These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#1661 - 2012-09-19 19:57:41 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
like most i got side tracked by the (IMO) ridicules HML proposal, but other questions pop up.

Are Tracking Computers/Tracking Enhancers going to stack now with Rigor and Flare and missle flight time/speed rigs? And if not, WHY not.

Unstacked TCs/TEs with certain rig combinations could mean some REALLY long ranged HAMs that would simply replace HMLs in mid ranged fights.lol. And since HAMs fire so much faster, that could cause more lag issues in fleet fights, no?


I'm going to assume that they stack. I'm super curious what kind of range bonuses and damage application bonuses we'll see though. It'll really be the deciding factor on whether or not this is a nerf to HML or a massive boost to missiles as a whole. It feels like a moderate to large boost to most missile platforms.

Consider that a sniping TC Cruise Raven will really smack cruisers in the face if those TCs work out well.

-Liang


Cruises need to have there cycle time lengthened and there alpha increased. Then this would be fun.
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1662 - 2012-09-19 19:57:42 UTC
After second though, those change to missiles are having side (or intended?) effect: homogenisation of Eve. I personally don't mind it and evem want some steps in this directions (unification of damage modules, but that's another topic), but for spme players it might be unappealing.
Secondly, without hatsh emotions I can say now that this will bring HM in line... with other long range missiles:
Standart Launchers => Heavy Missile Launchers => Cruise Launchers => Citadel Laucnhers (?).
I think that those missile system have same defining characteristics:
1) Very low dps.
2) Very long range.
3) Huge delay before damage.
4) Low alpha-strike.
5) Good damage projection.
What else those systems have in common? Obvious answer as that they are actually rare. Almost anything they provide can be made by other weapon systems better and without delay. Yes, they are cap stable and allow you to choose damage type, but so are Projectiles. We don't see any Cruise launchers or Standart launchers and PvP beside few gimmick fits. Personally I want to see those 2 used more, not HML used less.

The other major point here is short-range missile launchers. CCP Fozzie said that HAML are good weapon that got overshadowed by HML. I think that he is only particuallry right, because HAML are actually overshadowed by HML but not good weapon system themselve. I see those reasons for it:
1) Too low dps. HAML offer too low dps output. Compare them to medium beam lasers, blasters and ACs and you will see that difference is rather noticeble. The only good dps with HAMLs can be achieved on pimped tengu which is a problem with hull, not HAMLs.
2) Low range. It might be partially solved with proposed changes to TE and TC, but using low slots for TE on ships with low amount of low slots (bad pun) will harm already low dps. I understand that this range is still higher that range of unbuffed medium short-range turrets, but ships that can use HAMLs are slow and fat. Missile ships just can't fit 3 Ballistics controls and 2 TE and be fine with it.
3) They are hard to fit. Other weapon systems based on idea that short range weapons are easy to fit so they can be used with conjuction of good damage protection and utility. HAMLs just leave you with slow, undertanked short-range ship that can only brawl if opponent is desperate enough to get in melee range (and that mean scram range because of Caldari slowboat doctrine).
4) Have to reaload really often. It's a trait of all missiles, but it really hurts with high RoF.
I can even bring you a good example: Sacriliege. An interesting and beautiful ship left in the dust because it is stuck with HAMLs. It could be great ship but it's seldom used despite great tank and tremendous capacitor.

Nerf of HM are probably needed, but it should be either not that harsh or come with a buffs to other missiles (HAM, Torps and Cruise). Of course any torp reworks should include fixing Stealth Bombers.

This change will most of all hurt new players. I remember how I started to play Eve: I was choosing faction by aesthetics and lore, not by fotm (because I haven't know which was a fotm). And it was not a fault of a new players that was told by their friends/corpmates "Train Drake then Tengu". If a new player decide to choose Caldari he or she gonna get disappointed and left with ineffective PvE missile ships, unusable Torps/Cruise in PvP and 2 very short lines:
- Naga/Rokh (which arguably is not why any new player choose faction to focus), good for only special fleet formats
- Jam ships (same as the above, but even rarer used in 0.0 fleets)
Ender Sai
Perkone
Caldari State
#1663 - 2012-09-19 20:01:36 UTC
This is a painful but necessary change.

