peoples who need armor tank and/or t2 rails/projectile/laser. You can fly easily lvl4 missions solo with your gist-"dunno Char"-Type Shield blah while we need some support or have to live with the risk not to get out of the mission without any loss.. However... Please realize that caldari can't be on top of ALL sections on eve. I'm happy that caldari isn't that pvp good as the others are... Actually,what I got from his post was that he would like to see caldari gimped a bit in pve and boosted a bit in pvp,so that caldari are NOT the best at PVE or PVP and we would therefore see more caldari in pvp and more of the other races in pvp.If it could be done,without screwing up eveyrone ,it would be a good thing.
TimMc Skiddies of Doom	Posted - 2007.09.03 08:14:00 - [188] Originally by: Ciara Daag Originally by: Murpie Edited by: Murpie on 21/06/2007 22:34:22 lol - why do not wipe all other race-ships and leave only caldari in eve... honestly... I can't see this caldari-online I-win-button conversation any more.. You caldari peoples just need to be the best in every section? You have the best mission-ships - all other races imho suck in mission running. You get faster into t2 items because of less required SP than other peoples who need armor tank and/or t2 rails/projectile/laser. You can fly easily lvl4 missions solo with your gist-"dunno Char"-Type Shield blah while we need some support or have to live with the risk not to get out of the mission without any loss.. However... Please realize that caldari can't be on top of ALL sections on eve. I'm happy that caldari isn't that pvp good as the others are... Actually,what I got from his post was that he would like to see caldari gimped a bit in pve and boosted a bit in pvp,so that caldari are NOT the best at PVE or PVP and we would therefore see more caldari in pvp and more of the other races in pvp.If it could be done,without screwing up eveyrone ,it would be a good thing. I'd be happy to see that, as someone who originally flew Gallante but has changed over to Caldari simply for the PvE abilities. Missiles are a very interesting weapon, and its a shame that they are not very good in PvP. Reducing their effectiveness in PvE and buffing PvP might be a good idea. Originally by: Rilder Originally by: Murpie However... Please realize that caldari can't be on top of ALL sections on eve. I'm happy that caldari isn't that pvp good as the others are... Umm its not that, its more like we shouldn't be forced to train another race just to go PvP, I mean look at the gallente they can solo-pvp fleet pvp and they have ships that can easily do missions (DOMI ANYONE?) Why should Caldari be stuck with one side of the spectrum when another race can do both easily. People seem to forget how many people do missions in Dominx's... And thats a Teir 1 Battleship not even a Teir 2 Raven which costs 40+ million more. Dude, drones are only marginally ok in PvP and PvE. In PvE, How would you like it if your missiles randomly went to other targets or blew up midway? Or if your cruise missiles went 1km/s so took a minute to even get to their target? In PvP, drones are only really useful on blaster boats where you are close anyway.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.03 21:42:00 - [189] Edited by: Aramendel on 03/09/2007 21:47:31 Originally by: Tovarishch I've stated it before, and I'll state it again... very slowly... just for you. Missile DPS is fine. In fact, if a velocity increase of the magnitude I'm talking about is genuinely considered then a slight decrease in missile DPS should probably be considered as well (this is all stated in this thread that you will not/can not read). It is only under long-range situations (where Caldari are designed to operate) that missiles provide sub-par DPS... and that is thanks to (drum roll please)... missile flight time. They don't provide subpar dps at long range. I showed exactly that yet you ignore it. To repeat: Originally by: Aramendel A zealot or muninn deal at 100k with t2 ammo and 3 damagemods around 230 dps. A cerb with navy ammo and 3 mods has a theoretical maximum of 385 dps. And his missiles needs 12 sec to reach its target. This means, yes, that it does 0 dps vs targets which do not survive 12 seconds. However what is missing is that it does 230 dps - just as much as turret HACs - for targets which survive at least 30 seconds. And for targets which survive for more than 30 secs it does more dps than its turret equivalents. Considering you yourself said that "30 seconds is a fair estimate of an average target takedown time for most ships under capital class." I do not see how you can claim that it is at "a massive disadvantage". It does vs a 30 sec target the same effective dps as turret hacs. It is at a disadvantage for bigger gangs/fleets where targets die quicker and at an advantage for smaller gangs/fleets where targets die slower.