| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
yani dumyat
   |
Posted - 2008.06.30 20:08:00 -
[61]
There should NOT be a magic missile that can kill any speed tank just as there should not be a magic anti-armour or anti-shield missile.
PVE:
I don't see a big issue here because i use drones to kill the frigs while my T1 missiles take out the big boats. I don't see the point in using T2 or faction missiles in a mission situation where you are trying to make isk not spend it.
I do understand that there is a nice feeling of 'I win' about using the best gear you can especially if mission running is what you do in eve and so there may be an issue here for some people however nerfing the entire minmatar speed strategy is not the answer.
PVP:
It should be remembered that the speed tank is one of the most inteligent tactics in this game, it involves piloting your ship so that you are never flying directly towards a turret and the entire minmatar syrategy is built on this so if you introduce missiles that can hit any fast moving target you will nerf an entire faction. Any uber precision missile should have some kind of directional drawback so that a smart pilot can avoid it but a nanogank who knows nothing but orbit at 20k will soon fall foul.
IMO there should be a correlation between the size of missile and the size of nanoship:
light precision missiles - able to kill a nanofrig
heavy precision missiles - able to kill a nanocruiser
cruise precision missiles - able to kill a nano BS
Nanoships have already been nerfed so if we can't have directional missiles it may be wize to have a specific launcher for these missiles or even better read this thread for an intresting idea about giving AF's a % powergrid reduction for assault launchers which would give them a specific antinano role:
CSM issues about AF's |
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 21:51:00 -
[62]
You'll notice that the table I listed for their changed values would be unable to hurt a Vagabond at speed - they easily do 6kms.
If that vagabond slows down to shoot - golly gee - it will get killed by any flavor of missile. This change prevents non-pimp Nano-hacs from completley ignoring the entire line of cruiser sized missiles. Believe it or not - far more ships are nanoed than just Vagabonds.
You say yourself you want precision heavies to kill nano-hacs... Then what exactly, is the problem? Also, what on Earth are you going on about PVE? The only person thats brought PVE up in this thread is a troll. |
yani dumyat
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 22:41:00 -
[63]
Ignore the troll, I reply about pve because CCP need to think about carebears too, that 'I win' feeling from people who don't pvp or read these forums is their income. Anyway carebears are cudly like ewoks 
 Originally by: MalVortex
This change prevents non-pimp Nano-hacs from completley ignoring the entire line of cruiser sized missiles.
Agreed there is an issue here, my point is slightly different in that I want to see an inteligent piloting aspect rather than pure maths, either in the form of directional blasts or ship choice. EVE chess should be more than 'to outrun missile X you need to do speed Y' otherwise people will skill up to the point where they outrun the missile regardless of how fast it goes.
Giving the AF a % PG bonus to assault launchers would give people a choice of flying a boat that could take down a nano bs or flying a cruiser to fill another role.
Should point out that i fly caldari ships a lot so see this from both sides however bringing this subject up with minmatar milita folk was, err, not positive. |
yani dumyat
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 23:28:00 -
[64]
OK, went in game and tested the numbers, gonna support this.
Given that nowt's likely to happen soon though i'm off to fit a cerb with assault launchers and see how long it takes me to come home in a pod. 
Have fun all |
waristina
Amarr
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.01 01:11:00 -
[65]
must admit I fully endorse this thread, precision heavy missiles need to be addressed. Sooner rather than later if possible |
Sir Ibex
|
Posted - 2008.07.01 02:25:00 -
[66]
/supported |
Maus Bailey
International House of PWNCakes
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.07.01 06:37:00 -
[67]
signed. |
Darth Vaders
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.01 08:57:00 -
[68]
Yes it's me again.... "the troll" as you had named me.
I decided to support this idea since i plan to go Caldari for HAC since i plan to go for ECM after that.
So i vote yes cause i am a selfish bastard after all. |
Miyamoto Shigesuke
Jugis Modo Utopia
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.07.01 10:02:00 -
[69]
I agree wholeheartedly.
|
Shianeer Salvan
Jugis Modo Utopia
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.07.01 10:04:00 -
[70]
/signed
|
Chani Moonkeeper
|
Posted - 2008.07.01 10:06:00 -
[71]
agree
|
Shiny Copperpot
Jugis Modo Utopia
|
Posted - 2008.07.01 10:07:00 -
[72]
I support this idea. |
Molock Saronen
|
Posted - 2008.07.01 11:17:00 -
[73]
|
ArmyOfMe
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.07.01 21:46:00 -
[74]
This belongs on the top for the damn csm to read and for once try to understand that there actually are caldari pvp'ers as well in this game, and that this would go a long way in actually making caldari missile boats somewhat usefull in gangs
|
Ulstan
Caldari
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 14:52:00 -
[75]
Sadly I don't think there are any caldari PvP'ers on the CSM. If the Nighthawk issue is anything to go by, the CSM will just say "lolcaldari - go pve" and vote it down.
|
Lucai
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 15:33:00 -
[76]
Sounds good.
|
Ranamar
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 18:07:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Ranamar on 02/07/2008 18:09:34
Originally by: Lucai
Edited by: Lucai on 02/07/2008 15:42:47
Hm. On second thought im undecided, what about precision heavy assault missiles then to make it fair? 
There are no precision rockets or torpedoes, either.
quickedit: I'm not saying there should be, I'm merely observing that such a missile class is not present in the other short-range missile classes.
|
Lucai
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 19:52:00 -
[78]
Im not entirely sure, either.
But while precision heavies should obviously be fixed, doing only that puts a strong disincentive on using heavy assault launchers.
E.g. torpedoes obviously have their own role compared to cruise missiles. With heavy assault missiles i dont see it that clearly.
Admittedly i have T2 HAMs trained, in addition to T2 HMs, and see myself more or less only using them on hulls which have boni for them already. If precision heavies were fixed i personally wouldnt e.g. ever fit HAMs on a drake or such. So less variety.
Heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles are more or less meant to hit cruiser sized targets. Now many cruiser sized targets travel quite fast these days, resulting in both missiles types often not being adequate for the task.
An increase of both heavy missile types' explosion velocity maybe? Plus fixing precision of course. Thus a no from me for only fixing precision ones.
|
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 20:57:00 -
[79]
HAMs Grid is a much larger problem than any other stat about them, TBH. The grid they consume just cripples some Caldari ships that would be happy to use them.
Anyways, I would not personally be in favor of a "precision" style variant of any T2 unguided missile. Its out of flavor and unnecessary. HAM drakes can dump 600dps into a target at warp disruption range - all the while being more agile than a Harbinger and still sporting a very large buffer tank. The ability to hit distant or fast ships is a worthy trade for the sum odd 25% DPS increase from HAMs. T2 HAMs also have Javelins, which allow them to play the mini-HML game and is in line with the other short range weapon system Long Range T2 Ammo.
Fixing Rage/Fury missiles should be done along with fixing all other broken T2 ammo. In the case of precisions, at least, its a normally good ammo thats just ********ly broken at a specific tier.
|
Varilinda
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 19:18:00 -
[80]
Yep fix em
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 15:30:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Ulstan
Sadly I don't think there are any caldari PvP'ers on the CSM. If the Nighthawk issue is anything to go by, the CSM will just say "lolcaldari - go pve" and vote it down.
You are very wrong Ulstan. I love my caldari ships for pvp and if I was allowed to post killboard links on the forums I'd be happy to prove it.
I voted for the Nighthawk Issue and I'm voting for this Issue too.
Support.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Warmal Thunker
Tacos Revolution
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 18:16:00 -
[82]
Has got my vote!
|
Bleedingthrough
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 18:25:00 -
[83]
/this needs a fix!
|
Threv Echandari
K Directorate
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 16:10:00 -
[84]
/signed
Caldarip PvP needs a little love, yes I use ECM but ECM doesn't get the Final Blow LOLsauce, and the Precisions are good place to start.
(Don't give a Crap about PvE TBH )
Happiness is a Wet Pod
|
Roger Douglas
Infinite Improbability Inc
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 16:13:00 -
[85]
Agree. Fixing T2 variant missles to combat nanoships, or at least making them more effective would go a long way to rebalancing the nano issue, given the large population of caldari and missle skill based characters in game.
|
PirceHat
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 00:34:00 -
[86]
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 16:36:00 -
[87]
Was successfully voted through the CSM so its going to be on the next formal agenda for discussions with CCP.
(and tbh I'd love to have a second run at that Nighthawk vote if somebody can find a way to address the issue again).
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Amoun Ra
Caldari Assault Fleet
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 17:09:00 -
[88]
totally supported.
Show some PvP love for the caldari CCP |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 17:16:00 -
[89]
We did 
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 22:40:00 -
[90]
Talk about your tight votes >_>
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |