EVE Search - Missiles, Launchers and Caldari

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Missiles, Launchers and Caldari

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Russo	Posted - 2004.05.10 21:32:00 - [61] To Katchin and his opinion on how missiles should be as destructive as turrets to make it fair. missile fire slower, have smaller magazine capacity, and can hit objects like asteroids or other ships (get you killed by concord). so turrets are still good, they simply do their damage over time instead of very quickly. and in real life, what does more damage, a cannon, or a freakin missile. THE MISSILE. Russo - CEO Amarria Auxilia Your friendly neighborhood badass 'Peace is our profession. Mass murder is just a hobby.'
Cuisinart	Posted - 2004.05.10 21:35:00 - [62] Taking cruise missiles away from cruisers is a bad move imho... Vision without action is a daydream Action without vision is a nightmare
DJTheBaron	Posted - 2004.05.10 21:35:00 - [63] this is bad news for frigate and cruiser piliots, those that can fir emissiles i mean, however it is a good balance for non missile races/ships of similar class perhaps a strong damage modifier on missile boats like the charcoal, kestrel or breacher? battleships seem to be screwed by this change as well and some kind bs missile launcher bonus could change that however what about defenders, those things are hopeless i really hope there is going to some kind of amazing bonus to interceptors or the addition of more ships to that class, and mabye elite cruisers will be able to make cruiser piliots breath a sigh of releif? caldari thermal bonus, yawn i hope the adition of new ships, modules, bonus's and skills makeup for these significant missile handicaps, and if they do, great __________________________________________________ Scum, your all scum.
Gauguin	Posted - 2004.05.10 21:41:00 - [64] Are there going to be more choices for missile defence? The non-missile ships have only one module that does that (smartbomb), and it aint all that great ... Expendable countermeasures, point defence turrets, anti-missile drones, anti-missile ECM, etc. would be nice. Thanks for listening.
Rootz	Posted - 2004.05.10 21:42:00 - [65] I think all this will be great. Can't believe people are moaning it will take "10 mins" to kill a BS. Don't people want to fight a little longer and harder? People will be more likely to hang around and fight with these changes rather than just lose a little of there shields and warp away. Look at the big picture people, you will now have the chance for real fighting not just fire a couple of shots and they run/you run. As for the other moans about not being able to fit max amount of launcher/gun combo, there are other high slot modules to use. Maybe you should try opening your eyes to whats available and learn some new tactics. If you want to just point and shoot all the time, there are some very good space invader games out there.
ian666	Posted - 2004.05.10 21:46:00 - [66] Ok I really can't see the sense behind most of this changes... Raven - still ok, even more powerful. You can very well fit Siege Launchers AND be able to defend yourself properly. get your skills up. Frigates: should keep heavy missiles at least, I agree on the removal of cruise missiles tho. Cruisers: what the heck ?? they are quite worthless already...only Cruiser left for PvP will be the blackbird imo, we all know why. Do you really want to see everybody in a Scorp/Raven firing myriads of cruise/torps, reloading every 10 minutes ? and frigs orbiting each other, not being able to destroy the opponent because they can only use LIGHT missiles ? really can't see behind this. Caldari are ok as they are, they're one of the most used races for PvP anyways. Gallente and Minmatar both have their bonus too, only thing I would do is giving the lasers some love...but hey hundreds of peeps already complained about that earlier , so I won't repeat it... Frigs: Rockets/light Missiles/heavy Missiles Cruisers: up to Cruise Missiles Battleships: Cruise/Torps that's how it should be imo...but don't listen to us, I'm just a paying customer Greetings
The End	Posted - 2004.05.10 21:46:00 - [67] Yes i love these changes!!! i would like to say for people to stop whining. this is the way it should hav ebeen from the start. I use frigates myself and i love this. us frig pilots can actually have real dog-fights! w00t! These ideas allow the use of all missles to come into play whereas it was just all about cruise... This is a big change and is for the good of the game :) also none of those pesky kestrel alts can gank indies in empire lol :)
Turyleon Caddarn	Posted - 2004.05.10 21:46:00 - [68] Clawhammer, the mega has 7 low slots. raven has 4. if you put CPU's in the 3 extra slots you would be a lot better off. instead, in order for raven pilots to be able to use 6 seige and 2 turrets, and still be able to use anything in mids, they must have their lows filled with cpus. "I know this game, it's called Cat and Mouse. There's only one way to win......... Don't be the mouse."