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.09.03 23:09:00 - [190] Edited by: Tovarishch on 03/09/2007 23:15:39 Originally by: Aramendel I am not splitting hairs, I am calling you out when you try to manipulate numbers and/or statistics. Or how do you justify doing a "mean average" when only using a fraction of the possible variations to do this "average" number? Just to let you know... using a portion of variations to 'do this "average" number' is precisely what a mean average is. Would you prefer me to theoretically mount cruise or siege launchers on a Cerberus for you? Or rocket launchers? Or would you prefer a mean average of the Cerb with every single launcher in the game mounted on it with countless variations of flight time and target sizes? See the problem? That's why I used a mean average. Stop whining, back-peddling, and splitting hairs in the face of a frequently used tool in math. Originally by: Aramendel They don't provide subpar dps at long range. I showed exactly that yet you ignore it. To repeat: Originally by: Aramendel A zealot or muninn deal at 100k with t2 ammo and 3 damagemods around 230 dps. A cerb with navy ammo and 3 mods has a theoretical maximum of 385 dps. And his missiles needs 12 sec to reach its target. This means, yes, that it does 0 dps vs targets which do not survive 12 seconds. However what is missing is that it does 230 dps - just as much as turret HACs - for targets which survive at least 30 seconds. And for targets which survive for more than 30 secs it does more dps than its turret equivalents. Considering you yourself said that "30 seconds is a fair estimate of an average target takedown time for most ships under capital class." I do not see how you can claim that it is at "a massive disadvantage". It does vs a 30 sec target the same effective dps as turret hacs. It is at a disadvantage for bigger gangs/fleets where targets die quicker and at an advantage for smaller gangs/fleets where targets die slower. Look at your example - A. You have a Zealot and Muninn operating at 100k. Once again you are skewing results to pad your numbers. No Zealot or Muninn pilot is going to intentionally operate at those ranges. They'd be stupid to. However, that is the Cerb's natural range of operation. Apples and oranges. Nice try. Either ship operating at their intended ranges easily meets and/or exceeds the Cerb's base DPS without even considering flight time. B. That fallacy aside, let's tackle your next erroneous claim. Your example Cerberus does not do 385 DPS. Nice try again. In 12 seconds it does 0 DPS, over 30 seconds it does 231 DPS, over 60 seconds it does 308 DPS... and over two minutes it provides 346.5 DPS. This is with the Cerb flying at its intended operational range. C. I've already stated and restated (which you haven't read or ignore) that if this change is considered that missile DPS should probably be slightly reduced. I honestly don't understand your confusion... and I don't mean that rhetorically. I really don't see what it is you are arguing against... other than you have some very stubborn and incorrect perception that I think missiles do horrible DPS. Please... just read the thread. My crusade for faster missiles.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.06 07:57:00 - [191] Edited by: Aramendel on 06/09/2007 07:57:29 Originally by: Tovarishch Just to let you know... using a portion of variations to 'do this "average" number' is precisely what a mean average is. Would you prefer me to theoretically mount cruise or siege launchers on a Cerberus for you? God, you are seriously trying to argue that? Do you have any clue about statistics outside what you googled? Using your own link: In mathematics and statistics, the arithmetic mean (or simply the mean) of a list of numbers is the sum of all the members of the list divided by the number of items in the list. You claim to make a mean average using the zero, 2 and 3 damagemod outfits. Exept thats not the complete list since it is missing the 1 and 4 damagemod versions. You are using not all items in the population, either because you are clueless or want to manipulate the result. I could with exactly the same justification give you a "mean average" with the dps of the 3 and 4 damagemod setups. If you really want to give an average you need to use ALL possible variations (and, no, cruise launchers or rockets are not part of that since the first cannot be fit and the latter wouldn't be fit in any realistic setup) and not only a part of it to get the numbers you want. Of cource, it is arguable how common 4 damagemod setups are - but I doubt that they are less common than 0 damagemod setups. Both are rare setups.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.06 07:58:00 - [192] Quote: A. You have a Zealot and Muninn operating at 100k. Once again you are skewing results to pad your numbers. No Zealot or Muninn pilot is going to intentionally operate at those ranges. Seriously? There are very viable sniper setups for those ships. For the muninn thats in fact the only role it is really good at. Quote: The Cerberus has two range bonuses, the Zealot and Muninn both have one. You are intentionally placing the Zealot and Muninn at extreme ranges where they aren't intended to operate to drop their DPS. The Cerberus, however, is intended to operate at long-range. The Zealot or Muninn operating at their intended ranges easily meets and/or exceeds the Cerb's base DPS without even considering flight time (as they should). Your logic in this example is entirely flawed. They operate at that ranges (= they are within their optimal) with 3 tracking mods and are regulary used as anti-support in fleets that way, too. How is that not their "intended" range? A sniper BS with exactly the same setup is also not operating as it is intended? Funny, I see quite a lot of those. Quote: B. That fallacy aside, let's tackle your next erroneous claim. Your example Cerberus does not do 385 DPS, nor does it go from 0 DPS after 12 seconds immediately to 385 DPS (which you seem to believe). In 12 seconds the Cerb does 0 DPS, over 30 seconds it does 231 DPS, over 60 seconds it does 308 DPS... and over 2 minutes it provides 346.5 DPS. OH RLY? Originally by: Aramendel A cerb with navy ammo and 3 mods has a theoretical maximum of 385 dps. And his missiles