EVE Search - Missile changes

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Missile changes

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Salvar Ar'adim State Property	Posted - 2008.08.12 22:46:00 - [1] what exactly is CCP looking into with regard to the missile changes mentioned in the thread about the temp removal of the nano nerf from SISI? ______ Salvar Ar'Adim [RLLUP]State Property Originally by: CCP Wrangler Get Chribba to publically denounce Veldspar, then we can start discussing winning EVE...
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.08.12 22:48:00 - [2] I believe it's the ability for missiles to do absurd amounts of damage to ships much smaller than they should be able to. It could also be related to the web nerf that makes missiles the only choice for point blank gankage. -Liang -- I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Salvar Ar'adim State Property	Posted - 2008.08.12 23:10:00 - [3] Originally by: Liang Nuren I believe it's the ability for missiles to do absurd amounts of damage to ships much smaller than they should be able to. It could also be related to the web nerf that makes missiles the only choice for point blank gankage. -Liang I got that "nerf" feeling when I read that, maybe they are brining them in line with other short range systems? ______ Salvar Ar'Adim [RLLUP]State Property Originally by: CCP Wrangler Get Chribba to publically denounce Veldspar, then we can start discussing winning EVE...
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.08.12 23:16:00 - [4] Originally by: Salvar Ar'adim I got that "nerf" feeling when I read that, maybe they are brining them in line with other short range systems? I can't say that I'm particularly surprised, tbh. I'm a bit sad (because I have Caldari BS5 and I'm in perfect position to take advantage of this surprise boost), but OTOH, I have Gallente and Matari BS5 too. The way that missiles were taking over the close range gank role was really unbelievable. There wasn't alot of point in flying either of those race's BS's with this patch. kAh well, live and learn, eh? Maybe they'll leave missiles alive. I hope so. I'm wondering what kind of PVE nerf it will be? -Liang -- I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Kazu Bat	Posted - 2008.08.12 23:17:00 - [5] Originally by: Liang Nuren I believe it's the ability for missiles to do absurd amounts of damage to ships much smaller than they should be able to. It could also be related to the web nerf that makes missiles the only choice for point blank gankage. -Liang Kinda of funny that a missile the size of the ship it's being fired at, that if it hits them it will barely does anything? That's why interceptors would probably still be able to outrun heavy missiles and cruise missiles.
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.08.13 00:23:00 - [6] Originally by: Kazu Bat Kinda of funny that a missile the size of the ship it's being fired at, that if it hits them it will barely does anything? That's why interceptors would probably still be able to outrun heavy missiles and cruise missiles. Well, I suppose that we could have missiles deal full damage to everything 100% of the time kif it makes you feel better about Eve's realism. Alternatively, you could look at it as the guidance system on the missile not being sufficiently sensitive to find such a small target. Part of cramming more payload into the missile head I guess. -Liang -- I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Kazu Bat	Posted - 2008.08.13 00:28:00 - [7] Edited by: Kazu Bat on 13/08/2008 00:28:39 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Kazu Bat Kinda of funny that a missile the size of the ship it's being fired at, that if it hits them it will barely does anything? That's why interceptors would probably still be able to outrun heavy missiles and cruise missiles. Well, I suppose that we could have missiles deal full damage to everything 100% of the time kif it makes you feel better about Eve's realism. Alternatively, you could look at it as the guidance system on the missile not being sufficiently sensitive to find such a small target. Part of cramming more payload into the missile head I guess. -Liang People will just use target painters to help guide them that way.
Synapse Archae Amarr Demonic Retribution Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.08.13 00:51:00 - [8] Does anyone else think it may be a sign of a broken system when a missile nerf is automatically also a PVE nerf? Originally by: CCP Garthagk While these forums may not give you everything that you want, they will usually let you post.
FlameGlow Caldari State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.08.13 01:01:00 - [9] Originally by: Synapse Archae Does anyone else think it may be a sign of a broken system when a missile nerf is automatically also a PVE nerf? Does anyone else think it may be a sign of a broken system when missiles are not even considered for anything other then PVE? _____________ I don't care what is nerfed, as long as it's not my "undock" button.
Kazu Bat	Posted - 2008.08.13 01:14:00 - [10] Edited by: Kazu Bat on 13/08/2008 01:14:14 Originally by: FlameGlow Originally by: Synapse Archae Does anyone else think it may be a sign of a broken system when a missile nerf is automatically also a PVE nerf? Does anyone else think it may be a sign of a broken system when missiles are not even considered for anything other then PVE? 100% agreed with you.
murder one Gallente Invincible Reason	Posted - 2008.08.13 01:59:00 - [11] Originally by: FlameGlow Originally by: Synapse Archae Does anyone else think it may be a sign of a broken system when a missile nerf is automatically also a PVE nerf? Does anyone else think it may be a sign of a broken system when missiles are not even considered for anything other then PVE? I use missiles for PVP all the time, WTF are you talking about? [07:13:55] doctorstupid2 > what do i train now? [07:14:05] Trista Rotnor > little boys to 2 Fleet Combat Ships
Salvar Ar'adim State Property	Posted - 2008.08.13 02:16:00 - [12] Originally by: murder one Originally by: FlameGlow Originally by: Synapse Archae Does anyone else think it may be a sign of a broken system when a missile nerf is automatically also a PVE nerf? Does anyone else think it may be a sign of a broken system when missiles are not even considered for anything other then PVE? I use missiles for PVP all the time, WTF are you talking about? same... missiles are great for pvp and would be one of the best weapon systems if the proposed changes went through. The question is are these new mysterious changes to help missiles against nanos in lieu of a nano nerf or is it because CCP feels they will be too powerful because of the nano nerf.... or something in between ______ Salvar Ar'Adim [RLLUP]State Property Originally by: CCP Wrangler Get Chribba to publically denounce Veldspar, then we can start discussing winning EVE...
khosta	Posted - 2008.08.13 02:55:00 - [13] I have been shocked by the unbelievable arrogance of (large numbers of) Caldari pilots thinking it quite reasonable to have the highest damage battleship from 0km to 30km, even suggesting that perhaps blaster pilots should use lower damage ammo, or Null only etc. Good job CCP backing away from making too many major changes at once. I strongly suggest adding a tracking disruption script that screws with missiles in the same way as guns. I always suspected a nerf too far on gunnery would expose the overpowereed nature of some missiles, especially torps. Quite pleased to get it right, didnt even need graphs and numbers to prove it Best of all, im pleased CCP are both responding and looking like adopting the fine tuning approach instead of hack 'n slash
Letrange Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium	Posted - 2008.08.13 03:27:00 - [14] Edited by: Letrange on 13/08/2008 03:27:43 Oh it's still a (much needed) hack, it'll just be a fined tuned hack. The interesting news is that basically this means that the actual speed changes will be in 2 months and 2 weeks. So plenty of fine tuning time. Course this also means that you've got 2months and 2 weeks or so to get the use out of any nano ships you've got in inventory if you thing you'll be changing ships after the changes.
Jim Raynor Caldari Shinra	Posted - 2008.08.13 04:04:00 - [15] Hilarious. So in other words, let's nerf missiles, which people hardly use outside PvE even more.. and let's not nerf speed, which is obviously out of control. I seriously hope I read that post in the wrong way because seriously WTF? Torpedoes are pretty damn gimpy vs smaller targets already.. why do they have to be even worse? Rockets need boosted in DPS, not nerfed. Heavy missiles need fixed, not nerfed. Heavy Assault launchers should be easier to fit (not on Sacs LOL), not nerfed. While I think blasters/autocannons could be boosted a bit in optimal (like why are pulse so good+long range and blasters/autocannons so gimp) but I don't think nerfing missiles is the answer.. but hey I'm just a stupid Caldari fanboi what do I know. In my opinion the speed nerf was too heavy handed, does base speed need nerfed? No. Does stacking of speed modules need nerfed? YES. Do snake sets? NO. Do polycarbs? YES. So nerf speed, nerf it to reasonable levels, don't cripple ships.. don't cripple MWDs.. I did like most of the speed changes, though I see no reason to make blasterthrons go any slower.. honestly the problem was mostly HACs/Recons.. while an overall speed nerf was OK I don't see why CCP had to nerf EVERYTHING. Just nerf what's broken.. ------ I'll make a sig later.
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.08.13 04:21:00 - [16] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 13/08/2008 04:23:50 Originally by: Jim Raynor Hilarious. So in other words, let's nerf missiles, which people hardly use outside PvE even more.. and let's not nerf speed, which is obviously out of control. You're reading it wrong. They're still nerfing speed... but the speed nerf exposed that missiles were wtf-bbq-pwn-sauce-leet-uber-omg overpowered on the test server. So if they nerf nanos... it is absolutely 100% unavoidable that they'll follow that up by nerfing missiles. Simply put, missiles completely dominated the field on test for all close range ganking. And long range ganking. Hell, the only things that stood a chance were Amarr BS's. Quote: I seriously hope I read that post in the wrong way because seriously WTF? Torpedoes are pretty damn gimpy vs smaller targets already.. why do they have to be even worse? Actually, torps were the worst offenders, as nothing over frigate size can actually survive. For example, a webbed Stabber can expect to receive a 76% damage reduction against a Raven's torps. This means that it will last about 40 seconds if you completely neglect drones. I guess a 76% damage reduction sounded good until you understand the numbers being thrown about in comparison with a cruiser's HP. On the flip side, it can relatively easily "speed tank" any turret based battleship inside web range. Quote: rabid rant about how missiles are woefully underpowered and very terrible. No dude. Missiles don't suck, and the problems with rockets extends to all short ranged frigate weapons systems. Frigates in general need a rethink. Hell, with the nano nerf, range in Eve overall will need a rethink. -Liang Edit: Also, I think it's hilarious how it's not fine to make blasterthrons go slower, but it must be perfectly fine to make the phoon heavier and less agile than a Hyperion?! Go go nerf bloody all matari ships until there's not a cotton picking one that's left worth flying!!!! Ed2: BTW, I'm not sure how you can get off claiming that missiles are at all underpowered. Hell, there's quite undeniable evidence that pretty much any missile system is vastly more powerful than it's projectile equivalent. See the Phoon: Only useful because it can mount torps + Drones. The AC's are almost irrelevant. -- I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Jim Raynor Caldari Shinra	Posted - 2008.08.13 04:55:00 - [17] Quote: Ed2: BTW, I'm not sure how you can get off claiming that missiles are at all underpowered. Hell, there's quite undeniable evidence that pretty much any missile system is vastly more powerful than it's projectile equivalent. See the Phoon: Only useful because it can mount torps + Drones. The AC's are almost irrelevant. I never said missiles were underpowered. I am saying they shouldn't be nerfed. I think blaster/autocannon range is way too low. I think having a battleship with a 2km optimal is *****ed. Torpedo/Pulse Laser range is superior and overall are more effective I agree.. but I think the answer is to boost blaster/autocannon range, not nerf torpedo/pulse laser range. You use a 'webbed' stabber in your argument, ok.. well if it's dumb enough to get into web range of a Raven it kind of deserves to get pummeled to death by torpedoes don't you think? Where are webbed Stabbers being missed by large turrets? If that is the case then webs should be stronger, give me examples though please. Now as for my 'rabid rant'. I think Rockets should use more DPS.. a Harpy with blasters does like 2x the DPS of a Hawk with kinetic rockets, kinda lame.. Precision Heavy Missiles have an incorrect explosive velocity, we all know that.. HAMs on Caldari ships is pretty gimp, might be because of low grid on some of the ships but still, they are still too hard to fit on many cruiser/battlecruisers (prob exluding Drake).. ------ I'll make a sig later.*
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.08.13 05:34:00 - [18] IMO: Torps are fine. Yes they do huge damage but only against Tier 3 BS without a Target Painter. They're also horrendously slow. Cruise Missiles however are way too versatile. Precision CMs especially rip smaller ships to shreds and are actually better at it than Precision Heavies in a lot of cases In fact Precision Missiles in general are flawed as their sole purpose is to do amplified damage vs smaller targets. If CCP don't want that then they should just remove them or change their role IMO. - Infectious -
Mikeel	Posted - 2008.08.13 05:43:00 - [19] Originally by: Liang Nuren I believe it's the ability for missiles to do absurd amounts of damage to ships much smaller than they should be able to. It could also be related to the web nerf that makes missiles the only choice for point blank gankage. -Liang Out of interest. How long have you actually played EVE ?