That said. I love the arbitrator, if this change makes the arbi imba and you slap it hard with the nerfbat I am going to be very very displeased. I will have to comfort eat and get fat.

This is obviously not acceptable so PLEASE PRACTICE DUE CAUTION. (note, I think the idea of splitting off a set of missile bonus mods both for weapons systems and tracking disruption is a good idea).
S4nn4
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#1664 - 2012-09-19 20:02:56 UTC
Karsa Egivand wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Karsa Egivand wrote:
If the Tracking Computer (etc.) now effect missiles .... doesn't that conflict with the Target Painter module?

Or did i miss something here?


It just might depending on how they do it.

The Painter only affects one target and has a cycle time, fall off ect ect. The TC/TE has none of those problems and affects every salvo the missile ship fires, the TE has no cycle time and the TC's cycle time is irrelevant.


That would make the target painter an even more niche module than it is already...

That is probably true, squeezing some extra range out of the missiles is probably more appealing for both HAM and HML users. The nice thing with a TP is that it helps your friends to kill the unlucky victim faster, and they can be stacked. But the target has to be in range to begin with ofc.
Willie Horton
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1665 - 2012-09-19 20:04:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Willie Horton
Jenn aSide wrote:
like most i got side tracked by the (IMO) ridicules HML proposal, but other questions pop up.

Are Tracking Computers/Tracking Enhancers going to stack now with Rigor and Flare and missle flight time/speed rigs? And if not, WHY not.

Unstacked TCs/TEs with certain rig combinations could mean some REALLY long ranged HAMs that would simply replace HMLs in mid ranged fights.lol. And since HAMs fire so much faster, that could cause more lag issues in fleet fights, no?


Stacking may work only on HMLs cause rigors dont work for HAMs ,cause they are not guided missiles.

This ship modification is designed to decrease the signature radius factor for missile explosions at the expense of increased CPU requirements for launchers.

Note: only works on guided missiles, that is light missiles, heavy missiles and cruise missiles.



TE and TC looks more like option for fixing sig penalty for HAMs or giving choices for better range.
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
#1666 - 2012-09-19 20:04:40 UTC
Cartheron Crust wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why nerf things when you could buff things instead? When we are balancing in a game like Eve we always need to be concious of the danger presented by power creep. In some games where the progression is tied to ever advancing gear stats power creep isn't a big issue as it is built into the whole premise of the game. In a sandbox like Eve player advancement is tied to individual freeform goals and we need to make sure that the tools available are both interesting and balanced. Any time we buff something in Eve, we are nerfing every other item in the game slightly by extension. In a case like this we believe that the best course of action is to adjust the Heavy Missiles downwards to achieve balance.


Aware of power creep? You mean like introducing a new BC tier that uses BS weapons and has better agility (+50%) and better speed (+50%) than the current tier 2 BC's that are getting nerfed because they are a little overpowered atm? Or introducing a tanking module that is far better than any other tanking module in the game so much so that it obsoletes other fits meant for a ship via its bonuses? Or introducing Tech 3's that are easier to skill for and overshadow other types of ship in the game at their intended roles (T3's as HAC's/Linkships)? Or Fighterbombers?

Yes I can see CCP is very aware of power creep. Roll

I also await the day of "Put a TD on everything".



Spot on :)
Alice Doombringer
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#1667 - 2012-09-19 20:06:28 UTC
Here is purely my opinion about reducing Heavy Missile range and dmg. If im right it aims to nerf drake and tengu via nerfing whole weapon system. HM can take some nerfing without throwing all around. But more limited reduction than proposed now by Dev.
Why i say this? Well.. as many others before... this nerf doesn't just affect Drake and Tengu but also Caracal (weak ship by all means already), Cerberus, Nighthawk.

Also it affects on new people. Caracal and Drake are 2 steps on general path with missiles as aim. It hurts most to new people who have wery limited resources and Caracal being 1 key in the path which would now get useless pretty much.
Old people have already resources and skills or get fast skills to go on like battleships or other stuff.

how about new "general ecm equip" aiming both turrets and missiles. It will become super module must for all pvp people.
And if its effect ain't limited by anything.. u could get funny situation wher missiles can't hit on battleship because it goes too fast. ok that was bit exaggerating it but really. ship that goes faster than missile reduces chances to hit to 0% while for turrets there is always minimal chance to hit on too fast ship. also notice that turrets hits instantly whatever the case while missiles.. it will take time to reach target.

Hope Devs takes that into account while tuning stuff
Terik Deatharbingr
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1668 - 2012-09-19 20:06:30 UTC
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
After second though, those change to missiles are having side (or intended?) effect: homogenisation of Eve. I personally don't mind it and evem want some steps in this directions (unification of damage modules, but that's another topic), but for spme players it might be unappealing.
Secondly, without hatsh emotions I can say now that this will bring HM in line... with other long range missiles:
Standart Launchers => Heavy Missile Launchers => Cruise Launchers => Citadel Laucnhers (?).
I think that those missile system have same defining characteristics:
1) Very low dps.
2) Very long range.
3) Huge delay before damage.
4) Low alpha-strike.
5) Good damage projection.
What else those systems have in common? Obvious answer as that they are actually rare. Almost anything they provide can be made by other weapon systems better and without delay. Yes, they are cap stable and allow you to choose damage type, but so are Projectiles. We don't see any Cruise launchers or Standart launchers and PvP beside few gimmick fits. Personally I want to see those 2 used more, not HML used less.

The other major point here is short-range missile launchers. CCP Fozzie said that HAML are good weapon that got overshadowed by HML. I think that he is only particuallry right, because HAML are actually overshadowed by HML but not good weapon system themselve. I see those reasons for it:
1) Too low dps. HAML offer too low dps output. Compare them to medium beam lasers, blasters and ACs and you will see that difference is rather noticeble. The only good dps with HAMLs can be achieved on pimped tengu which is a problem with hull, not HAMLs.
2) Low range. It might be partially solved with proposed changes to TE and TC, but using low slots for TE on ships with low amount of low slots (bad pun) will harm already low dps. I understand that this range is still higher that range of unbuffed medium short-range turrets, but ships that can use HAMLs are slow and fat. Missile ships just can't fit 3 Ballistics controls and 2 TE and be fine with it.
3) They are hard to fit. Other weapon systems based on idea that short range weapons are easy to fit so they can be used with conjuction of good damage protection and utility. HAMLs just leave you with slow, undertanked short-range ship that can only brawl if opponent is desperate enough to get in melee range (and that mean scram range because of Caldari slowboat doctrine).
4) Have to reaload really often. It's a trait of all missiles, but it really hurts with high RoF.
I can even bring you a good example: Sacriliege. An interesting and beautiful ship left in the dust because it is stuck with HAMLs. It could be great ship but it's seldom used despite great tank and tremendous capacitor.

Nerf of HM are probably needed, but it should be either not that harsh or come with a buffs to other missiles (HAM, Torps and Cruise). Of course any torp reworks should include fixing Stealth Bombers.

This change will most of all hurt new players. I remember how I started to play Eve: I was choosing faction by aesthetics and lore, not by fotm (because I haven't know which was a fotm). And it was not a fault of a new players that was told by their friends/corpmates "Train Drake then Tengu". If a new player decide to choose Caldari he or she gonna get disappointed and left with ineffective PvE missile ships, unusable Torps/Cruise in PvP and 2 very short lines:
- Naga/Rokh (which arguably is not why any new player choose faction to focus), good for only special fleet formats
- Jam ships (same as the above, but even rarer used in 0.0 fleets)



All great points....the only thing they should honestly do to HM's is switch the PG needs of the HAM and HM....that makes more sense than nerfing HM's range and DPS. Most people don't consider the fact that an HM has to reload every 40 volleys on T2 missiles while you get anywhere from 80-120 before reloading on guns.
Vizas Mar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1669 - 2012-09-19 20:11:13 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
:Edit: I responded to some of the questions raised in this post and copied the responses to the end of this post as well:

Heavy Missiles
-Base flight time reduced by 30%
-Base velocity increased by 6.66%
-In total, base range reduced by ~25%
-Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit)
-Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.


