EVE Search - Tier 3 BC's left us high and dry.

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Tier 3 BC's left us high and dry.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
OfBalance Deep Core Mining Inc. 67	Posted - 2012.02.26 23:20:00 - [1] - Quote Wacktopia wrote: Tr 3 are gun ships. It makes sense because snipers work best a gun ships. Pretty much this. I assume CCP feels missile users have been adequately compensated by stealth bombers and the various spear-chucking ships strewn across the races: Khanid ships, Gurista ships, Lach, Huginn, Typhoon, and to a lesser extent all those minmatar ships that traditionally fit neuts in their utility slots, but could fit launchers. Not that I find this to be an incredible solace myself, but having to make an educated guess that's what I assume they'd say. Regardless of the reasoning though, I don't think any torp, cruise, or capital launcher pilot would delight in any new hulls being throw there way as it stands. Outside of the "ooh shiny and new," value the weapons themselves are anywhere from "of narrow use," to "completely broken," in terms of effectiveness. Personally, I think priority one for launchers is to have the larger variety work on equal sized targets with t2 ammo. Rage torps and cruise missiles should not be useful only in bashing structures. XL torps should not be speed tanked by a capital ship moving at the speed of continental drift. Ed: As far as drones go, I think they're in a similar situation (ie. lots of ships with extensive drone bays, a few off-racial and faction ships with a drone bonus, and their own ship class in carriers) but rather than being ineffective, not that drones don't have their drawbacks, are not provided more hulls for different reasons. I could go on about that, but I think one look at how popular the ishtar is, why that is, and where it's drawbacks lie should give you an idea.
OfBalance Deep Core Mining Inc. 70	Posted - 2012.02.27 00:54:00 - [2] - Quote Liam Mirren wrote: If you really think the Naga sucks then you have no clue what you're talking about. Really, no clue whatsoever. And yeah, they're turret ships just like the T1 destroyers. The naga doesn't suck, but you've really missed the boat if you think that was the conversation at hand.
OfBalance Deep Core Mining Inc. 71	Posted - 2012.02.27 02:22:00 - [3] - Quote Liam Mirren wrote: Npt at all. your "but you have gallente" doesn't make sense because you stated you'd like the Talos to be drone based. Besides, why should one have to fly gallente if you wanted a hybrid ship. Also, For gallente it's the same thing; generally the droneboats out perform the turret ships and this once it's a GOOD gallente turret ship. Why didn't you ask for a missile Oracle, some of their ships are missile based? You can ofcourse try your hardest to sound fair, reasoned and logical but all we're really hearing is "bawww, i didn't train Hybrids". :woosh:
OfBalance Deep Core Mining Inc. 72	Posted - 2012.02.27 11:58:00 - [4] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: There's nothing fundamentally wrong with torps, they're a very powerful anti-BS weapon, and pretty good against Drake spam too. Come again? Did you mean to say "stealth bombers," there because if you did: I totally agree.
OfBalance Deep Core Mining Inc. 75	Posted - 2012.02.28 00:28:00 - [5] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: Thelron wrote: Torps are a sloppy mess that require so much tackle and painting on a target that they're best used for light shows and maybe the occasional ambush. Myth bolded. Sure, if you're firing torps against Gurista frigates, then you may find them lacking. Torps are a battleship weapon, designed to be used against other battleships. The only additional tackle that they require is a painter - web support is not necessary against almost all BS - and even the painter is unnecessary against six of the twelve BS. Ho ho, and the trolling continues.
OfBalance Deep Core Mining Inc. 77	Posted - 2012.02.29 22:59:00 - [6] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: The issue with missiles in general needs to be and will addressed, but that is a separate discussion altogether, that we will happily discuss with the player base when we come down to it. On the contrary, this was the issue at hand. Perhaps I read too much into the OP. My inference was not a whine about no torps on the naga, but that tier3 bc's highlighted something we already knew about large missile and drone weapon systems: that they perform very poorly in pvp compared to their turret counterparts (stealth bombers not withstanding for torps, but their bonus literally props up the weapon system). Looking forward to the missile discussion when you publish it.
OfBalance Deep Core Mining Inc. 77	Posted - 2012.03.01 00:13:00 - [7] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: I'd say that you are reading things into the OP that aren't really there, and that including the failed Naga design in any commentary about missile ships does nothing but muddy the issue. Basically: - With regards to the Naga: Ytterbium more than adequately explained why they chose a turret based ship. - With regards to missiles: Ytterbium promised more upcoming dialog for addressing the deeper issues relating to missiles. I'm really curious how they plan to address some of the underlying issues with missiles. -Liang Don't misconstrue my posting to be some commentary on the naga as a turret ship. I've made it abundantly clear that it should be that way and I like it that way. My commentary was simply to point out that it wouldn't work any other way and that indicates a problem with torpedoes and cruise missiles. I was also quick to applaud his promise of an upcoming missile discussion. I think i'll have to wait for that dialogue to have my questions answered.