needs 12 sec to reach its target. This means, yes, that it does 0 dps vs targets which do not survive 12 seconds. However what is missing is that it does 230 dps - just as much as turret HACs - for targets which survive at least 30 seconds. And for targets which survive for more than 30 secs it does more dps than its turret equivalents. From he very post you quoted. Yet you claim I state the opposite. Did you even read it? What is your problem? Quote: C. I've already stated and restated (which you haven't read or you've chosen to ignore) that if this change is considered that missile DPS should probably be slightly reduced. Again, reread my OP. I propose an across the board 10% reduction in missile damage, damage bonuses included, in order to compensate a bit for the practical increase in DPS due to flight time being reduced. Exept, as shown already, the effective dps of missiles at long range is just fine compared to other ships. A "slight" reduction of the theoretical max dps of missles combined with an huge decrease of the delayed damage factor still results in a big increase of the practical dps of missiles. Quote: you have some very stubborn and incorrect perception that I think missiles do horrible DPS. It might be because you constantly try to downplay the theoretical dps of missiles, keep speaking of "massive disadvantages" which do not exist and only do scenarios where missiles are bad in. I like balance. You are constantly only showing half the picture. So I provide the counter for it.
Hugh Ruka Caldari Free Traders	Posted - 2007.09.06 08:10:00 - [193] Aramendel, actualy you are both correct. The DPS of Cerberus at the range is steadily increasing during the whole fight until it reaches the maximum and stays there. However the turret ships are at their maximum DPS from the start. So you draw a flat line and a rising one. The intersection will tell you how long the fight has to last for the Cerberus to realise a DPS advantage over the turret ships. I guess that time will be about 20 seconds, which is plenty of time for a small gang to kill a ship cruiser sized and below. The outcome then seems to be, that the Cerberus is only viable against targets that last long enough (i.e. BC and up). Originally by: Aravel Thon Originally by: Nith Batoxxx Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox............... I am so so terribly sorry...
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.09.06 16:31:00 - [194] Edited by: Tovarishch on 06/09/2007 16:32:39 Originally by: Hugh Ruka The DPS of Cerberus at the range is steadily increasing during the whole fight until it reaches the maximum and stays there. However the turret ships are at their maximum DPS from the start. So you draw a flat line and a rising one. The intersection will tell you how long the fight has to last for the Cerberus to realise a DPS advantage over the turret ships. This essentially sums the situation up. However, as I stated in my last post... there is one major flaw. There are only two HACS that receive double range bonuses - the Eagle and Cerberus. According to this fact they should both excel at the role for which they are designed - long range combat. To support the idea that they are long-range ships I'll remind people that neither of them have a drone bay, they are both very slow, very massive, and some of the least agile ships in their size-range. And, to repeat, they both have double range bonuses. Now, the Eagle isn't the point here... so to get to the Cerberus (or, specifically, the concept of missiles intended for use at long range). As illustrated (using only the limited example of the Zealot and Muninn above) it takes approximately 30 seconds at a range of 100k for a ship designed for long-range combat (Cerberus) to equal the damage of either ship that is not designed for long-range combat (Zealot or Muninn). Beyond 30 seconds the Cerberus will slowly overtake them. What this amounts to is that it takes at least 30 seconds of flight time on each target for the Cerberus to suddenly begin to excel at its designed role. No weapon system or ship suffers from this problem. Therein lies the rub. The problem is that the majority of fights taking place at 100k+ are fleet fights where called targets rarely survive for 30 seconds. Many times they won't even survive long enough for missiles to impact. No other weapon system has the massive disadvantage of possibly doing absolutely not one point of damage when used exactly as it is designed... on a ship with bonuses for that purpose. So, to repeat what I've said all along - simply reduce missile DPS and compensate by increasing missile velocity by a factor of 2 or 3. This does absolutely nothing to increase DPS at close-range... and it suddenly eliminates the stupid disadvantage that Caldari missile boats suffer when they are doing precisely what they are designed to do - using missiles at range... and doing 0 DPS a significant portion of the time for doing so. If some people want to hallucinate that I think base missile DPS is poor then I'll refer them to several posts that illustrate that I do not believe that... in very clear detail. Every single problem I have with missiles is stated in this thread... and all of them have to do with flight time at ranges where Caldari missile boats are intended to operate. Again, no other ship or weapon system suffers from the requirement that combat last a certain amount of time before they can begin to fill the role for which they are designed... with the very real possibility that they may not even contribute at all. My crusade for faster missiles.
