Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 29 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
|
CCP Nozh
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 12:55:00 -
[361]
Small update:
We changed the interceptor signature radius bonus to "15% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty per level". So, it'll make speed tanking with a MWD a lot easier, it will however still be a bit better to use an afterburner if you're aiming for minimum damage.
Medium drones were tracking small targets a bit too well. So we increased their optimal signature radius to 125 and increased their tracking by a factor of 1.6x, resulting in an overall -23.2% reduction in effective tracking. The improvement was quite noticeable, we were still able to use them to kill frigates, but it took a while longer.
These changes should become available on Singularity later today.
Next up:
We're testing ships with MWD, missile precision and explosion velocity bonuses to see whether they need any tweaking.
Nozh Game Designer CCP Games |
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 13:11:00 -
[362]
Originally by: CCP Nozh We're testing ships with MWD, missile precision and explosion velocity bonuses to see whether they need any tweaking.
Sounds good.
Hmmm... the Nighthawk has a precision bonus... any chance of a quick look at its powergrid and its ability to fit a gang mod, please? |
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 13:16:00 -
[363]
Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 23/10/2008 13:17:11 Can you take a look at unguided missiles damage vs same ship class (like HAM vs cruisers and torps vs BS, rcokets vs frigs)? Heard there were some problems (with explo radius of missiles being too high to deal good damage on comparable target and guided precission not working on them).
Also is it possible to review rockets? Especially their damage. Due to short range and low damage (not that much higher than standards) they arent too appealing for frig combat.
EDIT: and not exactly only missile problem but... destroyers and interdictors need help badly |
Opertone
Caldari SIEGE. United Legion
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 14:00:00 -
[364]
feedback:
i am a dedicated raven pilot, i know how to push my ship to the limits
having tested a few lvl 4 missions on SiSi server, i come to conclusion that completing a challenging mission such as enemies abound 1 of 5 is technically impossible after you have lost your small drones.
i equipped my raven with 3x cruise missiles 3x torpedo launchers and 2 small neutron blaster turrets to see which weapon system would perform best in the mission
cruise missiles deliver 10 DMG, torpedoes do 8 DMG, neutron blasters miss very very often despite decent skills and a target painter.
I tried unconventional approach and brought 2 TP-900 and 1 SW-900 with me, they were supposed to be web and paint small targets so that my primary weapon systems may have a better chance vs the target
sadly, EA 1 of 5 is set to autoarggo all drones, when the drones are dead there is nothing you can do with delta support frigate 1... not with missiles, not with target painting, not even the blasters kill these things.
supposed that you loose all your drones due to drone aggro, you remain web and scrammed for the rest of the day, since missiles, which used to do about 40-80 damage to the targets which were properly painted now only do 10 DGM!
IMHO, fitting a tackle gear on a shield tanking ship is not very viable, but may be the only possible way
my way of vision of residual weapon hard points, such as turret slots on BS sized missile ships is that they serve some kind of 'rear turret', meant to track and shoot down little things, not normally catchable with big weapon systems
same applies to turret ships with extra missile hardpoints, mount sub sized weapon class to counter the frigate threat.
just in case your drones don't work, you will struggle to take down an interceptor and may even bail for help.
previously with triple TP drones, and navy torpedoes i could deliver up to 100 DGM per shot on the interceptors, and even full 300 DMG when they were using microwarp drive boost.
BIG guns do underdamage the NPCs now |
Esheleen
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 14:01:00 -
[365]
Given all the time that CCP are spending on fine tuning missiles and drones is it safe to assume that they have now decided that the underlying speed nerf is going ahead or is CCP actually going to revisit any of this based on the 90 pages of feedback saying its a bad thing? |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 14:15:00 -
[366]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 23/10/2008 14:15:37
Originally by: Esheleen Given all the time that CCP are spending on fine tuning missiles and drones is it safe to assume that they have now decided that the underlying speed nerf is going ahead or is CCP actually going to revisit any of this based on the 90 pages of feedback saying its a bad thing?
Yes, they have chosen to simply keep it as is, unmodified, and ignore feedback.
There's a very good discussion in the blaster thread of the consequences this has on non-nano ships.
|
Opertone
Caldari SIEGE. United Legion
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 14:24:00 -
[367]
feedback 2:
i have equipped my raven with a stasis webifier, 3 cruise 3 torp 1 gattling autocannon and 1 electron blaster
cruise missiles does 18 DMG against webbed intercepter which is going 180 m/s now, before it was 450 m/s
torpedo does 16 DGM
the autocannon never misses the target, consistently delivery 10-12 DMG, while electron blaster misses every hit, with occasional 130 DMG wrecking hits
i needed to reloaded missile launchers twice to take the said interceptor into structure, wasting over 200 cruise munitions to take down a small ship isn't very practical.
i suggest that BS ship get rear turret bonus, it's the only way that they can kill smaller targets effectively and it does not ruin PVP
PS: small ships do indeed tank bigger ships very well... it's been 15 minutes now |
Semoria Jeekund
Order of the Imbapala
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 14:50:00 -
[368]
Originally by: Opertone i suggest that BS ship get rear turret bonus, it's the only way that they can kill smaller targets effectively and it does not ruin PVP
Dunno... drones?
|
Opertone
Caldari SIEGE. United Legion
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 15:03:00 -
[369]
a little more testing
firing upon frigate sized targets with SIEGE and CRUISE launcher is impractical, the target instantly reps back on.
In missions drones do get shot down by non aggroing NPCs, so using 5 tech 2 small drones would involve a lot of juggling with launch drones and return to drone bay commands.
Raven is not doing too well with BS sized missiles and frigate sized autocanons, if you web your target and focus your firepower it may take as long as 10 minutes to break its tank.
However 2 gattling t2 autocanons still manage to kill the target very slowly, i suggest that BS ships get some sort of bonus to small weapon systems in order to complement to their survival ability.
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 15:16:00 -
[370]
Edited by: Murina on 23/10/2008 15:24:27
Originally by: Opertone
However 2 gattling t2 autocanons still manage to kill the target very slowly, i suggest that BS ships get some sort of bonus to small weapon systems in order to complement to their survival ability.
What about dropping a cruise launcher or two for one that can fire the missiles that are now designed for killing small ships as missiles are where your chars SP are mostly based?.
And maybe fitting a larger gun to add to the dmg to larger ships dished out by your remaining cruise launchers.
|
|
Vigaz
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 15:31:00 -
[371]
Originally by: CCP Fendahl We have finished the next round of missile tweaks both for T1 and T2 missiles. The T2 missiles have been overhauled significantly:
Rage/fury now do significantly more damage to larger targets (up to 28% more) compared to T1 missiles, but do very poor damage against targets of the same class and lower (if they are speed tanking).
....
Torpedo is a BS weapon, and there is not a sub capital ship bigger than a BS. Are Rage Torpedos intended as anti capital weapon?
New attributes: sig 650m2 and exp velocity 61m/s
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 15:37:00 -
[372]
Originally by: Vigaz
Originally by: CCP Fendahl We have finished the next round of missile tweaks both for T1 and T2 missiles. The T2 missiles have been overhauled significantly:
Rage/fury now do significantly more damage to larger targets (up to 28% more) compared to T1 missiles, but do very poor damage against targets of the same class and lower (if they are speed tanking).
....
Torpedo is a BS weapon, and there is not a sub capital ship bigger than a BS. Are Rage Torpedos intended as anti capital weapon?
New attributes: sig 650m2 and exp velocity 61m/s
I think they're intended to require painter and web support. But yeah, most T2 high-damage ammo is generally best used against the class of ship larger than it.
PWNAGE at Sig Foc IV gives 36% sig boost, so a sufficiently-webbed and painted non-ABing BS with pre-painter sig 477 m will take full damage from them. |
Crellion
Art of War Exalted.
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 15:43:00 -
[373]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 23/10/2008 15:24:27
Originally by: Opertone
However 2 gattling t2 autocanons still manage to kill the target very slowly, i suggest that BS ships get some sort of bonus to small weapon systems in order to complement to their survival ability.
