These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Increase cruise missile hitpoints

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#21 - 2013-07-05 16:22:07 UTC
Can't see this affecting me ever, but sounds reasonable. +1

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2013-07-05 16:25:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
It would seem that, with the exception of citadel missiles, all missiles have an HP of 70, this leads me to believe that torpedoes were buffed at some point that others did not need.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Ransu Asanari
Perkone
Caldari State
#23 - 2013-07-05 17:38:07 UTC
As a missile user, I would support this. The firewalling tactics are very cool (great video of fleet firewalling 6 minutes in), but one or two ships shouldn't be able to negate an entire fleet. Missiles already aren't used as much in PvP due to the flight time delay, and I don't believe the other weapon systems have a similar hard counter.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2013-07-05 17:39:32 UTC
Ransu Asanari wrote:
As a missile user, I would support this. The firewalling tactics are very cool (great video of fleet firewalling 6 minutes in), but one or two ships shouldn't be able to negate an entire fleet. Missiles already aren't used as much in PvP due to the flight time delay, and I don't believe the other weapon systems have a similar hard counter.

Drones come to mind with any and all weapon being able to destroy them.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#25 - 2013-07-05 17:42:55 UTC
Harvey James wrote:


well excuse me for wanting to talk to my supposed representative .... what was i thinking?


I am sure in a town meeting you would be the guy to interrupt the discussion about fixing pot holes with real estate taxes being to high.

It is a different topic please post something related or gtfo.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Meep Thong
Doomheim
#26 - 2013-07-05 23:18:26 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Harvey James wrote:


well excuse me for wanting to talk to my supposed representative .... what was i thinking?


I am sure in a town meeting you would be the guy to interrupt the discussion about fixing pot holes with real estate taxes being to high.

It is a different topic please post something related or gtfo.



Pot calling the kettle black........????
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2013-07-05 23:21:11 UTC
Meep Thong wrote:
Commander Ted wrote:
Harvey James wrote:


well excuse me for wanting to talk to my supposed representative .... what was i thinking?


I am sure in a town meeting you would be the guy to interrupt the discussion about fixing pot holes with real estate taxes being to high.

It is a different topic please post something related or gtfo.



Pot calling the kettle black........????


And you are any different from these two?

On topic, not supported it would be the same as asking to increase the range of torpedoes because everyone uses long range charges.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#28 - 2013-07-05 23:40:55 UTC
I humbly submit my:

+1

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#29 - 2013-07-06 01:43:27 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

Possible side effects include: greater resistence to defender missiles



Here is your issue. Ccp likes the fact all the cnr, sni and golem cruise spammers lose xyx% per volley to defenders used by rats. Remove that pve gets easy and effective. Too easy and effective.

Torps have the higher hp to give them something appealing. Lets not forget even Pre patch torp golem < cruise cnr. And that was with cruise cnr losing damage to defenders the torp golem did not worry about.

Usually I'd say balancing for pvp is preferred over using pve as a base. In this case however....the cruises need to not be defender proof. What this will do to inject missile pve with steroids laced with speed would be worse than firewalls. Firewalls need half a brain to run right. Many fail at this all same ergo they run ineffective walls.
Jasmine Assasin
The Holy Rollers
#30 - 2013-07-06 01:45:01 UTC
Sounds good chief.

And the idea that a heavy missile wielding BC does less DPS than some Destroyers *cough*Catalyst*cough* is depressing. Would love to have this looked into as well.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#31 - 2013-07-06 03:24:43 UTC
Zan Shiro wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

Possible side effects include: greater resistence to defender missiles



Here is your issue. Ccp likes the fact all the cnr, sni and golem cruise spammers lose xyx% per volley to defenders used by rats. Remove that pve gets easy and effective. Too easy and effective.

Torps have the higher hp to give them something appealing. Lets not forget even Pre patch torp golem < cruise cnr. And that was with cruise cnr losing damage to defenders the torp golem did not worry about.

Usually I'd say balancing for pvp is preferred over using pve as a base. In this case however....the cruises need to not be defender proof. What this will do to inject missile pve with steroids laced with speed would be worse than firewalls. Firewalls need half a brain to run right. Many fail at this all same ergo they run ineffective walls.


So buff defenders so they're not utter garbage only used by NPCs.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#32 - 2013-07-06 05:47:38 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
So buff defenders so they're not utter garbage only used by NPCs.




I would agree with you here. Its getting ccp to actually do this thats the issue. This iirc has never even gotten the trademark soon stamped on them.
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#33 - 2013-07-06 07:32:58 UTC
hp buff to CML is very good idea.
but i have other . what if we add resistance to missiles like we have on bombs ?

Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn ♡♡♡

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#34 - 2013-07-06 10:19:32 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Zan Shiro wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

Possible side effects include: greater resistence to defender missiles



Here is your issue. Ccp likes the fact all the cnr, sni and golem cruise spammers lose xyx% per volley to defenders used by rats. Remove that pve gets easy and effective. Too easy and effective.

Torps have the higher hp to give them something appealing. Lets not forget even Pre patch torp golem < cruise cnr. And that was with cruise cnr losing damage to defenders the torp golem did not worry about.

Usually I'd say balancing for pvp is preferred over using pve as a base. In this case however....the cruises need to not be defender proof. What this will do to inject missile pve with steroids laced with speed would be worse than firewalls. Firewalls need half a brain to run right. Many fail at this all same ergo they run ineffective walls.


So buff defenders so they're not utter garbage only used by NPCs.


