EVE Search - assault missiles and rockets.

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

assault missiles and rockets.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Buyerr	Posted - 2007.12.20 09:41:00 - [1] well after the new torp change could you please set assault missiles and rockets in range with this?! they have a WAY too high range, so range needs a hard nerf and dmg needs a boost. (haven't done the numbers on it since it is too obviously so not really needed) ^^
Buyerr	Posted - 2007.12.20 20:47:00 - [2] a lot of readers but no reply with a meaning on this matter? ^^
Danjira Ryuujin Caldari	Posted - 2007.12.21 00:20:00 - [3] No more coffee for you sir. Amarr - Annoying the Eve Community since 2005
Buyerr	Posted - 2007.12.21 01:06:00 - [4] Edited by: Buyerr on 21/12/2007 01:09:12 Originally by: Danjira Ryuujin Edited by: Danjira Ryuujin on 21/12/2007 00:37:21 No more coffee for you sir. P.S I found it difficult to interpret your numbers. You also didn't discuss the differences in the 2 systems either, for example missile range theoretical/actual and optimal + falloff for guns. In short missiles and guns are different. Unless you're willing to weigh the differences, you cant sensibly argue that they are not balanced. It's also difficult to take you seriously when your resolution is to nerf something "to hell". well it is actually to just show that everything except the close range missiles have a specific way of calculate, the reason that the close range missiles don't have it like that is that it came in gradually and have been altered here and there to go in different directions. which i think would be made equal for all close range missiles and not only one of them... about how things are calculated.. well i really think that it is people's own problem if they haven't even checked that out and if they don't know anything about it, maybe they shouldn't comment at it ;) edit: besides, i am not gonna do numbers for everything since my numbers would be tweaked anyway by ccp in the odd change that they should listen. ^^
Dravin Dread	Posted - 2007.12.21 07:56:00 - [5] No thanks
Big Zulu Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2007.12.21 09:19:00 - [6] Fail _________ I has bree..
Buyerr	Posted - 2007.12.22 07:16:00 - [7] Originally by: Big Zulu Fail Originally by: Dravin Dread No thanks ow your arguments are SOO good.. duh... could you please not reply if your intellect don't reach father then this... seriously dudes and please could some one with half a brain write their meaning here ^^
Dravin Dread	Posted - 2007.12.22 08:24:00 - [8] Let's see how the torp things goes for starters, it's already a big change, let's make sure it's worth something before we go screw with the other short range stuff. CCP has stated that the torp change was intended to bring them in line with other short range ordinance, apparently they didn't feel the need to change the other stuff or they would have. Changing ROF and Exp Velocity and range in total is a nerf as the end result is shorter range AND to get the most out of this one must fit a target painter on ships that are already at a PVP disadvantage because all tacking gear is mid slot. To get full use of the the dmg, cal ships will have to fit a target painter on top of tackling, sacrificing even more tank. The story is just as bad if not worse for minmatar with even shorter ranges. So, No thank you.
Buyerr	Posted - 2007.12.23 02:59:00 - [9] well it should be clear to every one that rockets and assault missiles are not in line which torps, and the least they can do is change them all when they make a chenge and not just one of them, would be like saying "okey now we change blasters but we only change large blasters to be long range low dps weapons, and the rest of the blasters would still be close range high dps.." that would just be stupid.. sigh Originally by: Dravin Dread Let's see how the torp things goes for starters, it's already a big change, let's make sure it's worth something before we go screw with the other short range stuff. CCP has stated that the torp change was intended to bring them in line with other short range ordinance, apparently they didn't feel the need to change the other stuff or they would have. Changing ROF and Exp Velocity and range in total is a nerf as the end result is shorter range AND to get the most out of this one must fit a target painter on ships that are already at a PVP disadvantage because all tacking gear is mid slot. To get full use of the the dmg, cal ships will have to fit a target painter on top of tackling, sacrificing even more tank. The story is just as bad if not worse for minmatar with even shorter ranges. So, No thank you.
IMinYOURforums Caldari	Posted - 2007.12.23 06:33:00 - [10] PUT DOWN THE NUMBERS AND STEP AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER
Methem interimo	Posted - 2007.12.23 09:03:00 - [11] HAM ships dont deal a lot of dps.. so you tend to stay out of web range. Nerfing the range so that it puts you into web range would be a mistake IMO
Buyerr	Posted - 2007.12.23 11:07:00 - [12] Originally by: Methem HAM ships dont deal a lot of dps.. so you tend to stay out of web range. Nerfing the range so that it puts you into web range would be a mistake IMO my cristmass wish is that people would read then post ;) hehe marry cristmass :D well the point is to upper their dmg in same manner as torps :)
Buyerr	Posted - 2007.12.25 14:47:00 - [13] bumping for attention and more reply's ;) ----------------- fun little game: http://world7.monstersgame.co.uk/?ac=vid&vid=113097917
Anaalys Fluuterby Caldari	Posted - 2007.12.25 18:27:00 - [14] All I can say is: You want to nerf rockets? They are already one of the weakest weapons in the game. Don't forget that that "range" is also "distance travelled". It is not unusual for a rocket ship to be unable to hit even NPCs at 2.5km away because they are MOVING and have covered more range than the rockets can fly. If you do this you will need to at least triple the flight speed of those weapon systems to make them at all practical for use. Otherwise you screw over the Khanid Mk 2 ships.... Originally by: CCP Chronotis Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