Cuisinart	Posted - 2004.05.10 21:47:00 - [69] Taking cruise missiles away from cruisers is a poor decision in my opinion... Vision without action is a daydream Action without vision is a nightmare
Globar	Posted - 2004.05.10 21:47:00 - [70] /me stops training Missile Launcher lvl 5 I don't plan on ever flying a battleship. Bleh.
Hellek	Posted - 2004.05.10 21:56:00 - [71] To those complaining about fitting requirements: A megabeam takes 325% more grid than a siege launcher and the apoc has only 50% more grid then a raven. At the same time, the megabeam takes only about 30% less CPU and the apoc also has about 20% less CPU than a raven. So who has the problems now? I have to sacrifice a lot to mount 6 megabeams on an Apoc (i.e. can't tank any more) and its just fair that a raven has the same problems now. Besides that, my megabeams use about the same cap as half a XL SB on autorepeat, your cruise missiles use no cap at all. And if that is not enough, you have a ROF bonus, I don't. So stop whining, your ship was too powerful and now things slowly get more fair. To those complaining about reloading: You can mount 30 cruise missiles, at a ROF of 20 they last for 10 minutes as TomB said. Spending 10 seconds on reloading once every 10 minutes really is no problem. Or did you get used to fighting afk because your ship was so strong?
Xelios	Posted - 2004.05.10 21:58:00 - [72] FINALLY! Awesome changes, can't wait till they get to Tranquility. Everyone will have to adjust how they play a bit, but I think the end result will be a much richer pvp experience, one in which 4 frigates can't destroy a battleship single handedly, but where 4-5 cruisers can still pose a serious threat to one. Just like 4-5 frigates will pose a serious threat to a cruiser, while 1 or 2 will be cannon fodder. Like I said, can't wait =)
Rebekah	Posted - 2004.05.10 22:02:00 - [73] Yet again CCP make decisions based on pathetic complaints from PvP players who can't take getting their butts whipped. Basically this decision will totally screw your chance of enjoying the game's PvP side unless you can afford to fly a battleship. Frigates and Cruisers become "COMPLETELY" worthless, even in fleet battles (which is really their main use now) and battleships become even more invinceble. .....and why is this pearl of a mod happening? Because fat, lazy, rich players can't stand losing their big shiney battleships! I mean, how dare we even lock them - after all we are only flying frigates! What is the CCP's agenda here? Why dont the just fit frigs and cruisers with daisy launchers and have anyone who even dares to look at a BS auto POD themselves. This really hacks me off - not just coz I enjoy PvP - Not just coz I spent nealy 2 months training to fly a crow - Not just coz it's obviously in reponse to crawlers who just can't play the game BUT mainly because CCP just can't leave the game alone for 5 minutes before nerfing something good. C'mon get your freak'n acts together - This is STUPID!
FileCop AI	Posted - 2004.05.10 22:03:00 - [74] AWESOME that you're taking cruise missiles away from frigates - they are WAY too powerful - especially when they'll get even more invulnerable to battleships. THOUGH.. Heavy launchers should definately be able to use cruise missiles - perhaps 10-15 or so. Perhaps increase the requirements a little bit, but make cruisers able to fit them if they want. And battleships should definately be able to use cruise missiles without fitting siege launchers. Or you should at least consider decreasing requirements on the siege launchers, so that a battleship can still fit a few large guns while using cruise missiles. After all - using heavy missiles will be pointless, as a large gun will outdamage it many times. FileCop AI of MASS Co-CEO
Xelios	Posted - 2004.05.10 22:10:00 - [75] Quote: Frigates and Cruisers become "COMPLETELY" worthless, even in fleet battles (which is really their main use now) and battleships become even more invinceble. That's not true. Frigates will still be fast flying, fast locking support ships (used to scramble or web something). Cruisers will still pose a threat to battleships if used in groups of 5 or more. I think what you're trying to say is 4 200k frigates won't be able to take out a 100 mil battleship by themselves anymore, and you're right. This is the way it should have been since the start. PVP will depend on the players, if they fly in battleships pvp will be mostly in battleships, but that doesn't mean you can't still be effective with smaller ships, you'll just need more of them to accomplish what a single battleship could do.