Just wanna say to CCP FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1670 - 2012-09-19 20:15:35 UTC
patrick elektros wrote:
this is about CCP making more money, by making people train other skills and this nerfs people making in game money, in effect making it harder for people to pay for plex with in game isk. in effect hoping that people will in turn have to pay real money to play the game.

CCP gets the same amount of money whether people use PLEX for game time or subscribe.

Actually, false, CCP makes more money off of PLEX than actual subscriptions.

So overall, fail.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1671 - 2012-09-19 20:19:03 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • Why are you nerfing the weapon system when the real problem is two ships?
    • It is true that the use of heavy missiles is very strongly concentrated on the Drake and Tengu at this time. There are some problems with those ships that will need to be solved in time, and we also need to make ships like the Caracal, Cerb and Nighthawk more viable with Heavy Missiles. But doing that rebalance requires a stable foundation to build upon, and the truth is that Heavy Missiles were skewing the balance of everything they touched. The fact that the Drake is so dominant at long range damage when it has no range bonus, and the weakest damage bonus we give ships (5% per level to just one damage type) makes balancing through the ships themselves unfeasible. Once we get Heavy Missiles to some semblance of balance we can begin the work of making sure each individual ship is viable without having to go back and redo our work right away to compensate for a midstream weapon change.


    The problem I have at the moment is that so far the Tengu has been the only missile boat to perform well enough to make it my dedicated lvl 4 mission runner.

    Now, once heavy missiles are nerfed and the not too far after tengu nerfs, I get the feeling it won't be usable in lvl 4 missions, or would be at least less effective than a raven which sucks.

    So, my question is, will the tengu nerf be coming before the t1 bs' get buffs (which caldari missile boats probably will)
    or am I going to be stuck without a mission boat until y'll revamp battleships?

    P.S. my tengu also seems to outperform the Golem in performance. I feel that while the tengu being OP does have some play in this, I also feel that the lack luster capabilities of battleship class bs' has a lot more to do with this.


    Quote:
  • It seems obvious that these changes are biased in favour of the Goons! Is that true?
    • Nope, we make balance decisions based on the ships and modules themselves not political blocs in game.

  • It seems obvious that these changes are biased against the Goons! Is that true?
    • Nope, we make balance decisions based on the ships and modules themselves not political blocs in game.


    lol....goons...

    Quote:
  • Can CCP reimburse skillpoints to people who have trained missiles?

    • When I trained for and purchased the tengu it was specifically for lvl 4 missions.
    Now that it's losing its effectiveness, and potentially with tengu nerfs the ability all together to be able to run lvl 4 missions, then essentially the SP and time I spent on training heavy missiles and the tengu will have been burned to the ground.

    So, in your answer you stated that SP wouldn't be returned because the systems and ships would still exist in game.

    However, due to the nerfs, they're losing their capability to perform the task I trained them for.
    So in a sense, for me at least, they're being removed from my realm of play.
    Will I be able to fight for an SP reimburstment?

    Quote:
  • Will the TE/TC/TD changes affect unguided missiles like HAMs and Torps?
    • The plan is for them to affect all missiles, yes.

  • How about remote tracking links?
    • It's possible that we may need to give remote tracking links slightly lower effects to missiles than to guns, but yes the plan is for them to have an effect.

  • Why are you expanding Tracking Disruptors instead of fixing defenders?
    • We had been working on fixing defenders, but the issue was that they caused a very high amount of lag between their own CPU load and the changes in behavior they would cause.

  • This change will make Tracking Disruptors very overpowered!
    • That is a very valid concern and one we will be continuing to look very closely at. Some options on the table include making TDs affect missiles at a lower severity to guns, dropping the base power of TDs and increasing the bonus from TD bonused ships, or splitting off a separate set of missile disruptor modules that use the same skill and get the same ship bonuses as tracking disruptors (in the same way that ECM ships have different racial jammers). One way or another we will be working with you all to make sure Ewar is as balanced as possible before release in Winter.


    I tied all these together because they all fit my concern.

    Will tracking enhancers be replacing target painters? And why?

    Will disruptors replace defenders? Again, why?



