These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey] Cruise Missiles

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2013-04-16 14:34:15 UTC
Smoking Blunts wrote:
any chance you can either up the explosion velocity and / or decrease explosion radius a bit?

anything that is moving mitigates lots of damage, this would actually help apply that extra damage a bit



The idea is exaclty that movign thigs take less damage. ITs same as with turrets. The difference is... missiles is constant independent of distance and direction. Missiles do less damage then best care turret scenario but do more than worst case of turrets.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#42 - 2013-04-16 14:34:36 UTC
Destoya wrote:
Seems like a very big buff and a significant step towards making cruises viable weapons outside of L4 missions

I do already have some concerns over the relative strength of the turtle-tanking Golem teams that have been used very frequently in the past alliance tournaments and the SCL, but if we can see people start to use fleet comps like ravens or navy scorpions in "real EVE" the benefits far outweigh a change in the AT meta


iv watched the AT and past 3 years iv not seen any turtle tanking golems.

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#43 - 2013-04-16 14:37:38 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
any chance you can either up the explosion velocity and / or decrease explosion radius a bit?

anything that is moving mitigates lots of damage, this would actually help apply that extra damage a bit



The idea is exaclty that movign thigs take less damage. ITs same as with turrets. The difference is... missiles is constant independent of distance and direction. Missiles do less damage then best care turret scenario but do more than worst case of turrets.


I do get that, but currently if a bs (let alone anything smaller) is even slightly moving much of the dps is lost. even with more dps it will still fail to be applied.

I mean you could make each launcher do 1000 dps. but that buff is pointless if the missle still hits doing only a few % of that dps.

OMG when can i get a pic here
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#44 - 2013-04-16 14:37:38 UTC
Daneel Trevize wrote:
Medium rail-guns. Medium rail-guns? Medium rail-guns! Medium rail-guns, medium rail-guns, medium rail-guns! MEDIUM RAIL-GUNSShocked

I think you missed something before BS-sized weapons...

Or medium beam lasers.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#45 - 2013-04-16 14:49:39 UTC
Is there more not-ships stuff planned for Odyssey? I remember in the frigate thread that something to make rifters better or light missile kiting worse might happen. I'm fine with minmatar being awful, but light missile kiting does upset me.
Callic Veratar
#46 - 2013-04-16 14:49:44 UTC
Seranova Farreach wrote:
iv watched the AT and past 3 years iv not seen any turtle tanking golems.


The fight was in the New Eden Open but unfortunately since own3d.tv is gone, the videos aren't currently online.
0wl
Hailbird
#47 - 2013-04-16 14:52:51 UTC  |  Edited by: 0wl
Hmm, I'm not convinced adding more dmg and ROF is the way forward with the cruise missiles. The biggest problem I find with them is thier inability to apply the dmg they already have. increased explosion velocity might have been better. A cruiser moving at normal speed, with no prop mod and you still only do 100 dmg to it, where as BS sized guns would be smacking it for almost full dmg. Range and missile speed have never really been the issue.
Psihius
Perkone
Caldari State
#48 - 2013-04-16 14:55:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Psihius
CCP Rise wrote:


bla bla bla ...

10% increase in signature resolution for all Cruise Missiles[/b]

...
Rise

Missiles do not have a Signature Resolution parameter, so this is eighter Exsplosion Velocity or Explosion Radius.

Please clarify, it makes people nervous :)
Sparkus Volundar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#49 - 2013-04-16 14:57:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Sparkus Volundar
Michael Harari wrote:
Missile launchers dont have a sig resolution - the ammo has explosion velocity and explosion radius.

Which one did you mean, and did you mean it as a buff or nerf against small/fast targets?


He refers to it being a balance against improvements so it is likely to be an increase to explosion radius.

CCP Rise wrote:
These two improvements will be balanced by an increase in power grid need for the launchers, and a small signature resolution increase for the missiles.



Edit: First post has been updated to confirm that is it a "10% increase in explosion radius for all Cruise Missiles".

.
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#50 - 2013-04-16 15:02:59 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Rise
Hey sorry for the signature radius typo. It was meant to be explosion radius. Always getting my radii confused!

It is indeed an increase, which means that more of the damage will be mitigated by size. This will of course be more than offset by the increase in base damage, but the idea is that the performance increase will be more substantial for larger targets.

@ccp_rise
Steve Spooner
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#51 - 2013-04-16 15:03:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Steve Spooner
CCP you have made my summer Christmas perfect!

Now why do HAMs have a further range than fatass Torpedoes. One would imagine torpedoes have plenty of fuel in its big booty.
Senatrop
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#52 - 2013-04-16 15:03:40 UTC
del
Iranite
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#53 - 2013-04-16 15:06:21 UTC
This... is about way more than I wished for, this... is what we get. Awesome.
Thank you!
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#54 - 2013-04-16 15:06:29 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey sorry for the signature radius typo. It was meant to be explosion radius. Always getting my radii confused!

It is indeed an increase, which means that more of the damage will be mitigated by size. This will of course be more than offset by the increase in base damage, but the idea is that the performance increase will be more substantial for larger targets.


Did you mean for this to be a nerf against small targets, or a buff?
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#55 - 2013-04-16 15:07:42 UTC
Quote:
These two improvements will be balanced by an increase in power grid need for the launchers, and a small explosion radius increase for the missiles.


Reading is difficult, it seems.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#56 - 2013-04-16 15:07:53 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey sorry for the signature radius typo. It was meant to be explosion radius. Always getting my radii confused!

It is indeed an increase, which means that more of the damage will be mitigated by size. This will of course be more than offset by the increase in base damage, but the idea is that the performance increase will be more substantial for larger targets.


Did you mean for this to be a nerf against small targets, or a buff?

"It is indeed an increase, which means that more of the damage will be mitigated by size."
Not hard to figure out what he meant there.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#57 - 2013-04-16 15:10:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Skia Aumer
Iranite wrote:
This... is about way more than I wished for, this... is what we get. Awesome.
Thank you!

Could you explain what's awesome in turning Cruise missiles into Railguns?
Edit: a worse version of railguns, as you see from the post below.
Mister Vee
Magellanic Itg
Goonswarm Federation
#58 - 2013-04-16 15:11:02 UTC
if firewall doesn't get nerfed to **** you may aswell give them infinite volley damage, because in no relevant fight will they ever hit anything
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#59 - 2013-04-16 15:14:27 UTC
Mister Vee wrote:
if firewall doesn't get nerfed to **** you may aswell give them infinite volley damage, because in no relevant fight will they ever hit anything

How come this didn't apply to Drakes or Tengus? Honest question.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#60 - 2013-04-16 15:16:13 UTC
Righty, one by one:

5% increased rate of fire for all Cruise Missile Launchers
25% increase in base damage for all Cruise Missiles

Way more than I expected, tbh. Only problem I see: Rof means a rof bonused ship will go through cargo even faster and missiles are pretty large to carry around in the first place. Perhaps consider reducing the size of missiles?

200 added power grid need for all Cruise Missile launchers

Raven has plenty of grid to fit this, so you're likely trying to make cruises harder to fit as a secondary weapon, as they're fairly strong slot by slot. Acceptable.

10% increase in explosion radius for all Cruise Missiles

I don't think this was needed, considering cruises already have issues with hitting the smaller targets. It makes swapping between missile types even more important and thus even more tedious. Still, not THAT big a deal.

4700m/sec base missile velocity for all Cruise Missiles (up from 3750m/sec)
14 second base flight time for all Cruise Missiles (down from 20 seconds)

Speed increase, flight time decrease. Perfect, a very, very, welcome change.