| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ulstan
   |
Posted - 2008.05.27 16:27:00 -
[1]
Superb posts, impeccably researched and clearly presented. I echo your sentiments in the strongest manner possible!
Ideally, in our new "everyone has 2 polcyarbs" nano world, all precision missiles would be retooled to be effective against nano ships. But I realize that would take a lot of work.
What *doesn't* take a lot of work is implementing the fixes described to the precision heavy missiles to fix the obvious bugs making it a steaming pile of pure and utter crap.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 15:31:00 -
[2]
Well, changing the penalty associated with precision missiles is rather subjective and debatable.
Fixing the bugged heavy precision missiles (which is what this thread is about) isn't. The missiles are clearly bugged with a lower explosion velocity than they should have.
I think we have a better chance of getting it rectified if we keep the thread on focus.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.06.01 02:02:00 -
[3]
I would suggest copying this to the assembly hall, and see if it attracts the attention of some CSM.
It seems like small concrete obvious changes like this would be pretty easy to implement.
|
Ulstan
Caldari
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 21:03:00 -
[4]
 Quote:
1. They should be better than Precision Cruise at damaging nanocruisers
2. They should be better than Precision Lights at damaging nanocruisers
3. They should be ineffective against interceptors
I agree. I think this could be solved by increasing the explosion radius of heavy precision missiles enormously to well above that of the base missile - if it's going to be used for shooting at MWD'ing cruisers, it can have a pretty big radius.
I would think a heavy precision missile that took a 50% radius penalty against MWD'ing cruisers could work out - afterall, there's no reason the radius needs to be small enough to hit a MWD'ing cruiser for full damage, since the damage will be reduced anyway due to the MWD'ing cruisers speed.
|
Ulstan
Caldari
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 19:47:00 -
[5]
Quote:
The CSM by and large is composed of either carebares, who won't care, or 1337 pvpers, who see Caldari PVP inferiority as an acceptable situation as they aren't effected. The few sane ones on the board are outvoted and the issue therefore never raised. Read the transcripts of the Nighthawk, which got rejected by the CSM, to the "fix large autocanons lawls", which got widespread approval, despite having no evidence, examples, or reasoning.
Yeah, that was deeply disappointing. It was obvious that none of them flew a nighthawk in PvP and just didn't care to see it's PvP performance improved.
The much more vague and much less supported "make large AC's more betterer" idea on the other hand, received enthusiastic support. Guess we know which race's ships the CSM flies.
Sounds like we need a CSM for each race!
|
Ulstan
Caldari
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 15:37:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Ulstan on 16/07/2008 15:40:11
Holy crap, it's Jim Raynor!!!!! 
Now there's an old face I haven't seen around in a while. I remember us arguing for fixes to missiles waaaaaay back in the MOO days (when they were across the board terrible).
As far as Ruciza goes, there's a class of folks that thinks because missiles are widely used in PvE, they should really suck in PvP, and he falls into this category. Such trolls not really worth arguing with, as they refuse to accept basic assumptions of the need for balance. When shown that one weapon system or ship is manifestly inferior to its competitors and doesn't do the job it is supposed to, their typical response is "Yeah, and?"
|
| |
|