Defenders are a bad concept that is bad and should just be removed tbh. Smartbombs provide an effective EW vs missiles.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#35 - 2013-07-06 10:22:55 UTC
zbaaca wrote:
hp buff to CML is very good idea.
but i have other . what if we add resistance to missiles like we have on bombs ?


That's not an intrinsically bad idea, but it does add more complexity than a simple hp change. How do you see it working out better?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#36 - 2013-07-06 10:40:57 UTC
Your concerns over defender missiles is misplaced. defenders travel at a staggering velocity and have impressive range as a result. loading an rpl on to a gunship and filling it with defenders is a not inefficient way of dealing with incoming missiles. Smartbombs are a clever way of doing it to provided your client doesn't suffer much delay or lag plus they help to fight drones. if defender missiles functioned like fof against drones then they would overpowered compared to smart bombs. right now I think defender missiles are functional except for that they can only point defence for the ship they're mounted on whereas having fof as a characteristic would make them viable for fleet fights when mounted en masse
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#37 - 2013-07-06 10:52:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Malcanis wrote:
zbaaca wrote:
hp buff to CML is very good idea.
but i have other . what if we add resistance to missiles like we have on bombs ?


That's not an intrinsically bad idea, but it does add more complexity than a simple hp change. How do you see it working out better?

Well, if you give rats their racial type of defender missiles: em ones to blood riders, explosive to angels, kinetic to guristas, etc..
Then that will reduce effectiveness of drake/tengu or any other kinetic(or any other type) missile bonused ship against rats with non-kinetic(or that other type) weakness. Example: angels use explosive defenders, but kinetic missiles have no resistances to those and can be easily destroyed, on the other hand explosive missiles have high resistances to explosive damage and cant care less about angel's defenders. That will force missile users to discover other types of missiles and damage types instead of using only kinetic.
Thats basic idea, defenders are hardly effective in PvP anyway.

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#38 - 2013-07-06 10:59:51 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

That's not an intrinsically bad idea, but it does add more complexity than a simple hp change. How do you see it working out better?

well against firewall that would mean that they must fit not only 1 type of smartyes and also hardeners. with a key feature of missiles to choose 4 types of damage i think that would drastically lower effectiveness of firewall tactic

Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn ♡♡♡

Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#39 - 2013-07-06 11:34:27 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Zan Shiro wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

Possible side effects include: greater resistence to defender missiles



Here is your issue. Ccp likes the fact all the cnr, sni and golem cruise spammers lose xyx% per volley to defenders used by rats. Remove that pve gets easy and effective. Too easy and effective.

Torps have the higher hp to give them something appealing. Lets not forget even Pre patch torp golem < cruise cnr. And that was with cruise cnr losing damage to defenders the torp golem did not worry about.

Usually I'd say balancing for pvp is preferred over using pve as a base. In this case however....the cruises need to not be defender proof. What this will do to inject missile pve with steroids laced with speed would be worse than firewalls. Firewalls need half a brain to run right. Many fail at this all same ergo they run ineffective walls.


So buff defenders so they're not utter garbage only used by NPCs.


Defenders are a bad concept that is bad and should just be removed tbh. Smartbombs provide an effective EW vs missiles.


I'm not sure bad concept is the right term, more like poorly put into use.

Heres my :words: on it-

Most defensive systems, either ewar or actual defense, are mid and low slot items. Yet heres this defense item that you'll need to eat a weapon high slot to put into play, that not only doesn't work very well, but lowers your overall ability to kill.

TheFix-

If you were to move the Defender system to a mid slot, it would become a slot choice that people might take, such as ECCM or a SeBo, or Tracking Disruptor filling much the same role as those defenses while not gimping your ships DPS out put.

Most mission runners over tank their ships already because theres not much else that matters to fill those slots now, moving the Defender System to those slots would give them an option that didn't revolve around "MORE TANK" too, so its functional for both PVP and PVE.

The final bit would be to make the defenders have slightly more effect in some way, not sure how, MIRV's or whatever it would take to make them have about the same effect on missiles that TD's have on Guns (one TD basically can wreck guns outgoing DPS, so something similar for the Defender System).

Make those two changes and you'd see Defenders move out of the Joke of a System category.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#40 - 2013-07-06 15:48:08 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:


Defenders are a bad concept that is bad and should just be removed tbh. Smartbombs provide an effective EW vs missiles.


I'm not sure bad concept is the right term, more like poorly put into use.

Heres my :words: on it-

Most defensive systems, either ewar or actual defense, are mid and low slot items. Yet heres this defense item that you'll need to eat a weapon high slot to put into play, that not only doesn't work very well, but lowers your overall ability to kill.

TheFix-

If you were to move the Defender system to a mid slot, it would become a slot choice that people might take, such as ECCM or a SeBo, or Tracking Disruptor filling much the same role as those defenses while not gimping your ships DPS out put.

Most mission runners over tank their ships already because theres not much else that matters to fill those slots now, moving the Defender System to those slots would give them an option that didn't revolve around "MORE TANK" too, so its functional for both PVP and PVE.

The final bit would be to make the defenders have slightly more effect in some way, not sure how, MIRV's or whatever it would take to make them have about the same effect on missiles that TD's have on Guns (one TD basically can wreck guns outgoing DPS, so something similar for the Defender System).

Make those two changes and you'd see Defenders move out of the Joke of a System category.
[/quote]

Not nessecarily, if you could rapidly launch defenders from a ship like a corax and they could target missiles not being fired at the ship you could tune them so they could nullify the dps from a single battleship or a number of drakes. This would only work on missile dessies as larger platforms would have to **** a rate of fire.

Being a tiny ship you could easily counter this by just bringing an alpha ship but it could be a interesting option to have.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Previous page123Next page