Vrenth Gallente Dawn of a new Empire Pure.	Posted - 2007.12.25 18:42:00 - [15] Edited by: Vrenth on 25/12/2007 18:43:14 Originally by: Buyerr bumping for attention and more reply's ;) edit Merry Christmas --------------------------------- Let's make CLONE VATS useful!
Gypsio III Darkness Inc. Blood Blind	Posted - 2007.12.25 22:53:00 - [16] The OP's entire argument is based upon the assumption that balance comes from pretty patterns of numbers. This is clearly absurd - balance comes from careful consideration of the effects of weapon systems when mounted to the relevant hulls, hence the poor range of Jav torps. But hey, if you want to boost the DPS of my HAM Drakes even further, who am I to argue?
Mrski Okupator Amarr The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.12.26 18:19:00 - [17] Originally by: Buyerr a lot of readers but no reply with a meaning on this matter? ^^ You asked for it. Simply put: NO. I could get into argumenting but as your arguments are nil... Think first, then post. ___ Apocalypse Mining. Mine your way to heaven. What playing Amarr feels like. Shamelessly snatched from Almarez.
Buyerr	Posted - 2007.12.29 22:55:00 - [18] Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby All I can say is: You want to nerf rockets? They are already one of the weakest weapons in the game. Don't forget that that "range" is also "distance travelled". It is not unusual for a rocket ship to be unable to hit even NPCs at 2.5km away because they are MOVING and have covered more range than the rockets can fly. If you do this you will need to at least triple the flight speed of those weapon systems to make them at all practical for use. Otherwise you screw over the Khanid Mk 2 ships.... i have never seen those rats then ;) well it is both a nerf and a buff.. and either way i just want all close range missile brought in line with each others. don't really care if it is the one way or the other. (although i find the most balanced way to bring them in line with the torps and not the other way around) ----------------- fun little game: http://world7.monstersgame.co.uk/?ac=vid&vid=113097917
Buyerr	Posted - 2007.12.29 22:57:00 - [19] Originally by: Gypsio III The OP's entire argument is based upon the assumption that balance comes from pretty patterns of numbers. This is clearly absurd - balance comes from careful consideration of the effects of weapon systems when mounted to the relevant hulls, hence the poor range of Jav torps. But hey, if you want to boost the DPS of my HAM Drakes even further, who am I to argue? hehe actually balance comes from pretty pattern of numbers and calculations(on everything) :P (and yes i know that my pattern here properly need some work but i will let the ccp guys do that since they get paid for it and i don't ;) ) ----------------- fun little game: http://world7.monstersgame.co.uk/?ac=vid&vid=113097917
Buyerr	Posted - 2008.01.01 06:26:00 - [20] Originally by: Mrski Okupator Originally by: Buyerr a lot of readers but no reply with a meaning on this matter? ^^ You asked for it. Simply put: NO. I could get into argumenting but as your arguments are nil... Think first, then post. well start arguing why all close range missiles shouldn't be in the same line, like all other weapons. pleasess ----------------- fun little game: http://world7.monstersgame.co.uk/?ac=vid&vid=113097917
Deva Blackfire D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.01.01 11:35:00 - [21] Originally by: Methem HAM ships dont deal a lot of dps.. so you tend to stay out of web range. Nerfing the range so that it puts you into web range would be a mistake IMO You never met sacri with 2-3 BCU or HAM cerb with 2-3 BCU i guess? Because they deal major pain (especially sacri because of dmg bonus to all missile types not only kinetic).
Buyerr	Posted - 2008.01.01 19:04:00 - [22] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: Methem HAM ships dont deal a lot of dps.. so you tend to stay out of web range. Nerfing the range so that it puts you into web range would be a mistake IMO You never met sacri with 2-3 BCU or HAM cerb with 2-3 BCU i guess? Because they deal major pain (especially sacri because of dmg bonus to all missile types not only kinetic). 2-3 bcu on the carb? you can barely fit it then and you will have absolutely no speed (compared to lets say the demos) but even then, lets just take the number a cerb with 3 bcu max skills it is only 478 dps. now the demos will have 767 dps, with max skills.. so where again did you say the dps of it was good ;) compared to the other close range weapons on their ships it's dps is bad ----------------- fun little game: http://world7.monstersgame.co.uk/?ac=vid&vid=113097917
Deva Blackfire D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.01.02 02:10:00 - [23] Now i want to see that deimos dealing 700+dps from outside web-range-of-death so he can actually engage BS and not die :)
Buyerr	Posted - 2008.01.02 08:26:00 - [24] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Now i want to see that deimos dealing 700+dps from outside web-range-of-death so he can actually engage BS and not die :) i would like the same for that cerb you just made ;) sure it can fire long enough but any normal fast ship will catch it.. and you are still jumping around the main point of the post that all close range missiles should be within line of each other. if thats takes more nerf then boost, i don't know, and don't care as long as they come within range of each other. I declare war on stupidity

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

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