bldyannoyed Un4seen Development	Posted - 2007.09.13 02:59:00 - [195] I see one major flaw tbh. Your'e ignoring the fact that a great deal of PvE can be quite happily done with Kinetic damage. Of all the factions only TWO ( Bloods and Amarr) have any real hardening against Kinetic. I know a great deal of missioners who use Kinetic missiles only regardless of what theyre going against because they do well enough vs any rat type to make changing an academic excercise. So really all this would do is make missiles exceptional PvP weapons ( as Kinetic is arguably the best choice of damage for PvP ) and still rule the PvE roost. There really would be no reason to fly any other ship. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels and filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo Etoophie ([email protected])
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.09.13 04:14:00 - [196] Originally by: bldyannoyed I see one major flaw tbh. Your'e ignoring the fact that a great deal of PvE can be quite happily done with Kinetic damage. Of all the factions only TWO ( Bloods and Amarr) have any real hardening against Kinetic. I know a great deal of missioners who use Kinetic missiles only regardless of what theyre going against because they do well enough vs any rat type to make changing an academic excercise. So really all this would do is make missiles exceptional PvP weapons ( as Kinetic is arguably the best choice of damage for PvP ) and still rule the PvE roost. There really would be no reason to fly any other ship. I'm not sure I understand how the proposal in my OP relates to your comments. My suggestion is to split the damage of all missiles into 50% kinetic and the remaining 50% to a reduction of 40% of the specific damage type. All missiles would do less damage and would have split damage types. So, at best, using the 'kinetic damage only missile', a pilot could only do 90% of the current damage of a kinetic only missile. The flight time change does nothing to improve PVE. So, all in all, assuming your scenario of missile pilots sticking with only kinetic damage in PVE... they would be doing 10% less damage than they do now. So... I have no idea why you would say that, 'There really would be no reason to fly any other ship'... particularly given the fact that I know of very, very, very few pilots who PVE using kinetic damage all the time. My crusade for faster missiles.
Chadwyk	Posted - 2007.09.13 20:54:00 - [197] splitting damage is not a good idea this is what caldari race is best known for.. we can study our opponent well and see what kinda damage they cant handle the most and use missiles to target that weakness.. u do so than we'll bad at PVE even worse PVP ourships do not have such massive drone bays as gallante nor high power grid as amarr even slower than minis will be a piece of cake .. we know that hyprid weopons deliver only thermal and kinetic weapons when fighting against a gallante we arm our shields against those damages .. we only need to plan a head what we r gonna fight.. we fight in gangs mostly and am arming my ship against a gallante while others against amrrians and so
kimish	Posted - 2007.09.13 21:54:00 - [198] don't like nerfing there dmg _____ _____ "When the moderators are gone, the trolls dances on the table."
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.09.15 19:18:00 - [199] Originally by: Chadwyk splitting damage is not a good idea this is what caldari race is best known for.. we can study our opponent well and see what kinda damage they cant handle the most and use missiles to target that weakness. So... fit a ship scanner and study our opponents and then reload the proper missiles for the fight? My crusade for faster missiles.
agent apple Applied Eugenics Cruel Intentions	Posted - 2007.09.16 23:05:00 - [200] Missiles Currently Missiles Hopefully PVP Missiles = Yes Pls
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.06 23:41:00 - [201] Originally by: agent apple Missiles Currently Missiles Hopefully PVP Missiles = Yes Pls /chuckle Nice links. Been far too busy to post recently. Bumping this up for more feedback. My crusade for faster missiles.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.14 21:53:00 - [202] Edited by: Tovarishch on 14/10/2007 21:53:54 While I think it's way too early for people to jump to conclusions regarding the current change to torps... I will say that I think it's a fine change. Ravens need a slight nerf to PVE effectiveness (as I've mentioned in my OP and many other times). I honestly don't think the increase to ROF is called for... just the change to flight time... as torps should be close-range only. However, this still leaves the issue of missiles at range. If short-range missiles are going to be made more clearly close-range... then how about making long-range missiles more effective at such ranges... as I've mentioned in this thread and other places. My crusade for faster missiles.
ZerKar Caldari Zen'Tar	Posted - 2007.10.15 11:56:00 - [203] This will sound a bit fickle but honestly, I would not even mind if they left Caldari the way they are now IF in the beginning of the game they gave you a firm understanding/warning that Caldari are just Industrail Characters and PvE specailists and that if you want to PvP steer clear of them in preference for Gallente. With that change done then it would not be as it was for me, a sudden smack upside the head when I found out that my Caldari ships were crap in a "real" fight. For those who tout our Sniping ships do not make me laugh. With how slow our ships are we can NEVER keep an enemy at range unless they are also Caldari so being long range is pointless, especailly with no damage mods to our rails. Yes, Missiles as they are now are only good for smacking targets that will not regenerate and preferably that do not move too much. If the Caldari are to be the hardcore military state that they are suggested to be then this needs fixing. If they are suggested instead just to be Industrail Experts and Corp Managers with little to no ability to defend themselves in real combat then no change is needed. The only thing I wonder is why the Gallente did not Erradicate the Caldari insurgence considering their ships are better in every way down to the last. The only thing I can figure is that the Caldari state had a lot of Isk and managed to out spend and buy off their attackers, which is fully possible. ------------------------------------------------ everything is never Nothing is Never Not ------------------------------------------------
J'Mkarr Soban Amarr Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.15 12:06:00 - [204] Originally by: ZerKar This will sound a bit fickle but honestly, I would not even mind if they left Caldari the way they are now IF in the beginning of the game they gave you a firm understanding/warning that Caldari are just Industrail Characters and PvE specailists and that if you want to PvP steer clear of them in preference for Gallente. With that change done then it would not be as it was for me, a sudden smack upside the head when I found out that my Caldari ships were crap in a "real" fight. For those who tout our Sniping ships do not make me laugh. With how slow our ships are we can NEVER keep an enemy at range unless they are also Caldari so being long range is pointless, especailly with no damage mods to our rails. Yes, Missiles as they are now are only good for smacking targets that will not regenerate and preferably that do not move too much. If the Caldari are to be the hardcore military state that they are suggested to be then this needs fixing. If they are suggested instead just to be Industrail Experts and Corp Managers with little to no ability to defend themselves in real combat then no change is needed. The only thing I wonder is why the Gallente did not Erradicate the Caldari insurgence considering their ships are better in every way down to the last. The only thing I can figure is that the Caldari state had a lot of Isk and managed to out spend and buy off their attackers, which is fully possible. PvE is a term we as players use - to everyone that exists in the universe, the only difference between you piloting a Raven, and that nasty Gurista's rat is that you are in a pod and they have a full crew (IIRC). Technically there should be no differences between those two ships, it's only the way that CCP have implemented the rats that makes the tactics used to defeat rats different. If the rats were brought to a level that there was no discernible difference between them, then the Caldari would be forced to be balance to be more useful. ----------------------------- "Oh, we're sorry, you had the 'NakedAmarrChicks' bit flagged in your account somehow." "Wait, why was there even a flag for that to begin with?" "..."
BiggestT	Posted - 2007.10.15 12:16:00 - [205] Yay, Torps are getting modified soon, perhaps in rev 3, they will gain 33% rof yet lose range. 30-35km max. Woot pvp missile. U have ur wish! /emote is glad to be caldari on this fine day
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.17 23:40:00 - [206] Originally by: BiggestT Yay, Torps are getting modified soon, perhaps in rev 3, they will gain 33% rof yet lose range. 30-35km max. Woot pvp missile. U have ur wish! /emote is glad to be caldari on this fine day While this change is a step in the right direction (a slightly overpowered one, in my opinion)... it doesn't address the issue of making missiles useful at long-range... which is precisely where many missile ships are designed to operate (such as those with missile velocity/flight time bonuses). The issue with guided, long-range missiles traveling too slowly is still a major problem. Their velocity still needs a significant boost. My crusade for faster missiles.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.25 18:33:00 - [207] As it stands now Caldari ships are, almost across the board, the slowest, least agile, and most massive ships in the game. Keeping this in mind, missiles are the only weapon system that requires flight time to hit a target. So, along with the new torp adjustment, short-range missile ships (HAMs and torps primarily) have to close the distance to engage a target in the slowest, least agile, and most massive ships in the game. And yet if long-range missile ships want to be effective they have to wait upwards of 20 seconds for their missiles to hit their target. Short-range = disadvantage (slow, massive, least agile) Long-range = disadvantage (slow long-range missiles creating long flight time) So either long-range missile flight time needs to be fixed, or Caldari speed, mass, and agility needs to be fixed. My crusade for faster missiles.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] :: 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.