| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Imperishable
   |
Posted - 2004.03.09 06:39:00 -
[31]
Missiles are ineffective against frigates only if those frigates are packing MWD. A good frigate is pretty much forced to use that module, which kinda sucks, imo
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.03.09 06:45:00 -
[32]
 Quote:
Missiles are ineffective against frigates only if those frigates are packing MWD. A good frigate is pretty much forced to use that module, which kinda sucks, imo
Exactly.
Frigates use MWD, or die. Frigates still die to drones, easily, frigates die to turrets, easily. All you need to do is get a lock on the frigate and web it once it comes in close, it's dead.
Missiles killing frigates is not a priority to me, I want missiles to be good in battleship vs battleship because until CCP really sits down and rethinks PvP, that is all that matters at the moment.
I know many people are put off by faster missiles because their rifter might get killed by a cruise missile but hey, there's so many easy ways to destroy frigates I don't see why missiles shouldn't be one of them.
Let's face it, frigates are good at hit and run against weak ships and inexperienced players, aside from that, they are crap. Many CCP people that I have talked to, don't even think a frigate should have a PvP role when it comes to hanging with the big boys (battleships).
My suggestion is to just beef up frigates/cruisers in terms of shields/armor/structure.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Imperishable
|
Posted - 2004.03.09 07:33:00 -
[33]
The big problem in battleship-battleship missile combat is the distance. Even the fastest missiles take too long to cross those distances. Considering the fast paced nature of EVE combat, such delays are unacceptable.
There is 1 solution:
Introduce Newtonian physics model for missiles - big inertia, constanst force to provide acceleration, no speed limits. In this case, missiles would start out slower than they do now, but they would keep accelerating, making very large distances easy to cover.
As a side effect of such system, the faster a missile goes, the slower its turning rate would be. So at large distances, they may hit slow battleships, but almost always miss frigates and cruisers.
|
Lyonardt
|
Posted - 2004.03.09 12:06:00 -
[34]
Quote:
There is 1 solution:
Introduce Newtonian physics model for missiles - big inertia, constanst force to provide acceleration, no speed limits. In this case, missiles would start out slower than they do now, but they would keep accelerating, making very large distances easy to cover.
As a side effect of such system, the faster a missile goes, the slower its turning rate would be. So at large distances, they may hit slow battleships, but almost always miss frigates and cruisers.
I'm not sure now, but didn't TomB mention some time ago that this can't be done due to the restrictions of the physics engine?
|
Xavier Cardde
|
Posted - 2004.03.09 12:07:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Xavier Cardde on 09/03/2004 12:09:06
Quote:
Edited by: Imperishable on 09/03/2004 02:30:45
Quote:
Same reason a rifter can't mount a 1400mm howitzer.
Why shouldn't a rifter be able to mount a 1400mm howitzer?
Lets say it's a really big weapon for a frigate so it has 50% more inertia penalty. Such a powerful frigate would become slow like a battleship, making it easy target for other 1400mm howitzers and of course big missiles.
Bigger doesn't have to mean better. Everything can be put in proper place with a system of checks and balances
Because you need to stack 40 frigates to even get the power req... and if you lower that the battleships are uber...
not to mention the inertia problems that a frigate would get, it would topple after one shot.
TERRIBLE IDEA AWARD!
|
Lyonardt
|
Posted - 2004.03.09 12:08:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Lyonardt on 09/03/2004 12:10:27
double post, nm
|
Lurk
|
Posted - 2004.03.09 12:30:00 -
[37]
The reason i don't want frigates to fire cruise missiles and torpedos is:
Frigates should effectively counter battleships, however they should be close-range fighters. So if frigates could carry the big missiles, they could just launch them from 50km so they wouldn't be close-range. As far as i know there will be another missile class, bombs. They should be basically a torpedo with very limited range but smaller size.
|
Ezri Dax
|
Posted - 2004.03.09 13:12:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Ezri Dax on 09/03/2004 13:13:06
Anyone knows what is the max flight time for a cruise missile (not a FOF Cruise) as no info is given when you make a show info on it ?
BIG Corporation
A small girl in a BIG world |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2004.03.09 15:09:00 -
[39]
"Frigates should effectively counter battleships, however they should be close-range fighters. So if frigates could carry the big missiles, they could just launch them from 50km so they wouldn't be close-range."
... Why would a frigate pilot do the insane thing and sit in optimal range of large guns, i.e. where their speed can't really save them and where 1-2 hits will kill them? o.o
Not to mention, save from Kestrel the frigates can barely lock something farther than 30 km away, so they're pretty much forced to keep at close range. o.o;
|
Usharin Silverberg
|
Posted - 2004.03.09 17:30:00 -
[40]
Its is possible to mount torpedoes on certain classes of frigate - makes for a very interesting conversation on local....
|
Belzavior
|
Posted - 2004.03.09 18:08:00 -
[41]
Kinda why torps should be shortranged anti battleship weapon, and cruise missiles a long ranged anti battleship weapon.
Torps can have decent agility but fairly slow, thinking 400-500 m/s
Cruise Missiles on other hand have speed 3km/s+ but crappy agility.
Either of wich could be fired by a bomber style frigate. Though the frigate firing the Cruise Missiles is in alot more danger cuz he's probably in optimal of the BS guns.
Any bomber style frigate setup should be VERY weak vs other frigates though. Intercepters should be able to tackle a bomber style kestrel before it has a chance to reload to anti frigate missiles.
|
Imperishable
|
Posted - 2004.03.09 18:21:00 -
[42]
I like the idea of making torpedoes, which are the best anti-bs missile, to have a close range. Cruise missiles should be long range anti-bs solution, but do less damage. Torpedoes are close range but do more damage.
Perhaps, frigates that carry these powerful missiles should have inertia penalty, making them less agile. That way they are easier to counter by interceptors.
|
Dexter Rast
|
Posted - 2004.03.09 18:30:00 -
[43]
at the moment most frigates can outrun any missile aslong as they have a good speed setup,
some players complain about this, while others have found effective ways of countering fast attack frigates,
as for battleships using missiles, unless you attack at close range (warp scramble range) you are going to be restricted if you intenend to do solo PvP,
missile boats like the caracal and the raven need frigate support for their weapons to work correctly, how else are you going to warp scramble a target from 50km away??
as it stands light missiles are not useless, maybe to the advaned PvP player they serve no purpose, but to a new player who is starting out in NPC hunting and agent missions they are ideal, so lets look at the bigger picture instead of thinking everyone is involved in battleship v battleship gank fests
---------------------------------------------
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.03.09 19:37:00 -
[44]
Sometimes I think balancing/fixing missiles is a waste of time.
Maybe they should just give Caldari some extra turrets and a hybrid dmg/range bonus and call it a day. :|
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Mon Palae
|
Posted - 2004.03.09 22:35:00 -
[45]
Quote:
Sometimes I think balancing/fixing missiles is a waste of time.
Maybe they should just give Caldari some extra turrets and a hybrid dmg/range bonus and call it a day. :|
If you get rid of my missiles then get rid of drones too and call it even.
|
Lurk
|
Posted - 2004.03.10 01:29:00 -
[46]
And while you're on it, remove hybrid and lasers and fire all projectiles.
Frigates and Cruisers are worthless anyway so lets remove them as well :D
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.03.10 02:41:00 -
[47]
Quote:
Quote:
Sometimes I think balancing/fixing missiles is a waste of time.
Maybe they should just give Caldari some extra turrets and a hybrid dmg/range bonus and call it a day. :|
If you get rid of my missiles then get rid of drones too and call it even.
Let's face it, neither drones or missiles function properly as primary weapons, no matter how much you try to balance it, turrets are still better due to game mechanics.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Kendo Nagis
|
Posted - 2004.03.10 12:34:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Kendo Nagis on 10/03/2004 12:53:17
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Same reason a rifter can't mount a 1400mm howitzer.
Why shouldn't a rifter be able to mount a 1400mm howitzer?
because it's not a frigate weapon.
No one in their right mind would fit a BS gun to a frig, no way it can carry a gun almost as big, but with launchers it's a different matter.
A Kestrel is desighned to carry launchers, 4 of them. Doesn't matter what the load out is, it's suposed to carry them and at speed. It zips in, fires it's cruise or torps and get's out'a there fast, that's it's job!
If it's going against a BS, then that BS should have escorts, like the intercepters to take down the Kestrel before it can fire.
So now you don't want the Kestrel to be able to carry/launch cruise and torps???
Why can't a fleet of kestrels loaded with those take on a few BS's... again That's the roll of these ships!
The idea of changing the way the weapons perform once they leave the launcher is a good one.
Speed and manouverability do play a big part in hitting a target.
Rockets and the light missiles should have the speed and agility to hit a frigate. As Jim mentioned, they do kinda suck atm.
__________________________
"Death before dishonour, so long as it doesnĘt cost too much." |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |