These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A Pirate high DPS Missile boat

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#61 - 2014-04-04 21:22:24 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Hagika wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Hagika wrote:
The potential to hit is better, but in PVP, there is almost always a web,scram from the tackle.


You sure about that?



Do you carry tackle on your fleets that go without a web and a scram? No...you dont.




Can you envisage a situation where you don't want to go into hard tackle range of your opponents?


wat is MJD?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Denuo Secus
#62 - 2014-04-04 21:25:26 UTC
Last Wolf wrote:
Slightly back off topic... Why do missiles get hard to hit with when you use the short-ranged, high dps version? Guns you get better tracking when you use blasters vs rails, or AC vs arties. But torps vs cruise or HAM vs HML? Nope, you either get long range low dps that has better "tracking" or short range high dps but the "tracking" sucks.

If this same mechanic was applied to guns people would be rage quitting the game. Why are missiles like this?


Bad turret tracking isn't an issue at range. With low transversal you'll still do perfect hits. Missiles on the other side cannot reduce something like transversal to zero. TPs work relieable up to 45+km only. That's a good reason for more missile precision at range. At short range applied missile damage can be buffed by TP and webs.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#63 - 2014-04-04 22:17:23 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Hagika wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Hagika wrote:
The potential to hit is better, but in PVP, there is almost always a web,scram from the tackle.


You sure about that?



Do you carry tackle on your fleets that go without a web and a scram? No...you dont.




Can you envisage a situation where you don't want to go into hard tackle range of your opponents?


wat is MJD?


A battleship module, or a deployable with a 1 min activation timer.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#64 - 2014-04-04 23:03:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
Hagika wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Hagika wrote:
So with this (hopefully) adding of a high dps pirate missile platform, perhaps CCP might be nice enough to find time to fix some more missile issue as well. Torps need to hit better and T2 torps need to hit smaller targets a little better as well.



You really are a ******* ******** idiot, aren't you. You start a thread with hilarious nonsense, people tell you you're indeed stating hilarious nonsense, a CSM member explains to you that you're being hilariously wrong and yet even in your last post you keep at it.


Hagika wrote:
By the way, im a gun user.


For a "gun user" your posting history sure is quite full of missile whine posts, like 99% of them.


Care to stop with the personal attacks? I started a thread about having a high DPS pirate missile ship, since there isnt one. Obviously you dont care to read. The CSM posted on how cruise missiles were buffed, some how making the new navy raven some magical ship, in which he later stated he has never tested it in PVP. Yet it is never used in PVP.

I then later stated lets get back on topic. Many of my post are about missiles, now if you can manage to stop acting like a 13 year old, care to explain how missiles are so good? and how Im so wrong about them? Oh wait, you cant.
You prefer to act like a child.


They're not used for several reasons:

- short range BS are very limited in use in pvp
- torps aren't amazing at applying their dps without help, especially not when shield fit
- "caldari/missiles suck so we're not even going to try and use it"

Has NOTHING to do with the ship itself apart from being a BS running torps, the ship is FINE. Yet you keep at it.
Bertrand Butler
Cras es Noster
#65 - 2014-04-05 07:50:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Bertrand Butler
Last Wolf wrote:
Slightly back off topic... Why do missiles get hard to hit with when you use the short-ranged, high dps version? Guns you get better tracking when you use blasters vs rails, or AC vs arties. But torps vs cruise or HAM vs HML? Nope, you either get long range low dps that has better "tracking" or short range high dps but the "tracking" sucks.

If this same mechanic was applied to guns people would be rage quitting the game. Why are missiles like this?


HAMs have better explosion radius and explosion velocity stats than HMLs. Torps indeed are worse than Cruises in the "tracking" department, have in mind thought that this is not the only discrepancy in the weapon systems. For example, heavy beam lasers (the long range medium turret version) give more DPS than heavy pulse lasers.

For all its worth, I think CCP has mentioned somewhere that Torps will be reviewed and rebalanced sometime in the future.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#66 - 2014-04-05 10:07:43 UTC
Bertrand Butler wrote:

For all its worth, I think CCP has mentioned somewhere that Torps will be reviewed and rebalanced sometime in the future.