What about dropping a cruise launcher or two for one that can fire the missiles that are now designed for killing small ships as missiles are where your chars SP are mostly based?.
And maybe fitting a larger gun to add to the dmg to larger ships dished out by your remaining cruise launchers.
Yeah this is definately theanswer. 4xCruiseII 3xrocket launchersII 1xLneut Blaster make CNR shine. Raven will find it difficult tofit 3xassault launchers but then it has 1 more blaster for the BSs...
Murina you are derranged....
Arguably my opinions represent to an extent the opinions of my alliance and in particular circumstances give rise to a valid "casus belli" claim. |
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 15:49:00 -
[374]
Originally by: Crellion
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Opertone
However 2 gattling t2 autocanons still manage to kill the target very slowly, i suggest that BS ships get some sort of bonus to small weapon systems in order to complement to their survival ability.
What about dropping a cruise launcher or two for one that can fire the missiles that are now designed for killing small ships as missiles are where your chars SP are mostly based?.
And maybe fitting a larger gun to add to the dmg to larger ships dished out by your remaining cruise launchers.
Yeah this is definately the answer. 4xCruiseII 3xrocket launchersII 1xLneut Blaster make CNR shine. Raven will find it difficult tofit 3xassault launchers but then it has 1 more blaster for the BSs...
Murina you are derranged....
I do not remember recommending a specific fit, just giving a suggestion so if you do not like it or it does not work cos you have tested all the options do not use it. |
Grim Vandal
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 16:34:00 -
[375]
imo the explosion radius of cruise missiles is way too good ...
400m explosion radius (without skills) seems better ... instead of the current 300m (with skills even less) which will murder cruisers.
Greetings Grim |
Rip Striker
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 16:42:00 -
[376]
The current missile changes reflect a distinct separation between what launchers to use for what targets. That is a good thing!
However, in the context of level 4 missions, the current missile solution doesn't work. This is not due to the missile changes, rather, this is due to the fact that level 4 missions involves killing too many frigate sized ships. Imo, level 4 missions should not contain any frigates at all. I believe this problem can easily be solved by converting a large portion of the frigates into cruisers (level 4 missions).
Fly safe!
|
Opertone
Caldari SIEGE. United Legion
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 16:43:00 -
[377]
how about +100% dmg bonus to 'rear turret'?
in many other space sim games, BS aren't capable of defending themselves from small craft, so they employ a small array of turrets to shoot the little buggers.
'rear turret' is some subclass weapon system, like small turret, specifically designed to take out little ships.
'complementary launcher' is a launcher for hitting small targets, rocket launcher, assault launcher maximum.
|
Rip Striker
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 16:45:00 -
[378]
Originally by: Grim Vandal imo the explosion radius of cruise missiles is way too good ...
400m explosion radius (without skills) seems better ... instead of the current 300m (with skills even less) which will murder cruisers.
Have you checked the explosion velocity of cruise missiles? Cruisers with an AB going roughly 500 m/s will decimate cruise missile damage (meaning 1/10th damage), regardless of explosion radius.
Fly Safe!
|
Opertone
Caldari SIEGE. United Legion
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 17:04:00 -
[379]
raven gets +100% to rear turret bonus, be it small blaster, autocannon or railgun
Megathron gets +100% to complementary launcher bonus, which can be rocket launcher, standard launcher or even assault launcher
|
oilio
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 17:56:00 -
[380]
Originally by: Opertone raven gets +100% to rear turret bonus, be it small blaster, autocannon or railgun
Megathron gets +100% to complementary launcher bonus, which can be rocket launcher, standard launcher or even assault launcher
I think that's a bad idea.
Missiles are being balanced for PvP. Adding a "rear turret" that can take frigates out upsets the PvP balance again - BSs can kill small ships more easily.
CCP - with their usual lack of competence - forgot that changing missile stats really makes a mess of PvE mission running! What a surprise!
The solution is to make changes to the mission rats. Either make the mission frigates more susceptible to large missiles (thereby restoring the balance back to what it is on TQ now) or swap the frigates for cruisers as was mentioned earlier.
