Posted - 2008.11.25 20:53:00 - [422]

 

Originally by: Atreus Tac

---

Edited by: Atreus Tac on 25/11/2008 18:47:59
i agree with this, however do not make it back to what it was like. just make them more useful. they are already nefd in gamgs due to flight time, nso maybe increase that?

i have no idea tho, its not my job. my job is to notice problems.

---

The way they were before was perfectly fine and reasonable. Scale back the nano nerf (was an incredible overkill), and rollback the missile changes and you'll have a good game again.

Posted - 2008.11.26 10:50:00 - [424]

 

In light of the recent QR changes to missiles, the only reasonable solution I can really come up with for making the Raven, Caracal and Cerberus and probably the Faction variants more balanced, is to remove 1 turret high slot and add 1 midslot. This would allow them to still fit the same amout of missiles, but they would lose 1 high slot that would be used for something else, and adds 1 midslot that could be used for a web, or target painter.

I am not suggesting this for either the Drake or the Marauder, because they would be over powered with them.

The Raven already has 2 High slots that are different to its Primary weapon which is missiles, compared with the Mega which has only 1.

Leave the current missile changes in place, no one can complain that we wouldnt be giving anything up for an extra midslot, it would also mean one less slot for a Raven to have a cloak put in, so a Raven Cloaker would be sacrificing more to fit that cloak.

I know Im going to probably get hate posts but it is really the only alternative that I can think of that will give something up, for something in return and would be taking something away from Raven and Cerb mission pilots while giving something to PVP pilots.

I would also like to sugest a change to reduce power grid or cpu and perhaps a reduction bonus for a target painter as that is more in line with missiles, which would only allow a painter to be fitted to the midslots with the current shield tanking ability instead of a shield, web, scrambler or other mod

There may be other Missile ships that need it

Flame away.....

Posted - 2008.11.26 12:38:00 - [426]

 

Edited by: SPQRMocton on 26/11/2008 12:44:57
Edited by: SPQRMocton on 26/11/2008 12:44:40
NOT SIGNED , I was smacking the snot out of an amarr bc today with my raven and torps he had to flee after my second volley hit him as he was nearly out of armor,
can you say target painter ,learn to adapt PLEASE , oh and t2 drones do a fine job on cruisers

Posted - 2008.11.26 17:05:00 - [428]

 

The missile change is awesome.
The free meal ticket is gone now all you Raven-noobs out there.

I'm going to go kill more Ravens with a pair of Assault Frigates now...

Posted - 2008.11.26 18:26:00 - [430]

 

They need to be tweaked a bit more.

Posted - 2008.11.27 01:37:00 - [432]

 

Posted - 2008.11.27 17:57:00 - [434]

 

/signed

In PVP, Missiles were underpowered before and this patch has made it worse. The irony of having to beg to have them go back to a previously underpowered state is rather disconcerting...

Posted - 2008.11.28 14:58:00 - [436]

 

Disagree. With the nano nerf, even with the missile rebalance is no longer possible to speed tank missile ships nearly as effectively, you wanted a nano nerf, missiles needed balancing too, you can't have your cake and eat it. If you wish to shoot at a smaller class use the approapriate T2 ammo/use drones.

Get out there and play the game, then report back.

Posted - 2008.11.28 16:11:00 - [438]

 

I think the changes are fine, the missile nerf was needed given the way speed was nerfed. I have an alt who runs missions in a Raven, and I can't say they are more difficult. Now this thing about doing max damage to ships of the same class. In a turret based ship the only way I do max damage is if they are sitting still, which should hold true for missile users, and does hold true under the current nerf.

Posted - 2008.11.29 17:44:00 - [440]

 

Originally by: Saladin

---

Now this thing about doing max damage ...

---

Molle alt spotted !!! j/k

Posted - 2008.11.30 12:19:00 - [442]

 

Edited by: AbudSeab on 30/11/2008 12:24:48
Edited by: AbudSeab on 30/11/2008 12:22:32
Edited by: AbudSeab on 30/11/2008 12:21:08
CCP should never operate big changes (more than 10%) in any attribute. It's a game supposed to have a evolutive story line. How could someone enjoy the coherent storyline if technology can have unevolutions. A piece of tech that gives you 16% a boost of something should never be changed to give you 10% after some day. Or missiles with an explosition effect should not have that effect hardly changed.