OfBalance Deep Core Mining Inc. 77	Posted - 2012.03.01 00:41:00 - [8] - Quote Fair enough. My thoughts and/or attempt to threadjack have been submitted in close proximity to BLUE.
OfBalance Deep Core Mining Inc. 77	Posted - 2012.03.01 02:10:00 - [9] - Quote Ares Renton wrote: Part of the problem is that Missiles are a huge tree for something someone is supposed to train alongside the huge gunnery tree. If someone wants to cross-train Caldari... they essentially have to retrain every weapon support skill from scratch. Conversely, for Gallente, drones are used by everybody as they fulfill an essential role in PVE and PVP (even if you're not flying a dedicated drone boat). So really, all a pilot has to do to cross-train Gallente is work on Hybrids and Damps. In practice, most players only train 1 type of weapon: turrets or missiles because of the way the skills are set up that they do not benefit eachother in the slightest. However, turret users have far more options. Pure hybrid-users have access to all of Gallente and half of Caldari, while pure missile users have access to half of Caldari. People who have both skills have access to everything, but that leaves out new players. Ares you're a ways off. Missile ships are quite common, they're just not highly concentrated in one race aside from caldari where it's only 50%. Khanid ships, stealth bombers, combat recons, the typhoon, and gurista ships all use missiles as primary weapons. That almost equals the distribution of hybrid weapon ships: Half caldari, all gallente, and serpentis. It is close to the number of laser ships, most amarr, sansha, and blood raider. It is also greater than the number of projectile ships, the vast majority of minmatar ships and angels. So, all in all, that's a really poor choice of argument and it really detracts from the more appropriate subject: why battleship+ sized missiles are not very appealing on ships other than stealth bombers. Trinkets friend wrote: I don't want to be like those Minmatar pilots heh
OfBalance Deep Core Mining Inc. 77	Posted - 2012.03.01 03:14:00 - [10] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: OfBalance wrote: why battleship+ sized missiles are not very appealing on ships other than stealth bombers. Because they trade away too much applied DPS. Cruise trades it for raw (but mostly useless) range while torps trade it for EFT DPS numbers. I'd say that fixing both of them is relatively straight forward (and I have ideas, obviously), but I figure its best to leave that to CCP. -Liang Correct. That's what i'd like to read about.
OfBalance Deep Core Mining Inc. 78	Posted - 2012.03.01 03:35:00 - [11] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: OfBalance wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: OfBalance wrote: why battleship+ sized missiles are not very appealing on ships other than stealth bombers. Because they trade away too much applied DPS. Cruise trades it for raw (but mostly useless) range while torps trade it for EFT DPS numbers. I'd say that fixing both of them is relatively straight forward (and I have ideas, obviously), but I figure its best to leave that to CCP. -Liang Correct. That's what i'd like to read about. Honestly the only reading that can be done is figuring out which way CCP wants to lean on the balancing act. I'm sure that any communication by CCP will be fascinating to read, but whining by the players isn't a whole lot more than just that. -Liang Hearing more about that way CCP wants to lean was the intent of my gentle yet firm coaxing. C'mon Ytterbium, just a tip. Just to see how it feels.
OfBalance Deep Core Mining Inc. 80	Posted - 2012.03.01 12:21:00 - [12] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: OfBalance wrote: -snip!- Hearing more about that way CCP wants to lean was the intent of my gentle yet firm coaxing. I've been attempting to pull this thread out of whine mode so we can better penetrate this fascinating subject matter. C'mon Ytterbium, just a tip. Just to see how it feels. Awwwww poor thing. Ok, ok, fine, since you look desperate with your whimpering and puppy eyes here is one for you Tip: there are dev blogs incoming on ship balancing, and don't worry, they will give you plenty of things to talk / argue / rabble / whine / set things on fire when they go out. *inset cliche evil villain laugh here* Oh you tease.
OfBalance Caldari State 98	Posted - 2012.03.02 23:15:00 - [13] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: Not all of the missile supports apply to every missile. You can put together a hell of a bomber pilot for very little SP investment. I know. :) -Liang One launcher skill does not apply to unguided missiles in much the same way one gunnery skill does not apply to capless turrets. Valid argument that missile trained alts skill into their t2 large/med weapons marginally faster though.
OfBalance Caldari State 99	Posted - 2012.03.04 20:18:00 - [14] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: And every comparison I see from missile users is similarly biased. Simple facts: I have 18M SP in gunnery to 11M SP in missiles. -Liang I agree with that, but when you consider how much more prolific turret ships are it's really not a terrible opportunity cost. The matter of training a battleship-weapon-specific alt is really the only time where gun-spec prerequisites are a worthless time-sink. For everyone else, they're skill that would be trained anyway.
OfBalance Caldari State 101	Posted - 2012.03.05 04:40:00 - [15] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: And even THAT is another way of saying that missiles take a mere 61% of the total SP I have dedicated to guns. -Liang There are only 6 missile launcher weapons in the game and 54 different turret weapon systems. I trust you realize that means only 61% of the training is not a good deal overall. You support 9x as many weapons by training gunnery support skills.
OfBalance Caldari State 103	Posted - 2012.03.05 06:49:00 - [16] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: OfBalance wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: And even THAT is another way of saying that missiles take a mere 61% of the total SP I have dedicated to guns. -Liang There are only 7 missile launcher weapon systems in the game and 54 different turret weapon systems. (sub-capital) Only 61% of the training is not a good deal overall as those gunnery skills support almost 8x as many weapons. I'm not saying that is broken, but it certainly leaves no room for complaints about missiles being light on sp. As I said, it's quite valid to point out the efficient nature of training strait into a battleship weapon system for a specific use, but for the number of weapons and ships you are getting, it's much less efficient overall than gunnery. Isn't it much more efficient because only 61% of the SP covers missile ships across all 4 races? -Liang Well, unless you're including stealth bombers and the lulzy minmatar/amarr missile frigates there aren't terribly many of those. Just the three gurista ships, two khanid, and half the caldari lineup. Even including stealth bombers I think hybrid ships easily outnumber launcher boats and lasers probably come fairly close given there are two pirate factions utilizing them. Projectiles may well be outnumbered by launchers (and are certainly -intended- to be supplemented by them), but the fact projectiles are often retrofitted on many off-platform ships likely balances this out.
OfBalance Caldari State 104	Posted - 2012.03.05 07:01:00 - [17] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: No, the fact is that missiles are easier to train because there's less total SP to be had to max out. And, of course, this actually lines out exactly with the reputation each weapon platform has. Its just a fact. However, that doesn't matter because the real fact of the matter is that missiles and gunnery are well balanced in terms of both utility and reach. However, we're doomed to always have losers who QQ about how one is harder to train than the other. -Liang Who said anything about harder to train? That's completely idiotic and non-senseical. They're both perception/willpower skillsets, have the same training modifiers, and like every other skill in EVE they simply train for you - no input required except throwing them in the queue. I think i've been careful to say, repeatedly, that missiles take fewer sp to train for and can be surgically trained for with much less time. As you say, that's a fact. The whole debate about missile and gunnery balance isn't the subject matter at hand. Unless you weren't addressing my post, in which case, vOv.
OfBalance Caldari State 105	Posted - 2012.03.05 07:16:00 - [18] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: OfBalance wrote: Who said anything about harder to train? That's completely idiotic and non-senseical. They're both perception/willpower skillsets, have the same training modifiers, and like every other skill in EVE they simply train for you - no input required except throwing them in the queue. Way to stick with the conversation there. Quote: I think i've been careful to say, repeatedly, that missiles take fewer sp to train for and can be surgically trained for with much less time. As you say, that's a fact. The whole debate about missile and gunnery balance isn't the subject matter at hand. Unless you weren't addressing my post, in which case, vOv. No, I was addressing the perpetual QQ about how SP intensive either weapon system is. -Liang I am easily confused. http://imgur.com/gallery/8rtrB
OfBalance Caldari State 115	Posted - 2012.03.06 19:23:00 - [19] - Quote Reads like a round-about nerf to battlecruiser proliferation, at least for lower sp players. I'm not sure why they would inflate the aggregate sp required to be fully subcap proficient, but if tiericide leaves us with more viable ships then I could really care less about the former issue. Of course if you a dedicated bc pilot with minimal ship skills and all medium weapon systems trained this could be quite disruptive, not sure how common that is.
OfBalance Caldari State 358	Posted - 2012.03.31 17:42:00 - [20] - Quote Tobiaz wrote: How about not bothering with threads like these until AFTER Inferno and the tiercide? In fairness to the OP, whom I disagree with; iirc this thread pre-dates the tiericide announcement. The necropost however, is quite fresh.

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.