Let's hope they do something about it, because if the missile changes go onto TQ as they are now, and if there's no adjustment to the PvE situation, there will be HELL TO PAY!
I actually hope they DON'T address the PvE issue, because there will be such amazing drama - I drool at the thought of such rage being vented upon CCP! |
|
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 18:11:00 -
[381]
Edited by: Hyveres on 23/10/2008 18:11:34
Originally by: oilio I actually hope they DON'T address the PvE issue, because there will be such amazing drama - I drool at the thought of such rage being vented upon CCP!
Any smart caldari missionrunner should be close to owning nightmare anyway.
From what I am seeing it will be better even when facing angels than anything the caldari has in their lineup. |
oilio
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 18:25:00 -
[382]
Originally by: Hyveres Edited by: Hyveres on 23/10/2008 18:11:34
Originally by: oilio I actually hope they DON'T address the PvE issue, because there will be such amazing drama - I drool at the thought of such rage being vented upon CCP!
Any smart caldari missionrunner should be close to owning nightmare anyway.
From what I am seeing it will be better even when facing angels than anything the caldari has in their lineup.
I thought nightmare was a laser ship?
Do you mean nighthawk? Nighthawk will probably be good, but I don't understand how missile skills will be useful when flying a nightmare. |
oilio
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 18:41:00 -
[383]
Originally by: Hyveres but then why stick to an obsolete weapon system when a few million SP in gunnery gives you access to a better one.
Well yes... but if missiles are going to be obsolete as a result of these changes, then my statement stands - there will be hell to pay.
Anyway, I run missions in a nighthawk. Ran L4s in a drake before that (don't even have BS skill on my mission running character), so it makes little difference to me...
...but I REALLY look forward to the fireworks once the CNR and Golem runners get a whiff of what's happened to their lovely mission ships |
Rip Striker
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 19:26:00 -
[384]
Edited by: Rip Striker on 23/10/2008 19:33:37 I consider myself a heavy missile user (Caracal, Drake, Cerberus, Nighthawk) which is why I have been following the missile changes taking place. These are my latest findings on Singularity.
Since the Nighthawk is supposed to be the "best" of the four mentioned ships in taking out cruisers I have choosen it for my test. For this purpose I have fitted the Nighthawk with a warhead rigor and a warhead flare rig. In combination with my skills, command ships 4 - guided missile precision 4 - target navigation prediction 4, this is what I get when checking attributes of a T1 missile, a T2 fury, and a T2 precision:
__Missile type________Expl rad_______Expl vel_____ ____T1_______________100 m________179 m/s______ ____T2 fury___________172 m________215 m/s______ ____T2 prec___________89 m_________146 m/s______
Consider the target being a cruiser with a signature radius of approximately 150 m and a speed of approximately 500 m/s (afterburner). Clearly, heavy missile explosion radius is in general lower than the signature radius of cruisers and thus missile damage depending on expl/sig radius will not be affected. However, the target speed will definately affect the damage. According to Stafen, who has performed extensive tests, the damage depends on the missile explosion velocity and the target speed as the following:
(Expl_vel/target_speed)^0.63
Inserting the numbers I gave above gives that a cruiser with AB speed can reduce the incoming missile damage up to 55% (before resists are applied). Imo this sounds a bit too much, since I was under the impression that a ship fitted with a single AB without any speed mods should not be able to speed tank.
This brings me to the Nighthawk's missile precision bonus. As the Nighthawk is supposed to be the "best of the best" heavy missile ships, its bonuses should reflect that. Currently, the missile precision bonus makes absolutely NO difference in how smaller ships, i. e. cruisers, are affected.
If the Nighthawk should have some kind of bonus related to taking out smaller ships than itself, it should clearly be a target navigation prediction bonus.
Fly safe!
