EVE Search - small fact about cruise missles

All Channels

Ships and Modules

small fact about cruise missles

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
EtherealPain	Posted - 2004.03.08 20:59:00 - [1] i was thinking the other day, cruise missles are slow (for missles) and used to attack stationary or varry slow moveing targets...... not a frigate, my theroy is that light missles be used against frigates, heavy against crusers, and cruise against bs and station...
Thomas Epsilon	Posted - 2004.03.08 21:02:00 - [2] What about torps? ;) Frigates: Rockets Light missiles Heavy missiles Cruisers: Torpedos Battleships: Cruise missiles
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2004.03.08 21:10:00 - [3] The problem is that when you look at battleship combat, long range is the key. That is why frigates have the shortest range weapons and battleships have the longest range weapons. Now you look at the race that uses missiles the most, the Caldari. What are they the best at? Long range targetting. You turn (or in my opinion keep) missiles as short range weapons at the battleship level what good are they? Cruise missiles must be very fast to cover distances and strike battleships, slow missiles in battleship PvP are useless. Missiles must be reworked to where the smaller missiles can strike frigates and the large missiles can cover great distances fairly quickly and strike battleships, the current DOT for missile oriented battleships is pitifully low, especially at long range. ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
EtherealPain	Posted - 2004.03.08 21:20:00 - [4] i was just stating that cruise missles were missnamed, the longest range, slowest, highest dmg dealing missles should be called cruise
Lurk	Posted - 2004.03.08 22:42:00 - [5] I don't mind cruise missiles to be fast, however i mind them being fast AND agile. In my opinion they could be faster but have very little agility, allowing anything that travels at a transversal speed faster than ... say 200 m/s to evade at least the first run of the missile. If you want more tracking, use something smaller. Cruise Missiles and Torpedos should be used to strike BIG objects. In RL, you don't shoot with torpedos at speedboats for a reason ...
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2004.03.08 22:49:00 - [6] Quote: I don't mind cruise missiles to be fast, however i mind them being fast AND agile. In my opinion they could be faster but have very little agility, allowing anything that travels at a transversal speed faster than ... say 200 m/s to evade at least the first run of the missile. If you want more tracking, use something smaller. Cruise Missiles and Torpedos should be used to strike BIG objects. In RL, you don't shoot with torpedos at speedboats for a reason ... It is pretty obvious that missiles need to be reworked heavily. Cruise Missiles/Torpedoes need to be battleship weapons and need to function as such, and deliver damage as such. Heavy missiles need to be for cruisers and balanced as such. Rockets/Light missiles need to be for frigates and balanced for frigate combat. We need specific launchers designed for each type of missile, with the proper ROF. Why put 200 light missiles in a seige launcher with a ROF of 20 seconds? Obviously a seige launcher should be for cruise or torpedoes only, right? I look forward to a real revamp to missiles to make them competetive weapons and be really awesome on Caldari ships, because missiles are a Caldari weapon. ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
Br0ke	Posted - 2004.03.08 23:00:00 - [7] The launcher should be able to fire a certain volume per volley. Since a light missle only weighs .01, a siege launcher should be able to fire 10 of them at a time (or whatever the equivalent of one cruise is). A heavy launcher may be able to hold cruise missles, but the launcher itself can only fire .2 volume per shot, so a cruise is too big, but enough to fire a heavy. Make the missle bay a mini cargo bay, you can throw anything you want in it and the launcher will fire it's max volume per volley. So, if you had a large mix of different light missles, you'd be firing say 3 thermals, 4 EMPs and 3 kinetics in one firing out of the same launcher. In addition to the cool factor of spitting out 10 light missles per launcher per volley, it gives more options and more options is always best. ------ Follow the Left Hand Path
Imperishable	Posted - 2004.03.08 23:47:00 - [8] How many rockets would a siege launcher fire per volley? Probably enought to kill any frigate in 1 shot. Plus there's the lag from more missiles
Tsual	Posted - 2004.03.08 23:55:00 - [9] Quote: The launcher should be able to fire a certain volume per volley. Since a light missle only weighs .01, a siege launcher should be able to fire 10 of them at a time (or whatever the equivalent of one cruise is). would be 30 missiles in one volley (cm being 0.3 m¦ big) that would even give a cruiser a hard time. (30 * 50 = 1500 dmg ignoring the fact that there are resistances) Quote: A heavy launcher may be able to hold cruise missles, but the launcher itself can only fire .2 volume per shot, so a cruise is too big, but enough to fire a heavy. The problem is that without standart launchers being able to fire cruise missiles, Frigats would lose a role in combat, on the positive side Frigat vs Frigat combat would become more dogfight like. Quote: Make the missle bay a mini cargo bay, you can throw anything you want in it and the launcher will fire it's max volume per volley. So, if you had a large mix of different light missles, you'd be firing say 3 thermals, 4 EMPs and 3 kinetics in one firing out of the same launcher. In addition to the cool factor of spitting out 10 light missles per launcher per volley, it gives more options and more options is always best. Perhaps you don't fill in any missiles but rather load launchers with tracks you stuck with missiles before loading them into launcher, could also be made for projectile and habrid weapons (thus allowing for example to have a different ammo type every shot). neg: would increase the work for the database server and give the lasers a disatvantage. -------------------------------------- Tsual - Miner from faith, frigat junky for life. Ritual of the Qua'nadhar.