I would both fear and look forwards to such a thing.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#67 - 2014-04-05 10:25:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Bertrand Butler wrote:

For all its worth, I think CCP has mentioned somewhere that Torps will be reviewed and rebalanced sometime in the future.


I would both fear and look forwards to such a thing.


A gaggle of typhoons?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#68 - 2014-04-05 10:27:19 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Bertrand Butler wrote:

For all its worth, I think CCP has mentioned somewhere that Torps will be reviewed and rebalanced sometime in the future.


I would both fear and look forwards to such a thing.


A gaggle of typhoons?


An unkindness of ravens.
Bertrand Butler
Cras es Noster
#69 - 2014-04-05 10:28:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Bertrand Butler
Me too. To tell you the truth, I think torps, HMLs and capital missile launchers do need a look at, but the amount of player rage currently associated with those is a bit disproportionate with the subjective status the weapons have...

For example, torps could do with a slight buff to range via higher missile velocity, and maybe a small (5% or less) reduction to explo radius (they already have more explo vel than Cruises btw). Most people tend to think that torps are horribly imbalanced though, and that such a change would be entirely inadequate.
Vinyl 41
AdVictis
#70 - 2014-04-05 12:20:23 UTC
there is nothing to fear at any missle rebalance because we allways end with a piece of junk with a very limited usage - gone are the times where missle ships caused panic
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#71 - 2014-04-05 16:35:15 UTC
Bertrand Butler wrote:
Me too. To tell you the truth, I think torps, HMLs and capital missile launchers do need a look at, but the amount of player rage currently associated with those is a bit disproportionate with the subjective status the weapons have...

For example, torps could do with a slight buff to range via higher missile velocity, and maybe a small (5% or less) reduction to explo radius (they already have more explo vel than Cruises btw). Most people tend to think that torps are horribly imbalanced though, and that such a change would be entirely inadequate.


Torps do need some love indeed, not much but a little bit is warranted. HML can get damage if they lower its hilarious range. Cap missiles are just dumb atm, showcasing a total lack of understanding of the DEV who worked on them.
RavenPaine
RaVeN Alliance
#72 - 2014-04-05 17:22:28 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Bertrand Butler wrote:

For all its worth, I think CCP has mentioned somewhere that Torps will be reviewed and rebalanced sometime in the future.


I would both fear and look forwards to such a thing.


A gaggle of typhoons?


An unkindness of ravens.





Not sure if you knew this:

A flock of crows is also known as a "Murder of crows".

As to missiles.
I agree that the Heavy missile nerf seemed like a double tap to my Tengu and Drake hulls. It has affected my game play actually.
I have tried to avoid this thread overall, but in fact I'd like to see Heavies restored in full, and a little love to torps.
I want to see the META improve for ships bigger than cruisers and frigates.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#73 - 2014-04-05 18:05:03 UTC
RavenPaine wrote:
but in fact I'd like to see Heavies restored in full


No.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#74 - 2014-04-05 19:17:46 UTC
Denuo Secus wrote:
Last Wolf wrote:
Slightly back off topic... Why do missiles get hard to hit with when you use the short-ranged, high dps version? Guns you get better tracking when you use blasters vs rails, or AC vs arties. But torps vs cruise or HAM vs HML? Nope, you either get long range low dps that has better "tracking" or short range high dps but the "tracking" sucks.

If this same mechanic was applied to guns people would be rage quitting the game. Why are missiles like this?


Bad turret tracking isn't an issue at range. With low transversal you'll still do perfect hits. Missiles on the other side cannot reduce something like transversal to zero. TPs work relieable up to 45+km only. That's a good reason for more missile precision at range. At short range applied missile damage can be buffed by TP and webs.


Too bad % bonus are kinda bad when applied to small numbers like the base sig of a hard to hit ship.
RavenPaine
RaVeN Alliance
#75 - 2014-04-05 19:37:05 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
RavenPaine wrote:
but in fact I'd like to see Heavies restored in full


No.



They were never OP. What exactly do you think was OP about them?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#76 - 2014-04-05 21:30:37 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
RavenPaine wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
RavenPaine wrote:
but in fact I'd like to see Heavies restored in full


No.



They were never OP. What exactly do you think was OP about them?


Close range damage at long range. There was a reason why everyone flew drakes and tengu and the missiles were a big part of it.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#77 - 2014-04-05 23:18:44 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
RavenPaine wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
RavenPaine wrote:
but in fact I'd like to see Heavies restored in full


No.



They were never OP. What exactly do you think was OP about them?


Close range damage at long range. There was a reason why everyone flew drakes and tengu and the missiles were a big part of it.



The drake was mainly used for its ease for a newbie to fly and its massive tank. Rails,Beams hit out that range with better dps and instant damage.
If heavy missiles were not in game, the drake would have still been used.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#78 - 2014-04-05 23:24:27 UTC
Hagika wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
RavenPaine wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
RavenPaine wrote:
but in fact I'd like to see Heavies restored in full


No.



They were never OP. What exactly do you think was OP about them?


Close range damage at long range. There was a reason why everyone flew drakes and tengu and the missiles were a big part of it.



The drake was mainly used for its ease for a newbie to fly and its massive tank. Rails,Beams hit out that range with better dps and instant damage.
If heavy missiles were not in game, the drake would have still been used.


They were far better than the other medium long range weapons and able to play with the long range battleships while sporting a robust tank. Without the firepower they would not have seen use to the extent they were.

We will not be getting them back.
WaterMarks
The Keywork
#79 - 2014-04-05 23:35:54 UTC
Hagika wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
RavenPaine wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
RavenPaine wrote:
but in fact I'd like to see Heavies restored in full


No.



They were never OP. What exactly do you think was OP about them?


Close range damage at long range. There was a reason why everyone flew drakes and tengu and the missiles were a big part of it.



The drake was mainly used for its ease for a newbie to fly and its massive tank. Rails,Beams hit out that range with better dps and instant damage.
If heavy missiles were not in game, the drake would have still been used.


Well as soon as rails and beams get selectable. Damage you argument will be valid.

-Fly Reckless-
RavenPaine
RaVeN Alliance
#80 - 2014-04-06 00:02:35 UTC
Currently, close range fits compare like this. These are ships I have sitting in dock.

Hurricane, 6 220 Vulcan II, 2 gyro's, no damage rigs, no implants, Hobgoblin II's. 612 DPS
Same Cane, 425 version. 640 DPS
Harbinger, 6 Heavy Pulse II, Imp Navy crystals, 2 heat sinks, no damage rigs, No implants, Hammerhead II's. 700 DPS
Brutix, (A Brutix ffs) 6 ELECTRON blasters, zero mag stabs, no rigs, no implants, Hammerhead II's. 560 DPS
Drake, My current fit; 6 heavy II launchers, Caldari Scourge missiles, 2 BCU, 2 +3 Implants, no rigs. 453 DPS

Launchers are about 75 DPS each, so the old fit would have hit 525.
Subtract my 6% worth of implants and that would be right at 500ish
Or add 6% to the other fits and you'd put most of them in or over the 675 DPS range

Also, most Drake pilots have less than perfect skills. 75% of those Drake pilots people were complaining about, were doing less than 500 DPS
My point is: The Drake NEVER did close range damage from long range.

Drake strong points were tank, cost, noob friendly, and it wouldn't be called primary. Yes, range was a strong point, but range also = no tackle.
Arty Canes would kill them, anything fast could outrun them.
Those are all attributes of the ship, not the weapon system.
Drake DPS was always an LOL.

NOW: Now almost everything can kill them before they kill it. It's DPS was cut by 1 launcher, and the range was cut as well. So if you tackle one, it's dead. Closer range from heavies means Drake is just a bad ship to fly now.

Startin' to feel like a rant or something... and way off topic. Just making a point.