Jim Raynor Caldari Shinra	Posted - 2008.08.13 05:58:00 - [20] Originally by: Rawr Cristina Cruise Missiles however are way too versatile. Precision CMs especially rip smaller ships to shreds and are actually better at it than Precision Heavies in a lot of cases In fact Precision Missiles in general are flawed as their sole purpose is to do amplified damage vs smaller targets. If CCP don't want that then they should just remove them or change their role IMO. Precision Cruise are fine.. it's Precision Heavy that are broken. Are precision missiles flawed? I don't think so really, yeah they are for hitting smaller targets, you lose a lot of DPS and you are very vulnerable against other battleships as cruise in general don't pack enough punch to really go BS vs BS. Are missiles like turrets? In a lot of ways no. Should they be? ------ I'll make a sig later.
Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.08.13 07:00:00 - [21] Originally by: Jim Raynor Where are webbed Stabbers being missed by large turrets? If that is the case then webs should be stronger, give me examples though please. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=834365&page=15#424 and onwards. Originally by: Jim Raynor I think Rockets should use more DPS.. a Harpy with blasters does like 2x the DPS of a Hawk with kinetic rockets, kinda lame.. Hawk's range with faction rockets: 15km Hawk's range with Javelin rockets: 43km Harpy's range with neutron blasters and faction AM: 2.5km (+3.1km falloff) Harpy's range with Null: 6.3km (3.9km falloff) Yeah, well. Given that rockets have no tracking problems, it's obvious that they should be doing roughly the same theoretical damage as blasters. -- Gradient forum
Damned Force Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.08.13 07:05:00 - [22] Originally by: khosta I have been shocked by the unbelievable arrogance of (large numbers of) Caldari pilots thinking it quite reasonable to have the highest damage battleship from 0km to 30km, even suggesting that perhaps blaster pilots should use lower damage ammo, or Null only etc. Good job CCP backing away from making too many major changes at once. I strongly suggest adding a tracking disruption script that screws with missiles in the same way as guns. I always suspected a nerf too far on gunnery would expose the overpowereed nature of some missiles, especially torps. Quite pleased to get it right, didnt even need graphs and numbers to prove it Best of all, im pleased CCP are both responding and looking like adopting the fine tuning approach instead of hack 'n slash I have been shocked by the unbelievable arrogance of (large numbers of) Gallente pilots which are whinning every time if a gallente ship is not the ultimate wtfpwnship anymore. Domi was a wtfpwnship because nos+drones - lot of whining Eos was a wtfpwnship because nos+drones - lot of whining Myrm was a wtfpwnship because nos+drones - lot of whining Recons was a wtfpwnship because too powerfull dampeners - lot of whining ... ... ...
Damned Force Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.08.13 07:07:00 - [23] Edited by: Damned Force on 13/08/2008 07:07:29 Originally by: Theron Gyrow Hawk's range with faction rockets: 15km Hawk's range with Javelin rockets: 43km Harpy's range with neutron blasters and faction AM: 2.5km (+3.1km falloff) Harpy's range with Null: 6.3km (3.9km falloff) Yeah, well. Given that rockets have no tracking problems, it's obvious that they should be doing roughly the same theoretical damage as blasters.[:roll: U noticed the missile veloc and explo veloc on rockets? Even a AB ship could maybe escape the damage Not mentoined the dps is a small part of the blasterships. and maybe less than a half of a gallente AF
Tiggi Wrath Decadence. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.13 07:14:00 - [24] Edited by: Tiggi Wrath on 13/08/2008 07:15:56 since everyone else is forced to use medslots for trackingcomputers to hit the target, why not make Targetpainters requierd to hit small stuff with missles?
Forge Lag	Posted - 2008.08.13 07:18:00 - [25] So where are NOSes and dampeners today? Was there really no reason to complain? The frigate guns are ment to be hitting poorly due to tracking and falloff as frigates have very high mobility relative to gun ranges, lowering the gun damage considerably. That it is not the case is a fault of ridiculously strong webs that masked it (together with other issues). The only thing keeping missiles from dominating PvP is that they are useless in lot of cases. Don't you think there is something broken in game when you have to break something else to the point of making it useless to keep balance?
Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.08.13 08:01:00 - [26] Edited by: Theron Gyrow on 13/08/2008 08:01:45 Originally by: Damned Force Originally by: Theron Gyrow Hawk's range with faction rockets: 15km Hawk's range with Javelin rockets: 43km Harpy's range with neutron blasters and faction AM: 2.5km (+3.1km falloff) Harpy's range with Null: 6.3km (3.9km falloff) Yeah, well. Given that rockets have no tracking problems, it's obvious that they should be doing roughly the same theoretical damage as blasters. U noticed the missile veloc and explo veloc on rockets? Even a AB ship could maybe escape the damage In the future, I'd strongly recommend checking the facts before having an opinion. Faction rockets won't get any damage reduction before 3 km/s. Good luck getting any ship to that speed with ABs. And, well. How much damage do you expect a light blaster to do - at any range - against a target going 3 km/s? -- Gradient forum
AshtarDJ Filthy Scum	Posted - 2008.08.13 08:22:00 - [27] Originally by: Liang Nuren Actually, torps were the worst offenders, as nothing over frigate size can actually survive. For example, a webbed Stabber can expect to receive a 76% damage reduction against a Raven's torps. This means that it will last about 40 seconds if you completely neglect drones. I guess a 76% damage reduction sounded good until you understand the numbers being thrown about in comparison with a cruiser's HP. LOL 2 questions for ya (based on your example): 1. How many seconds would a webbed stabber survive under the fire of a blaster mega, or a pulse geddon (ouch) or even a AC tempy? 2. How many raven pilots fly arround with a webber fitted? Or even a taget painter (wich is necessary for the torps to do full dmg even on BSs)??? Nerf torps you say? I agree that some of the changes on SiSi are a bit silly (like the phoon's mass and the poor megas that are sitting ducks with no range) and I'm sure that CCP will tweak those numbers before they release the patch. As they stated, this patch will spend AT LEAST 1 month on sisi before they even think about putting it on TQ (that was 3 weeks ago). But nerfing missiles is not the solution...
Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.08.13 08:43:00 - [28] Originally by: AshtarDJ LOL 2 questions for ya (based on your example): 1. How many seconds would a webbed stabber survive under the fire of a blaster mega, or a pulse geddon (ouch) or even a AC tempy? Hmm... According to tests in SiSi as per the link I gave earlier on this thread, against a max-skilled Mega with tracking implants... Six and a half minutes, after which Stabber finally got killed by a bunch of wrecking hits. Oh, and that was a totally unfitted Stabber, no modules at all. Originally by: AshtarDJ 2. How many raven pilots fly arround with a webber fitted? Or even a taget painter (wich is necessary for the torps to do full dmg even on BSs)??? TP or TP drones? Any pilot who knows what he's doing. Webbers? Not really necessary after the patch, but probably a good idea. And yes, it can be done. Originally by: AshtarDJ Nerf torps you say? **** yes. (And I say that as one who trained from rudimentary missile skills and Caldari frigate I up to Caldari cruiser V, BS V + torp/HAM spec since torp boost and has flown Raven as his fleet BS / Drake as his fleet BC after that. They are just that good even now.) -- Gradient forum
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2008.08.13 13:09:00 - [29] anyway i dunno how unguided missiles are chasing their targets.
Seishomaru	Posted - 2008.08.13 14:12:00 - [30] Originally by: AshtarDJ Originally by: Liang Nuren Actually, torps were the worst offenders, as nothing over frigate size can actually survive. For example, a webbed Stabber can expect to receive a 76% damage reduction against a Raven's torps. This means that it will last about 40 seconds if you completely neglect drones. I guess a 76% damage reduction sounded good until you understand the numbers being thrown about in comparison with a cruiser's HP. LOL 2 questions for ya (based on your example): 1. How many seconds would a webbed stabber survive under the fire of a blaster mega, or a pulse geddon (ouch) or even a AC tempy? 2. How many raven pilots fly arround with a webber fitted? Or even a taget painter (wich is necessary for the torps to do full dmg even on BSs)??? 1.About forever if you discount the drones. Yes forever!!! 2.And how many ravens use cruise missiles that don't need any of those to fricking blow the afore mentioned stabber in 2 volleys? Its simple fact ! Anyoen that went to sisi could see missiles >>> everything else with the speed nerf and web reductions. I lost quite a few AB wolfs to cruise missile ravens in less than 3 volleys. That same ships would be able to orbit any other BS forever without taking any damage (as it should)

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.