Baun	Posted - 2004.03.08 23:58:00 - [10] Quote: The launcher should be able to fire a certain volume per volley. Since a light missle only weighs .01, a siege launcher should be able to fire 10 of them at a time (or whatever the equivalent of one cruise is). A heavy launcher may be able to hold cruise missles, but the launcher itself can only fire .2 volume per shot, so a cruise is too big, but enough to fire a heavy. Make the missle bay a mini cargo bay, you can throw anything you want in it and the launcher will fire it's max volume per volley. So, if you had a large mix of different light missles, you'd be firing say 3 thermals, 4 EMPs and 3 kinetics in one firing out of the same launcher. In addition to the cool factor of spitting out 10 light missles per launcher per volley, it gives more options and more options is always best. Thats a tremendously original idea, I just don't know how viable it would be. Jim's idea about increasing cruise missle speed (and finding a way to make them ineffective against frigates at the same time) makes the most sense. This would increase the viability of using Missles in longer range situations and would take some of the sting away from having both the lowest ROF and the longest time before damage is dealt (or rather, the only wait time). The Enemy's Gate is Down
Lurk	Posted - 2004.03.09 00:56:00 - [11] I don't think giving BS a good rocket launcher is a good idea, cause then ... BS would eat frigates even more. I'm thinking of something like this: Missiles Rockets: Small, fast, agile, ... weak. They will hit almost every target, an exeption being interceptors orbiting you with 2km/s. They track excellent but only in the first 2 seconds ... so they align towards their target and then shoot towards them with speeds reaching 5km/s (they only track very little while at that speed). If they don't hit in that run, they won't ever. The downside are that they do only little damage (The current values are good) and won't hit targets with fast transversal speed. They won't fly farther then 10km. Light Missiles: They are a real tracking missile, cruising at about 2km/s. They have excellent tracking and do more damage than rockets. Fast frigates can dodge or outrun them though. They last about 20 seconds. Heavy Missiles: The first missile that really packs a punch. They do decent damage, have acceptable tracking and last long enough to hit at 60km+. You won't hit frigates with them though unless the frigate is flying directly at you. They travel a bit faster than light missiles but need time to accelerate. Torpedos: They are similar to rockets, however, very different. They do devastating damage but they usually won't hit anything smaller/faster than a battleship. They are agile while they are slow but then they accelerate while they shoot to their target. Once aligned, they can only compensate minimal movement of the target. They are able to reach speeds of abour 3km/s when at full speed. Cruise Missiles: They are a real big version of the heavy missile, doing incredible damage. Their tracking is relatively poor but they last long enough to make multiple runs on the target. Cruisers or frigates can dodge those, they have to be careful though as they turn and come back. A cruise missile should last about a minute and reach speeds up to 2km/s. Missile Launchers Missile Launchers are specially designed for specific ship classes so they can only be used by the class they are designed for. Frigate Launchers: They are fine as they are - A fast rocket launcher, a fast assault-launcher (rockets or light missiles) and a bigger launcher that can carry heavy missiles (no cruise should fit into it). Cruiser Launchers: There should be a small siege launcher for cruise missiles and torpedos (with max capacity of 2 cruise/1 torp though), a standard launcher for heavy or light missiles with decent speed and decent capacity and a fast launcher for some rockets or light missiles. They last one should use very much cpu, to prevent cruisers to fit too many of them, i suggest about 150 cpu. Battleship Launchers: They have the current siege launcher, ideal for battleship or stationary target bombardment. Additionally they should get a smaller launcher for heavy missiles with a better RoF.