Arrow Jumpdrive	Posted - 2004.05.10 22:12:00 - [76] Caldari are ok as they are, they're one of the most used races for PvP anyways. Gallente and Minmatar both have their bonus too, only thing I would do is giving the lasers some love...but hey hundreds of peeps already complained about that earlier , so I won't repeat it... Frigs: Rockets/light Missiles/heavy Missiles Cruisers: up to Cruise Missiles Battleships: Cruise/Torps that's how it should be imo...but don't listen to us, I'm just a paying customer I agree 100%. I'm just a paying customer. Lets make the only really viable Assault ships in EvE Battleships. Lets make Cruisers 6 mil ISK mining ships. Lets make Frigates "true" newbie ships. Lets Lobotmize the Caldari and Minmatar Races. Hell, what do I know, I am not an uber Dev, I just pay their wages.
ClawHammer III	Posted - 2004.05.10 22:15:00 - [77] Edited by: ClawHammer III on 10/05/2004 22:17:47 Originally by: Turyleon Caddarn Clawhammer, the mega has 7 low slots. raven has 4. if you put CPU's in the 3 extra slots you would be a lot better off. instead, in order for raven pilots to be able to use 6 seige and 2 turrets, and still be able to use anything in mids, they must have their lows filled with cpus. Actualy Ravens have 5 lowslots. Megathrons and Apocs have trouble fitting 6 Large Turrets and 2 Seige Lunchers so why shouldn't the Raven have trouble fitting 6 Seige Lunchers and 2 Large Turrets?
KR SUN	Posted - 2004.05.10 22:17:00 - [78] Again: - Make 3 sizes of launchers as we have sizes of turrets for each ship class - Make at least 3 options(different launchers) in rof/capacity/type of missles for each size. Like we have lets say "medium hybrids - 250mm rail, dual 150, blasters" - Re-think and change all fittings for launchers based on sizes, you wont longer need huge grid req to keep away siege from a frigs. Now, if you want frigs be useless vs bs, make bs useless vs frigs. Such as if frig can mount only lights dont allow bs mount lights or rockets. Overwise a bs can fit a standart laucnher with TINY fitting and be able to shoot down any frig/inteceptor with lights/rockets. Why then even bother to fly inteceptor? Make something about missle defence for NON missle ships. Like thorax or maller or any non missle frig. Deployable decoys, jamming specificaly for missles, something - smartboms WONT work at all with speedy missles.
ClawHammer III	Posted - 2004.05.10 22:20:00 - [79] Edited by: ClawHammer III on 10/05/2004 22:21:36 Originally by: Last Starfighter sounds fair enough, but balancing would require removal of cruisers ability to use heavy drones perhaps? Fair enough. If cruisers can't use battleship class missiles then it's logical that they shouldn't be able to use battleship class drones.
Celt Eireson	Posted - 2004.05.10 22:26:00 - [80] Hmmm looks like the Typhoon is screwed I'm afraid. Most configurations would use 4 heavy launchers, ROF on them appears to stay the same so effectively youre halving the firepower of 4 of its high slots (not quite given less reloading). Massive difference in damage dealt. I can understand the need for missile launchers on a particular ship type being of a similar level in terms of DoT, so given the upping of damage on lights and heavies and a bit of tweaking this might work out for frigates and cruisers. Specially as you could really only hold a couple of cruises in the standard missile launcher. Just not sure about how it will effect some of the battleships. And I guess these changes need to be seen in the context of the changes re the chances to hit smaller targets, drone changes etc as well, sort of a complete package. Guess its a matter of try it and see, its a proposal and still open for changes. And if you do implement this, I sincerely hope you make similar changes to NPCs? I don't want some of the more elite NPCs spamming cruises when I can only use heavies in my poor Typhoon :-).
Jorlin	Posted - 2004.05.10 22:27:00 - [81] some things i like...some things i don't. removing CMs from frigates -> good removing Heavy Missiles from frigs -> Hmm..don't like it removing Torps from Cruisers -> ok... removing CMs from cruisers -> No i could live with the Heavy Missile/Frigate and the CM/Cruiser thing if the ROF of rocket/standard/assault launchers was a bit better...maybe. since the use of Heavy missiles can't really be limited on frigates due to the new (huge) capacity of the launchers, it's maybe a neccesary move to remove them...but then, please make their new (forced) missiles of choice a valuable option. no police, no summons, no courts of law; no proper procedure, no rules of war; no mitigating circumstance; no lawyers fees, no second chance!
Hellek	Posted - 2004.05.10 22:28:00 - [82] Originally by: KR SUN Now, if you want frigs be useless vs bs, make bs useless vs frigs. Such as if frig can mount only lights dont allow bs mount lights or rockets. Overwise a bs can fit a standart laucnher with TINY fitting and be able to shoot down any frig/inteceptor with lights/rockets. Why then even bother to fly inteceptor? Frigs are far from useless. Only you need more than 4 to take down a BS and that is only fair as 4 frigs = 1mill, a BS = 120 mill and more. Besides that, the only useful frigs were missile frigs like kestrel, rifter and crow anyway, frigs like the punisher were totally useless. Therefore I think this change really IS fair. There still is one important use for frigates which is EW. BS can hardly take a frigate down so they are still powerful EW ships and will continue to play an important role in PvP. All the crying and whining because of removing cruises/torps from frigs and cruisers just points out how much they have broken the balance. Apart from that, i.e. the Amarr cruisers and frigs which can not fit launchers had big problems for months and none of you guys posted. Why? because it was an advantage for you that the Amarr ships are weaker than the Caldari. Now you whine all the time, only because you are not as much better than them any more as you were before. So please admit that you are not interested in fairness but only in keeping the Caldari stronger and better than any other races' ships. (I admit that there are some people, also Caldari, who supported those who were saying that Amarr ships are too weak and need a boost. But compared to the complaining I see in this thread, that was about 1%.)
MachineMk2	Posted - 2004.05.10 22:28:00 - [83] Wow...TONS of whining. :) But hey, everyone has invested in their missiles so they are gonna be defensive. I think a lot of people are approaching this from the standpoint that missiles should continue to be UBER, which they are now. They probably DO need to be nerfed a bit. There's no comparison between a missile and any turret in terms of the damage or ability to hit, and that's just wrong when it comes to balance. Personally, I hate the idea of any one weapon be sought after over all others. But, like I said, some tweeaks would make the changes better: 1) Heavy launchers should have cruise missiles, and the cruise missiles skills requirement should be reduced. IMO they are out of place in the hierarchy. Cruise missiles should be decent multi-purpose missiles. Not as accurate as lights or heavies, but perhaps faster and more damage. 2) Torps should have their skills requirements increased and they should be expensive and do horrendous amounts of damage. Right now, they are a waste of time and money. Make these things real cap-ship busters and the province of battleships. I'm talking about a slow (800ish), big (0.8-1.0), massive warhead (1,000hp or higher) type missile that can only be loaded into seige launchers and only on battleships. 3) Anti-missile countermeasures need to be added to the game. Either as modules, skills, or both. They need not be 100% effective (in fact 25% would be fine, and perhaps increased via skill and more effective vs slower missile, etc). In fact a point defense turret would require the sacrifice of a hardpoint and ammo or cap, and perhaps would be useful against drones. Just an idea. 4) There's absolutely NO way a frigate should be able to take down a battle ship. In fact, taking down a cruiser should be VERY hard with a frigate. No cruise missiles for frigates. But they shoul be able to keep heavies. Frigates are light, and they should be useful against other frigates, and en masse against cruisers...but non-effective against a battleship. Um...that's all I have to say about that. :) Oh, and the Raven SHOULD get a CAP boost. And the Typhoon needs that range boost too.
