These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

@CCP Tracking Disrupters to Apply to Missiles?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alara IonStorm
#21 - 2012-03-27 03:26:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Patri Andari wrote:

Based on your sudden moment of clarity I suggest you re read the OP

CCP plans to make tracking disrupters debuff missiles.Based on this alone I suggested they should add modules that enhance missiles.

Read the OP and understood it perfectly.
Patri Andari wrote:

If you have no objection to that.....

I have no objection to them adding the buffs, I have an objection to them adding and not balancing around them which brings me to why I am posting.
Patri Andari wrote:

why are you posting again?

Reason #1. Because when Daniel Plain brought up needing to rebalance missiles you incorrectly called it a straw man and ignored it. He is right they need to rebalance them.

Reason #2. You stated that you should balance around ships and modules themselves instead of how they should be used on all fields of game play. Changing things so buffs and debuffs line up on a spreadsheet without taking into account the greater gameplay effect hurts the game.

Reason #3. You asked "What say you?" at the end of your OP. I say I like the idea but they need to rebalance and can not just shove it in a new module effect without seeing how it will effect the game.
Cedo Nulli
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#22 - 2012-03-27 03:27:27 UTC
CCP seems to be abit mental ... "Lets give maller an updated model because thats surely fix it !"

now followed by: "Lets give missiles the long awaited graphics update and nerf the allready badly lacking weaponsystem into the ground with tracking disruptors being the new king of all mod"

Hooray !
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
#23 - 2012-03-27 03:30:43 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Patri Andari wrote:

Based on your sudden moment of clarity I suggest you re read the OP

CCP plans to make tracking disrupters debuff missiles.Based on this alone I suggested they should add modules that enhance missiles.

Read the OP and understood it perfectly.
Patri Andari wrote:

If you have no objection to that.....

I have no objection to them adding the buffs, I have an objection to them adding and not balancing around them which brings me to why I am posting.
Patri Andari wrote:

why are you posting again?

Reason #1. Because when Daniel Plain brought up needing to rebalance missiles you incorrectly called it a straw man and ignored it. He is right they need to rebalance them.

Reason #2. You stated that you should balance around ships and modules themselves instead of how they should be used on all fields of game play. Changing things so buffs and debuffs line up on a spreadsheet without taking into account the greater gameplay effect hurts the game.

Reason #3. You asked "What say you?" at the end of your OP. I say I like the idea but they need to rebalance and can not just shove it in a new module effect without seeing how it will effect the game.


Understood. Thank you for your input.

Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words. Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions. Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character. And character is everything. - author unknown
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
#24 - 2012-03-27 03:41:24 UTC
Also, I stand by my original evaluation of a strawman. The fallacy offered was that any plan to buff missiles by way of modules might make the systems OP without a rebalance.

While I may or may not agree with the premise offered by that observation it had nothing to do with my post. CCP plans to allow a module that exist ingame to debuff missile tracking. Based on that I suggested the need for modules to offset this.

David sought to critique the overall effects of such a buffing module in a vacuum as if the debuff was not on the table. This was the only focus of his post and call for balance. You may not think that a misrepresentation of my argument (a strawman) but I clearly do and quite understand the concept.

Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words. Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions. Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character. And character is everything. - author unknown
Alara IonStorm
#25 - 2012-03-27 03:54:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Patri Andari wrote:
Also, I stand by my original evaluation of a strawman. The fallacy offered was that any plan to buff missiles by way of modules might make the systems OP without a rebalance.

While I may or may not agree with the premise offered by that observation it had nothing to do with my post. CCP plans to allow a module that exist ingame to debuff missile tracking. Based on that I suggested the need for modules to offset this.

David sought to critique the overall effects of such a buffing module in a vacuum as if the debuff was not on the table. This was the only focus of his post and call for balance. You may not think that a misrepresentation of my argument (a strawman) but I clearly do and quite understand the concept.

Simply misrepresenting an argument does not a straw man make. A straw man is when you look at the argument and act like it is a different yet similar argument for the purpose of attacking it.

Yes he did take the debuff out of the argument and he did for a very specific reason. The targeted debuff doesn't play out in the same situations as a self buff when scaled. This leads to issues in scaled fights that have to be addressed as the debuff counter is ineffective and is a valid point to consider.

It is very similar to a straw man and if the debuff was just as effective as the buff in every situation it would be a straw man argument.
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
#26 - 2012-03-27 04:15:32 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Patri Andari wrote:
Also, I stand by my original evaluation of a strawman. The fallacy offered was that any plan to buff missiles by way of modules might make the systems OP without a rebalance.

While I may or may not agree with the premise offered by that observation it had nothing to do with my post. CCP plans to allow a module that exist ingame to debuff missile tracking. Based on that I suggested the need for modules to offset this.

David sought to critique the overall effects of such a buffing module in a vacuum as if the debuff was not on the table. This was the only focus of his post and call for balance. You may not think that a misrepresentation of my argument (a strawman) but I clearly do and quite understand the concept.

Simply misrepresenting an argument does not a straw man make. A straw man is when you look at the argument and act like it is a different yet similar argument for the purpose of attacking it.

Yes he did take the debuff out of the argument and he did for a very specific reason. The targeted debuff doesn't play out in the same situations as a self buff when scaled. This leads to issues in scaled fights that have to be addressed as the debuff counter is ineffective and is a valid point to consider.

It is very similar to a straw man and if the debuff was just as effective as the buff in every situation it would be a straw man argument.


"I disagree with your suggested counter to CCP's plans because I think it would make Missile systems OP BUT I also think CCP should not go ahead with this change without rebalancing missiles in general perhaps with an eye toward adding modules that offset the debuff"


^^ That is NOT a strawman argument. It also is a balanced approach that has credibility. What's more it is NOT what either of you said.

Instead of addressing the original concern, CCP making disrupters affect missiles with no eye toward balancing that module in the process, you simply attacked my proposed counter.

Not once have you suggested that CCP is marching into this without balance. No critique at all about the disease only that the cure is not a balanced approach. So do you have any thoughts on having disrupters debuff missiles...without any talk about re-balancing missiles or introducing modules to counter them or is that just fine by you, Strawman?

Also, Post with your (CCP) mainCool

Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words. Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions. Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character. And character is everything. - author unknown
Joyelle
SludgeSlingers
#27 - 2012-03-27 04:17:33 UTC
It's obvious that the reason why missiles in general have so many absurd penalties compared to turrets is because of pure damage selection. What is even more obvious is that turrets are much better especially when you take a look at large missile platforms (cruise and torps). They should be looked at sometime. I can't remember the last time I saw a raven in a pvp fleet. Who the hell flies BS nowadays excluding blaster boats?
Alara IonStorm
#28 - 2012-03-27 04:29:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Patri Andari wrote:

"I disagree with your suggested counter to CCP's plans because I think it would make Missile systems OP BUT I also think CCP should not go ahead with this change without rebalancing missiles in general perhaps with an eye toward adding modules that offset the debuff"


^^ That is NOT a strawman argument. It also is a balanced approach that has credibility. What's more it is NOT what either of you said.

No that isn't a straw man but neither is what the other guy said.
Patri Andari wrote:

Instead of addressing the original concern, CCP making disrupters affect missiles with no eye toward balancing that module in the process, you simply attacked my proposed counter.

No one attacked your proposed counter but said that further balance work to missiles would have to be done to implement it. The attack only exists in your head.
Patri Andari wrote:

Not once have you suggested that CCP is marching into this without balance. No critique at all about the disease only that the cure is not a balanced approach. So do you have any thoughts on having disrupters debuff missiles...without any talk about re-balancing missiles or introducing modules to counter them or is that just fine by you, Strawman?

This thread is not about TD's affecting missiles. We all understand that and have different opinions about this but this thread suggests of a counter to that. People are commenting on how said suggestion would be implemented. If you wanted a discussion thread on the TD Change and not your counter idea you should have posted 2 separate threads.

My opinion is that without counter a TD that effects Missiles is bad, directly buffing current missiles with a TC or TE is a mistake as the EWAR system doesn't scale well. Balance work should be done to the hulls that use missiles and / or the missiles themselves if CCP wants to add in this module effect.
Patri Andari wrote:

Also, Post with your (CCP) mainCool

Ugh This goes along well with your mistaken idea that people are attacking you.
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
#29 - 2012-03-27 04:50:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Patri Andari
Alara IonStorm wrote:

This thread is not about TD's affecting missiles. We all understand that and have different opinions about this but this thread suggests of a counter to that. People are commenting on how said suggestion would be implemented. If you wanted a discussion thread on the TD Change and not your counter idea you should have posted 2 separate threads.
.


Actually this thread is about TD's affecting missiles.(SEE TITLE) My proposed suggested counters were just that. Unrefined, knee jerk suggestions. Almost the same as CCP deciding to make this change in the first place. Somehow only two people did not get that. You are one of them.

I will pass on your offer to start two threads, but thanks. Somehow I think I will find all the discussion I need in this one,.

Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words. Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions. Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character. And character is everything. - author unknown
Alara IonStorm
#30 - 2012-03-27 04:57:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Patri Andari wrote:

Actually this thread is about TD's affecting missiles. My proposed suggested counters were just that. Unrefined, knee jerk suggestions. Almost the same as CCP deciding to make this change in the first place. Somehow only two people did not get that. You are one of them.

I don't mind not following the direction you hope the thread will take. If you wish to make unrefined knee jerk suggestions then expect people to discuss the implications of said suggestions.

If you want people to discuss only what you want them to discuss then it is 100% your fault for splitting the focus of the thread between a CCP critique and a knee jerk suggestion.
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
#31 - 2012-03-27 05:01:06 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Patri Andari wrote:

Actually this thread is about TD's affecting missiles. My proposed suggested counters were just that. Unrefined, knee jerk suggestions. Almost the same as CCP deciding to make this change in the first place. Somehow only two people did not get that. You are one of them.

I don't mind not following the direction you hope the thread will take. If you wish to make unrefined knee jerk suggestions expect people to discuss the implications of said suggestions.

If you want people to discuss only what you want them to discuss then it is 100% your fault for splitting the focus of the thread between a CCP critique and a knee jerk suggestion.


The only one splitting the focus is you. Bravo! Well done.

Now back to a discussion about tracking dirupters affecting missiles. I certainly hope no one else is confused by my evil powers of confusion.

Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words. Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions. Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character. And character is everything. - author unknown
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2012-03-27 05:49:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Sinigr Shadowsong
TD affecting missiles + approaching Drake nerf + potential 100ab Tengu nerfs (it's not matari so it will be nerfed sooner or later) will lead us to complete extinction of missiles in PvP enviroment. Caldari will become at level of Gallente but without caps/supers and without T2 frigs (lol Craptor/Harpy).
Also some rats use TD, if I recall right it's those who use Em/TM damage that might become realy hard to tank on new weakened Drake for new players and should be damaged by EM/TM (even profile Kinectic damage in missile boats is weak compared to gun ships).
Missiles are already weak with too much limitations. GL trying to kill even a Rifter with cruise missiles (even funnier with torps) while it will be insta-popped with Artis at 100+km.
Stabs McShiv
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2012-03-27 13:01:13 UTC
Rockets = Fine after the last buff no problems with rockets at all

Standards = Crap on smaller hulls needs a buff to range and fitting probably fixed via tiercide

Assaults = Downright awesome for some anti tackle work needs buff to fitting probably fixed via tiercide

Heavy = Great no problems at all one of the best weapons systems in the game

Heavy assault = Great no problems at all one of the best weapons systems in the game. Tiercide will probably fix them for calamari cruisers

Cruise = Crap for pvp really needs a look at. Maybe a massive velocity bonus with a flight time nerf might do the trick.

Torps = works fine with the stealth bombers due to bona. Works great in a small gang when you have webs and target painters or if you catch a large sig target. Torp phoon anyone? Crappy in large fleets due to flight time. Probably working as intended.

Capital Missiles work great on structures the levi is a pos popping beast . Not so good on moving targets might help to have a capital web or some mass addition module to help them a cap really should not be able to speed tank a seiged phoenix.

Target painters and webs both aid missile users as they do turret users also missile users can exploit their speed while approaching a target to get large dps gains.

I would wait for the next expansion before crying for buffs to the weapon system by the sounds of it a lot of caldari hulls will be getting boosts with tiercide.

I am still a little pissed that i can no longer bookmark a missile as it leaves the tube and warp into face melt range (was absolutely hilarious fun) but i guess they made the right call with that one.

A td effecting missiles? meh a new module would be better they can already be shot down with smart bombs and defenders if your feeling crazy. Buffing defenders would be a better option then you can have defender wars whoever has the most launchers gets to apply the dps! think of the lag we could make!
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#34 - 2012-03-27 17:26:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniel Plain
wow, there i am not looking at the forum for a day and i come back to a full frontal shitstorm. ok let me clarify my point

firstly, i have made two assumptions
1. if the change goes live, tracking disruptors will debuff missile flight time and/or missile velocity and/or explosion radius and/or explosion velocity. other debuffs (such as missiles 'missing' the target) might be considered but i don't regard them as probable
2. accordingly, the suggested buff to tracking enhancers would make them affect the same stats

now, assuming my assumptions are true, the tracking disruptor change would only affect small scale pvp situations (as in one drake versus one cane or somesuch) and only if one side has a tracking disruptor and the other one a missile boat (as well as the occasional mission runner who flies cnr or golem against sansha)

the assumed 'counterbuff' to tracking enhancers/computers on the other hand would increase the applied damage of missiles in almost all situations, (namely missions, plexes, rat belts, incursions, small scale pvp, blob pvp AND sleeper sites)

so, if the 'counterbuff' was introduced together with the actual tracking disruptor buff, missile boats would end up having a significant advantage in almost all situations, which in my opinion is not justified with regard to the current state of game balance.

I should buy an Ishtar.
Vircomore Amilupar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#35 - 2012-03-27 20:06:31 UTC
As someone who primarily runs missions - I can fully agree to both the ideas. For the longest time, Tracking Computers have been a fitting REQUIREMENT at least for laser BSs, and even then the perma-TDing Blood Raiders still cripple our ability to shoot anything.

It's about time the missle boats have to sit and suffer while waiting for their drones to kill off the TDing rats.
Noisrevbus
#36 - 2012-03-27 20:57:12 UTC
I'm pretty ambivalent to the whole thing, wether the change would be singlehandedly negative or not.

It does however reek of the typical poor judgement and sweeping band-aid approach we've seen far too much of lately. It's an attempt at adressing a very isolated issue of a single weapon-class, on specific ships under extreme circumstances.

Those particulars just happen to be quite popular due to larger environmental mechanics (which is what they should adress, instead of patching around it). As others have mentioned, there are larger implications as well for how the different systems are balanced and unique.

So, from a pure theoretical design-perspective, this is as pants-on as usual.

Wether the patch would be positive relief to current trend, i'll leave unsaid. I wouldn't mind a more unified way to deal with both upsized turrets and missiles at once, for my personal entertainment. The method is as poor as ever as a lasting implementation though.
Andrea Griffin
#37 - 2012-03-27 21:06:07 UTC
Kolya Medz wrote:
ughh more homoginizing...? Lets change the name to "Weapon Disruption Unit I" while we're at it.
This is exactly how I view the change. It's really quite ridiculous.

Just what we need - a more stale, homogenized, predictable combat environment. Snore. This seems to be the direction that Eve is being pulled toward lately and I'm not excited about that.

What ever happened to the rock / paper / scissors style of game design?

With this change interceptors will be utterly invincible to missiles.

CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer.
OfBalance
Caldari State
#38 - 2012-03-27 21:07:27 UTC  |  Edited by: OfBalance
Vircomore Amilupar wrote:
As someone who primarily runs missions - I can fully agree to both the ideas. For the longest time, Tracking Computers have been a fitting REQUIREMENT at least for laser BSs, and even then the perma-TDing Blood Raiders still cripple our ability to shoot anything.

It's about time the missle boats have to sit and suffer while waiting for their drones to kill off the TDing rats.


Let's take it one step further. Why are guns getting away with being able to function without gun rigs? Missile ships of all stripes need rigors, flares, bay thrusters, cache partitions, etc. to perform on the same level. Furthermore, how tragic is it that guns can 1-shot frigates while they mwd in at range where even heavy missiles need 2-3 volleys to do the same job? Guns charges should have explosive radii and velocity too, surely.

I don't remember the last time I had to use my drones flying a nightmare, vargur, paladin, or macharial. If we want equity, we'll need to make sure every battleship is wholly reliant on drones as much as a torp golem.
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#39 - 2012-03-27 21:14:18 UTC
Trying to rebalance by making things more of the same is always the lazy solution and always hurts the game.

Instead of making tracking-disruptors affect missiles, how about a new 'Goalkeeper' module that shoots down a missile every few seconds. In effect it does the same as a tracking disruptor for reducing damage offset by range, but it also prevents tracking disruptors to become like when the majority of ships were flying around with a single ECM module: a 'must-have' win-button.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
Soporo
#40 - 2012-03-27 21:16:08 UTC
If true, what it reeks of is pure incompetence.

Devs who, for some reason, want to nerf (again) every missile weapon in the game. I sure wish they would clearly state their rationalle behind it.

Cruise arent used for PvP, Torps require idiotically high ship bonuses + multiple painters + rigs to work halfway decent (and totally forget using Rage), despite what deluded LargeNumber!EFT'ers might say, the others seem mostly ballanced. But missiles need another nerf?
TrollolOl!

Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - H.L. Mencken