    Now, my final concern is, will tracking enhancers outperform target painters? Or, if they're not removing target painters, will they be set on equal footing?

    Also, I feel that target painters need a buff because of the high demand for them when it comes to corps and cruise missiles, so, if they're not being removed or if tracking computers are replacing them, in either case will they be seeing a buff at all?
    Tomcio FromFarAway
    Singularity's Edge
    #1672 - 2012-09-19 20:19:16 UTC
    Vizas Mar wrote:

    Just wanna say to CCP FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU


    Thank you for your meaningful contribution.
    Tanaka Sekigahara
    United Space Marine Corp
    #1673 - 2012-09-19 20:19:19 UTC
    Fowler wrote:
    I'm curious what will happen to the Nighthawk and Cerberus after theese changes to missiles and especially heavy missiles.

    Seems the Nighthawk gets a smack in the face it doesn't deserve.

    Rook, Cal Navy Caracal, Nighthawk, Cerberus, all basically screwed.

    why is it guns get damage bonuses, and missiles get rate of fire?guns deal isntant damage, missiles have flight time delay to get to target, now there is no longer any compensation for that, and the ROF as opposed to the damage bonuses make it even less likey the bonused DPS for missiles has an actual effect on thre engagement.They basicall took an entire race and made in non viable. Noone ever uses ravens, cause cruise missiles are ****, now heavies are ****, i mean, other than the frigates, what caldari ships are worth a damn anymore? it's going to become a dea line, a dead race. The supposed "buff" to rails never did result in their re-emergence on the battlefield. EvE is becoming a 3 race game, Caldari is officially dead.

    Whats the actual DPS , maxed out, per cruiser? Caracal is on the bottom, as always.Add in drones and it's a total joke.I'm real close to being done with this...
    Area51
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #1674 - 2012-09-19 20:19:54 UTC
    I think the HM changes (nerf?)is necessary to make it on par with long range medium guns.
    But now, HAMs need more love!
    Cage Man
    Fusion Enterprises Ltd
    Pandemic Horde
    #1675 - 2012-09-19 20:22:21 UTC
    I don't see why you would want TD to work against missile boats? Missiles already have explosion velocity effects. Is it CCP's aim to make all weapon systems equal? This means a counter fit to turrets will work on missiles.. this seems like easy mode to me. I would rather see a defensive module that affects missile velocity\explosion radius to make it less damaging and a scripted mid and low slot mod that counters this for offense.
    As mentioned above, will HML's now get a bigger volume?
    James Amril-Kesh
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #1676 - 2012-09-19 20:26:32 UTC
    Simple way to keep tracking disruptors from being overpowered? Don't change them at all, and put whatever changes you were thinking of into another module called guidance disruptors. Make it so that ships with tracking disruption bonuses also give equivalent bonuses to guidance disruption modules. They will be forced to fit one or the other, or both, but having to give up something in return instead of having a module that works in every single situation.

    Otherwise you're turning TD into an I WIN button to fit in every single situation.

    Enjoying the rain today? ;)
    MIrple
    Black Sheep Down
    Tactical Narcotics Team
    #1677 - 2012-09-19 20:27:29 UTC
    Tanaka Sekigahara wrote:
    Fowler wrote:
    I'm curious what will happen to the Nighthawk and Cerberus after theese changes to missiles and especially heavy missiles.

    Seems the Nighthawk gets a smack in the face it doesn't deserve.

    Rook, Cal Navy Caracal, Nighthawk, Cerberus, all basically screwed.

    why is it guns get damage bonuses, and missiles get rate of fire?guns deal isntant damage, missiles have flight time delay to get to target, now there is no longer any compensation for that, and the ROF as opposed to the damage bonuses make it even less likey the bonused DPS for missiles has an actual effect on thre engagement.They basicall took an entire race and made in non viable. Noone ever uses ravens, cause cruise missiles are ****, now heavies are ****, i mean, other than the frigates, what caldari ships are worth a damn anymore? it's going to become a dea line, a dead race. The supposed "buff" to rails never did result in their re-emergence on the battlefield. EvE is becoming a 3 race game, Caldari is officially dead.

    Whats the actual DPS , maxed out, per cruiser? Caracal is on the bottom, as always.Add in drones and it's a total joke.I'm real close to being done with this...


    Have you looked at the new stats before posting this or is this just another the sky if falling comment. Fit a Caracal with HAMS and see where it fit in with the damage stack. If you want to argue that HAMS and HM need to have there PG/CPU swapped I would agree completely.
    Terik Deatharbingr
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #1678 - 2012-09-19 20:27:50 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    :Edit: I responded to some of the questions raised in this post and copied the responses to the end of this post as well:

    Heavy Missiles
    -Base flight time reduced by 30%
    -Base velocity increased by 6.66%
    -In total, base range reduced by ~25%
    -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit)
    -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.


    Translation:
    All lvl 5 drake dps with 2 T2 BCS and T2 HMs:

    Range: 56.9 (down from 75.9)
    DPS: 316.8 (down from 396, including reload time)
    Volley: 2209.6 (down from 2762)
    CPU used: 291.2
    PG used: 661.5

    All lvl 5 drake dps with 2 T2 BCS and T2 HAMs:
    Range: 18.1
    DPS: 493
    Volley: 1841
    CPU used: 262.5
    PG used: 793.8

    And none of this takes into account speed and sig radius of target ship....which is something anti-drake/tengu people don't consider when it comes to DPS.
    Mr Floydy
    Questionable Ethics.
    Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
    #1679 - 2012-09-19 20:28:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Floydy
    *Sensible Post time*

    Loving the basis of the change. HML losing approx 20% damage is great. However as much as is it great to hear that following this a Tengu with a range of 110km is no longer going to roughly match that of a Legion or Loki at minimum range, I'm thinking it could be done a different way.

    Ignoring the missiles themselves for a second. Comparing short range guns to long range on cruisers. The long range options are barely used. The dps loss on them compared to short range is quite noticeable, and that's before you take into account. I know you're looking at reducing the grid requirements of Beams and Arty - do you think this alone will be enough to make them a better option in comparison with the short range options?

    Has the idea of boosting the dps of the ranged guns a little, and coming down with HML a little been toyed with? ie 10% damage increase on the guns, 10% drop for the missiles?

    With your planned changes, I'm looking forward to HAM being a more worthwhile option, there is rarely any point in using it currently. Although a large part of that is fitting requirements - they're really quite tough to fit on a lot of ships currently, contrary to guns despite being shorter range they have larger grid requirements. I'd like to see this change personally.


    What a huge amount of people seem to be missing (the I'm going to quit this game unless I get my SP back people) is that missile ships suck due to the bonuses and actual ship features. Fozzy nailed this with his comment about the Drake being the long range BC of choice despite no range bonus and the weakest damage bonus....
    Following this missile change, I'm sure the Drake will pretty much end up where it is now with its hinted bonus changes, the Tengu will no longer blitz everything. Other missile ships such as the Nighthawk need a massive change to make them worthwhile (ship specific here on the nighthawk, no reason to use one with a drake existing)

    I'd like to add I'd love to see the HAM specific ships get a look in. See the HAM subs on the Legion, Loki and then look at the Sacrilege too. They're quite a way behind their Caldari counters.


    Regarding Tracking Disruption. Can their be specific scripts for missiles rather than using the gunnery ones. It will limit the OTT'ness once they've come out. People won't just have a catch all for dps ships without atleast working a little bit....
    HELLBOUNDMAN
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #1680 - 2012-09-19 20:29:28 UTC
    James Amril-Kesh wrote:
    Simple way to keep tracking disruptors from being overpowered? Don't change them at all, and put whatever changes you were thinking of into another module called guidance disruptors. Make it so that ships with tracking disruption bonuses also give equivalent bonuses to guidance disruption modules. They will be forced to fit one or the other, or both, but having to give up something in return instead of having a module that works in every single situation.

    Otherwise you're turning TD into an I WIN button to fit in every single situation.



    You can only fit so many modules on a ship.

    So, I feel as though having these modules affect all damage modules is fair.

    As long as they remove defender missiles anyway.

    If they don't and attempt to "fix" defenders, than I'm afraid missiles will be quite a bit more crappy than they will be after these nerfs.