Ink Star	Posted - 2004.05.10 22:29:00 - [84] ok frigs with light and cruisers with hvy and bs with cruise omg no firgs or cruisers if ur gona do some dmg u need to be in a bs and no more raven only my 1400mm o well i cant say that these are good changes now i will stop traing for elite frigs no point in that no more ravens bahh ur killing me no cruise with frigs u surly can kill moral in ppl bahhh!!! Pirates are the like good guys fighting the wrong guys o.O
Letifer Deus	Posted - 2004.05.10 22:29:00 - [85] This really makes the whole thing with making bship turrets/heavy drones/cruise less effective against frigates pointless, because noone is going to waste their time flying a frigate against a bship when all they can shoot is light missles... I am the OG PIIIIIMP
Discorporation	Posted - 2004.05.10 22:30:00 - [86] Don't know about you guys, but the frigates I fly can't even fit launchers. I'm not sure if it even matters, DoT-wise, removing cruise and heavies from frigs. Not with new +missile damage skills and whatnot. Just means you have to stay fighting for a while longer [Heterocephalus glaber]
TomB	Posted - 2004.05.10 22:30:00 - [87] The damage output for various frigates and cruisers will get lowered, mainly because they were overpowered. Kestrel example can take out 2x frigates in 1 volloy of 2 cruise missiles at each, Caracal can beat any other cruiser out there with ease. These ships clearly don't cost as much as a battleship that they can take out in few numbers. With these changes the damage output for their light and heavy missiles will be increased incase you don't see it: Kestrel (40K isk) Light Thermal Missiles base 50 damage LvL 5 Standard Missiles = 50 * 1.25 = 62.5 LvL 5 Caldari Frigate = 62.5 * 1.25 = 78.125 per missile LvL 5 Missile Launcher Operation = cleans 4 launchers with 160 missiles in 450 seconds 160 x 78.125 = 12500 thermal damage in 7.5 minutes without reloads Caracal (3-5 mill isk) Heavy Thermal Missiles = 150 damage LvL 5 Heavy Missiles = 150 * 1.25 = 187.5 LvL 5 Caldari Cruiser = 187.5 * 1.25 = 234.375 LvL 5 Missile Launcher Operation = cleans 5 launchers with 150 missiles in 450 150 x 234.375 = 35156.25 thermal damage in 7.5 minutes without reloads These ships will still be with the most damaging ships within their size class and cheaper in expense than before. "Cruisers being useless now" will be dealt with in another manner, rather than giving them weapons designed to destroy battleships. 6X Siege Launchers on Raven: is possible, but sacrifices defence, not many complain about not being able to fit 8x tachyon beams or 1400mm's. And frigate class bombers are on their way in to play. 2004.07.06 19:30:45combatTomB strikes you critically with his Nerf Bat, pwning you for -100% everything.
ClawHammer III	Posted - 2004.05.10 22:32:00 - [88] Originally by: Celt Eireson Hmmm looks like the Typhoon is screwed I'm afraid. Most configurations would use 4 heavy launchers, ROF on them appears to stay the same so effectively youre halving the firepower of 4 of its high slots (not quite given less reloading). Massive difference in damage dealt. Umm... what the hell are you talking about? The Typhoon has plenty of CPU and Seige and Heavy launchers allready have the same RoF...
Sochin	Posted - 2004.05.10 22:32:00 - [89] WTF is the purpose behind removing Cruise missiles from Heavy launchers? This will make cruisers only useful for frigate killing, and create problems with battleship fitting. ' Standards should be able to fire heavy missiles too... Nemo me impune lacessit
Xelios	Posted - 2004.05.10 22:32:00 - [90] One thing I'd like to see is countermeasure launchers. Not direct missile defense like defenders, but indirect, like a Chaff launcher that will decrease the tracking capability of missiles within 5km of it for x seconds. That way you'd have to combine such countermeasures with some fancy flying to completely avoid a missile.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: 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.