Mad Ahab	Posted - 2004.03.09 01:35:00 - [12] I have no problem with frigates loading up on cruise Missiles. However with proper balancing on missiles a frigate with cruise missiles would be destroyed by another frigate with heavy missiles or light missiles. He simply wouldn't be able to hit. A frigate with cruise missiles has to reload alot anyhow being able to fire only one at a time. A battleship on the other hand could deploy drones/ hit with lasers and rip through it like paper. Other than the frig getting in a few support hits I don't see it destroying a battleship ever. I have no problem with cruise missiles on frigates as it give the frigate another type of support role. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Imperishable	Posted - 2004.03.09 01:40:00 - [13] those are good ideas, but why don't you want to allow frigates to carry cruise missiles or torpedoes? Frigates need a role in a game, I think they should be good against BS, so a BS would be forced to have escorts made up of smaller ships. So it's not just a BS only game. Give frigates good anti-BS weapons. 5 frigates with anti-BS setup should be a certain death to a lone BS pilot. Want to fly a BS ship with safety? get yourself some cruiser escort
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2004.03.09 01:46:00 - [14] Quote: those are good ideas, but why don't you want to allow frigates to carry cruise missiles or torpedoes? Frigates need a role in a game, I think they should be good against BS, so a BS would be forced to have escorts made up of smaller ships. So it's not just a BS only game. Give frigates good anti-BS weapons. 5 frigates with anti-BS setup should be a certain death to a lone BS pilot. Want to fly a BS ship with safety? get yourself some cruiser escort Same reason a rifter can't mount a 1400mm howitzer. ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
Mad Ahab	Posted - 2004.03.09 01:49:00 - [15] I'll also add that I agree with the above post on missile balance. Rockets should be the most agile and have very high speeds. Light Missiles should also be agile with high speeds. Heavy Missiles should be able to hit most frigates and all cruisers and fit the median for speed. Cruise Missiles should not be very agile and hit very hard and have very high speeds. Torpedos should also have very high speeds but less agility than cruise missiles. This would increase the DPS for long range combat and make it so missile combat is more balanced I belive. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Imperishable	Posted - 2004.03.09 02:26:00 - [16] 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
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2004.03.09 02:29:00 - [17] 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. ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
Imperishable	Posted - 2004.03.09 02:32:00 - [18] that's not a good excuse, Jim
Mad Ahab	Posted - 2004.03.09 02:48:00 - [19] A 1400mm howitzer would be too large to mount effectivly, use too much power and be way to slow for the little frigate. I say a ship so large can only maintain enough energy for certain weapons. The battleship is very large and has many reserve systems and energy backup relay systems to allow for large weaponry. The frigate is stripped down for speed and is also smaller in physical size. Thus, it shouldn't be able to mount a weapon requiring more energy systems to run than the ship could physically fit. At least it seems that way to me. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
j0sephine	Posted - 2004.03.09 02:58:00 - [20] Edited by: j0sephine on 09/03/2004 02:59:50 "The frigate is stripped down for speed and is also smaller in physical size. Thus, it shouldn't be able to mount a weapon requiring more energy systems to run than the ship could physically fit. At least it seems that way to me." ... Which means a frigate is not able to power up battleship-sized turrets. Which is logical. But since heavy missiles are pretty much self-sufficient, there's no need for the ship to be anything special in order to mount them. I mean, no one complains about the WW2 planes being able to carry the self-sufficient torpedoes, even if you could try to make a case how those were "submarine weapons", "destroyer weapons" or whatever... (and yes, the WW2 planes could carry only 1 torpedo each. But keep in mind that one torpedo would be enough to sink or heavily cripple pretty much anything on sea ;)
Helen Ripley	Posted - 2004.03.09 03:09:00 - [21] Edited by: Helen Ripley on 09/03/2004 03:10:53 I think missiles are fine the way they are now. Don't try to make them the uber weapon of eve.
Mad Ahab	Posted - 2004.03.09 03:11:00 - [22] I agree seeing that missiles are self-propelled the energy issue is not a concern only the launcher size. I also think frigates should be able to carry these. I also have read here, in another post, that some frigs can be kitted out to run heavy missile launchers is this a fallacy? I haven't tried it. I couldn't imagine much else being able to fit on the frigate though if it were possible. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Marco Wulf	Posted - 2004.03.09 04:06:00 - [23] I agree there should be a revision on missile speed, range & agility. But I sugest we leave the launchers as they are, and instead add a Rate Of Fire bonus to the missiles themselves... say +80% for rockets and -80% for torps?
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2004.03.09 04:08:00 - [24] Quote: I think missiles are fine the way they are now. Don't try to make them the uber weapon of eve. How do you figure? ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2004.03.09 04:11:00 - [25] Quote: Edited by: j0sephine on 09/03/2004 02:59:50 "The frigate is stripped down for speed and is also smaller in physical size. Thus, it shouldn't be able to mount a weapon requiring more energy systems to run than the ship could physically fit. At least it seems that way to me." ... Which means a frigate is not able to power up battleship-sized turrets. Which is logical. But since heavy missiles are pretty much self-sufficient, there's no need for the ship to be anything special in order to mount them. I mean, no one complains about the WW2 planes being able to carry the self-sufficient torpedoes, even if you could try to make a case how those were "submarine weapons", "destroyer weapons" or whatever... (and yes, the WW2 planes could carry only 1 torpedo each. But keep in mind that one torpedo would be enough to sink or heavily cripple pretty much anything on sea ;) I really don't care if frigates can use cruise/torpedoes, the point is light/heavy/rocket are USELESS against EVERYTHING. Not enough speed to even catch a semi-fast frigate nor do they do enough damage. Rockets/Lights should be GOOD vs frigates. Heavy should be GOOD vs cruisers. Cruise/Torp should be GOOD vs battleships. That's the whole point. ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
j0sephine	Posted - 2004.03.09 04:24:00 - [26] "Rockets/Lights should be GOOD vs frigates. Heavy should be GOOD vs cruisers. Cruise/Torp should be GOOD vs battleships. That's the whole point." Now that's definitely something that makes total sense. :D
Baun	Posted - 2004.03.09 05:42:00 - [27] The problem is that you cannot give light missles a long flight time (long enough to catch a frigate) without making them overpowered by outranging all frigate based turrets. This is really just a reflection of the essential difference between missles and normal weapons, missles have to physical reach a target to hit it, normal guns need not do this. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2004.03.09 05:43:00 - [28] Edited by: Jim Raynor on 09/03/2004 05:46:37 Quote: The problem is that you cannot give light missles a long flight time (long enough to catch a frigate) without making them overpowered by outranging all frigate based turrets. This is really just a reflection of the essential difference between missles and normal weapons, missles have to physical reach a target to hit it, normal guns need not do this. Does the short targetting range of frigates already not prevent this? What this is, is the root of another problem, frigates without MWDs are useless.. ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
Baun	Posted - 2004.03.09 06:20:00 - [29] Edited by: Baun on 09/03/2004 06:22:01 Well, no, not at least for the kestrel. Unless this was changed since i last used light missles (the Amarr championship), their range is effectively 25km. The only frigate that cannot target that far (at base) is a punisher (as far as i remember). To be sure, however, frigates without MWDs are entirely useless, and after the cap power relay change frigates with MWDs will be less useful. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2004.03.09 06:26:00 - [30] Quote: Edited by: Baun on 09/03/2004 06:22:01 Well, no, not at least for the kestrel. Unless this was changed since i last used light missles (the Amarr championship), their range is effectively 25km. The only frigate that cannot target that far (at base) is a punisher (as far as i remember). To be sure, however, frigates without MWDs are entirely useless, and after the cap power relay change frigates with MWDs will be less useful. Light missiles and rockets do such little damage what does it matter? When a 280mm arty can hit for 250+ dmg what does the 50 dmg (before resistances) matter on light missiles? Missiles currently are absoletely 100% ineffective against frigates, isn't that a problem? ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
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 doesnÆt cost too much."

Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.