This makes the proposal of a persistent universe with a coherent story line totally crap. How could people be confident in CPP adminstration? Why should I think in EVE universe as a thing where should I make plans to my character ? The plann can be at any time invalidate ! ! !

If some tech got to much power the right way to re-balance is launch counter-tech to deal it the situation. just like in real world. An army don't ask another to reduce effectiveness of their weapons. they develop new counter-weapons.

Sorry if servers are not able to deal with speed (it's an internal problem) should never had come to users. To re-balance speed why not some kind of device to deal with this? Why not an implant disruptor which disable some implants in user? Or a better web ? To deal with missiles doing damage to frigs why not a new hardener that works better againt missiles? Some kind of flare like in real life or eletronic guidance disruptor that reduces precision of missiles. Or even turn frig more resitive to missiles is more accepteable that turn missiles less effective. Observe that the result are the same but those option doesn't break the feel of continuity in EVE universe.

In my point of view CCP got hardly un-imaginative in this patch. loosing player base confidence by complete lack of imagination on how to deal with the speed problem.

Having in mind the absence of imagination should be better to roll-back this patch and re-think the role product... What are you selling? An story line consistent playing experience or just new models and nice images to see? Can we invest our time doing plans or is it better to stop to do that at this point? What skill plan users should do that will not be invalidated in near future? Can we have the nice feeling of rock solid commitment from you or it's just an investment from our part without commitement from you?

that's why i'm signing this petition. It's not a question only on nerf of missiles.

Posted - 2008.11.30 18:05:00 - [444]

 

/signed
After coming back from a 4 month deployment and not knowing that QR had come out log in to take my raven out for a quick lvl 4 to get back into the game and I couldn't hit the cruisers cause they were moving too fast is just plain annoying. I agree that some changed had to be made to missiles but after what you did to my torps and making them only go 30km killing all other missiles is just plain torture.

Posted - 2008.12.02 03:50:00 - [446]

 

just fix the explosion radius/velocity a bit FFS

IM not asking to gank the small crap with my BS weapons... i want to hit the BS for dmg thats more than laughable. Even blasters get tracking help from skills... but Torps and HAMs get no explosion radius reduction due to the Guided Missile Precision skill

Again missiles were subpar to blasters before the patch... now they can barely hit the MWD small stuff or even worse try to shoot the ABing small stuff, whatever that needs to be that way. But trying to shoot your own sized hull shouldnt have massive dmg reductions just because they decided to speed tank by just moving 80m/s

Posted - 2008.12.02 13:09:00 - [448]

 

Missiles are fine. The other day I flew my Ares out 170km to try and tackle a pirate Cerberus. Before i was even in point range, i had to warp out because its heavy missiles, which previously my ship could outspeed and take 0 damage, were actually landing.

They werent hitting for much individually mind you, but by the second volly the Cerb convinced me I couldnt hang around.

So yes, missiles arnt the full damage suppositories they were before. But you know what, you're able to use them effectivly on more targets. And if you need to incorporate the stasis webbers/target painters that high caliber turret ships have had to rely on to hit small targets at all/for full damage since I've been playing is that really so bad?

Only exception to this "missiles are fine" mantra is the stealth bomber. That's a ship without a purpose atm. Its bonuses need adjusting to make it fly for its old role or it needs a new one all together.

Posted - 2008.12.02 14:47:00 - [450]

 

Originally by: Alekseyev Karrde

---

So yes, missiles arnt the full damage suppositories they were before. But you know what, you're able to use them effectivly on more targets. And if you need to incorporate the stasis webbers/target painters that high caliber turret ships have had to rely on to hit small targets at all/for full damage since I've been playing is that really so bad?

---

The problem isn't that missiles are doing less damage to smaller targets. The problem is that missiles are not doing full damage to the targets they were designed to hit.