EDIT: Note how the T2 precision missile has the lowest explosion velocity.
|
Nalshiga Dshoayo
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 20:03:00 -
[385]
think so too... the nighthawk already sucks in PvP... with these changes, it seems heavy missile users are screwed.
this sounds less and less like a speed nerf and more and more like a missile nerf to me...
as if we needed any more of that. CALDARI and PvP was already bad
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 20:33:00 -
[386]
Originally by: Nalshiga Dshoayo think so too... the nighthawk already sucks in PvP... with these changes, it seems heavy missile users are screwed.
this sounds less and less like a speed nerf and more and more like a missile nerf to me...
as if we needed any more of that. CALDARI and PvP was already bad
No, they weren't. Caldari is my preferred PVP race on TQ. I'm immensely unhappy with this whole nerf. In the end, I'm going to lose three 35M SP characters over it (I think my Caldari missile alt is nearing 40M right now?). However, I have to admit the beautiful irony of the situation: Caldari whiners kept telling nano pilots (and then blaster, and then minnie, and then and then and then) to stfu and adapt, and now it's their turn to face Oblivion.
This entire patch should be scrapped and reapproached from the ground up.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire Liang/Vanesca - Order/Iron Rock@WAR www.kwikdeath.org |
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 20:35:00 -
[387]
Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 23/10/2008 14:15:37
Originally by: Esheleen Given all the time that CCP are spending on fine tuning missiles and drones is it safe to assume that they have now decided that the underlying speed nerf is going ahead or is CCP actually going to revisit any of this based on the 90 pages of feedback saying its a bad thing?
Yes, they have chosen to simply keep it as is, unmodified, and ignore feedback.
There's a very good discussion in the blaster thread of the consequences this has on non-nano ships.
Seriously, it's pretty obvious that CCP wants to **** their game over and completely remake it. How do you find the energy to fight this nerf anymore, Branko?
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire Liang/Vanesca - Order/Iron Rock@WAR www.kwikdeath.org |
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 20:37:00 -
[388]
Edited by: Murina on 23/10/2008 20:37:59
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Esheleen Given all the time that CCP are spending on fine tuning missiles and drones is it safe to assume that they have now decided that the underlying speed nerf is going ahead or is CCP actually going to revisit any of this based on the 90 pages of feedback saying its a bad thing?
Yes, they have chosen to simply keep it as is, unmodified, and ignore feedback.
There's a very good discussion in the blaster thread of the consequences this has on non-nano ships.
Seriously, it's pretty obvious that CCP wants to **** their game over and completely remake it. How do you find the energy to fight this nerf anymore, Branko?
-Liang
Its interesting that EVE became a game with such a high player base with speed in it and pvp being considerably different to pve and yet now they want to change it so fundamentally.
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 20:46:00 -
[389]
Originally by: Murina Its interesting that EVE became a game with such a high player base with speed in it and pvp being considerably different to pve and yet now they want to change it so fundamentally.
They're fundamentally changing the face of Eve, and the only parts that they're leaving are really the parts that I don't like. - Horrible UI - Horrible PVE experience - Excruciating death penalty (See crushingly brutally bad PVE experience) - Balance decisions that encourage a blobbing metagame (this is hard to avoid but it *CAN BE DONE*)
Bah.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire Liang/Vanesca - Order/Iron Rock@WAR www.kwikdeath.org |
oilio
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 20:59:00 -
[390]
Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 23/10/2008 14:15:37
Originally by: Esheleen Given all the time that CCP are spending on fine tuning missiles and drones is it safe to assume that they have now decided that the underlying speed nerf is going ahead or is CCP actually going to revisit any of this based on the 90 pages of feedback saying its a bad thing?
Yes, they have chosen to simply keep it as is, unmodified, and ignore feedback.
There's a very good discussion in the blaster thread of the consequences this has on non-nano ships.
But don't you see the amazing comedy in all this?
Assuming the nerf goes ahead in the form it appears to have on Sisi, it's going to upset:
Blaster BS pilots. Minmatar BS pilots. Sacrilege pilots. Interceptor pilots. Anyone who flew nano. A great majority of missile users. A VAST majority of CNR mission runners. ...probably some others too.
THERE'S SOMETHING IN IT FOR EVERYONE!!!
The missile adjustments don't seem to have made things better at all.
Couple this with the other contraversial issues currently upsetting the community, and EVE isn't dying - it's DEAD! It just doesn't know it yet.
CCP couldn't have done a worse job if they had taken an axe to the server cluster. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 29 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |