These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#81 - 2013-04-16 15:43:10 UTC
So, as a few of you have mentioned, damage application is one of the biggest obstacles for missiles. I completely agree, but I don't want to solve this problem through Cruise Missiles as a system. I have other ideas for dealing with it, unfortunately they will likely not make it in for Odyssey.

@ccp_rise

mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#82 - 2013-04-16 15:45:31 UTC
CCP Rise: Any comments at least on whether you have Torpedo changes coming too? Or is this Cruise Missiles only?

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#83 - 2013-04-16 15:46:35 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
So, as a few of you have mentioned, damage application is one of the biggest obstacles for missiles. I completely agree, but I don't want to solve this problem through Cruise Missiles as a system. I have other ideas for dealing with it, unfortunately they will likely not make it in for Odyssey.


what are these idea's?
I know they wont make it, but would be nice to see where this might end up one day

OMG when can i get a pic here

Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#84 - 2013-04-16 15:46:43 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
So, as a few of you have mentioned, damage application is one of the biggest obstacles for missiles. I completely agree, but I don't want to solve this problem through Cruise Missiles as a system. I have other ideas for dealing with it, unfortunately they will likely not make it in for Odyssey.

Why dont you just make target painters viable, instead of "other ideas" ?
MainDrain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2013-04-16 15:48:11 UTC
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
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?



Figure that has to be a key comment, with the Rate of Fire increasing its got to be a must to reduce the size, as well as the mineral requirements for building them. It shouldnt become more expensive (albeit slightly) to kill a target as a result of these changes, it should remain identical.
Sigras
Conglomo
#86 - 2013-04-16 15:48:32 UTC
Smoking Blunts 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.


so all these changes mean is a cruise missle will hit a bs harder if it is sitting still. but if it moves the ages old problem that was created during the speed nerf still remains, they cant hit anything that is smaller than a bs or moving.

awesome buff for mission runners

by my math, this means each missile will do 291 damage rather than 253 and thats worst case scenario; an AB tempest with no sig increase from a shield tank and no speed decrease from an armor tank.

seriously though, who runs an AB on a battleship?

TL;DR
unless the battleship is LOLz afterburning and not MWDing your cruise missiles will do full damage.
SongSinger
BlitzStrike
#87 - 2013-04-16 15:48:57 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
So, as a few of you have mentioned, damage application is one of the biggest obstacles for missiles. I completely agree, but I don't want to solve this problem through Cruise Missiles as a system. I have other ideas for dealing with it, unfortunately they will likely not make it in for Odyssey.

i'm sad
is it possible to increase the velocity of explosion by 5%?
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#88 - 2013-04-16 15:49:47 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
So, as a few of you have mentioned, damage application is one of the biggest obstacles for missiles. I completely agree, but I don't want to solve this problem through Cruise Missiles as a system. I have other ideas for dealing with it, unfortunately they will likely not make it in for Odyssey.


Tell me TD's are going to make it into odyssey its been a year since last fanfest when it was supposed to make it into summer expansion you're starting to take the ****

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#89 - 2013-04-16 15:53:13 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Smoking Blunts 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.


so all these changes mean is a cruise missle will hit a bs harder if it is sitting still. but if it moves the ages old problem that was created during the speed nerf still remains, they cant hit anything that is smaller than a bs or moving.

awesome buff for mission runners

by my math, this means each missile will do 291 damage rather than 253 and thats worst case scenario; an AB tempest with no sig increase from a shield tank and no speed decrease from an armor tank.

seriously though, who runs an AB on a battleship?

TL;DR
unless the battleship is LOLz afterburning and not MWDing your cruise missiles will do full damage.


Remember that the Tempest has a particularly low sig radius and is fairly fast. Any of the soon-to-be Combat BS will take more damage.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#90 - 2013-04-16 15:55:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Smoking Blunts
Sigras wrote:
Smoking Blunts 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.


so all these changes mean is a cruise missle will hit a bs harder if it is sitting still. but if it moves the ages old problem that was created during the speed nerf still remains, they cant hit anything that is smaller than a bs or moving.

awesome buff for mission runners

by my math, this means each missile will do 291 damage rather than 253 and thats worst case scenario; an AB tempest with no sig increase from a shield tank and no speed decrease from an armor tank.

seriously though, who runs an AB on a battleship?

TL;DR
unless the battleship is LOLz afterburning and not MWDing your cruise missiles will do full damage.


not sure what missiles you using for these numbers. but cn missiles have a base of 345, fury 420, precision 300.
granted its been a good year since I sat in or even looked at a raven with out thinking its gonna die fast, so please go slowly for me.

OMG when can i get a pic here

Jonas Vexxor
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2013-04-16 15:58:12 UTC
Throw away your Tengus mission runners.. CNR is where it's going to be.
SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#92 - 2013-04-16 15:59:00 UTC
CCP Rise, as the owner of 2 Caldari pilots with over 12M SP in missiles on one of them, I like those changes very much as they even go beyond my wildest dreams !

With those changes, I think we'll start seeing more Typhoon/Raven fleet concepts, which is great of course as it brings diversity Cool

Once torps are fixed, I think we can safely say "Large Missiles are fixed".

Marcus Walkuris
Aww yeahhh
#93 - 2013-04-16 16:00:03 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
So, as a few of you have mentioned, damage application is one of the biggest obstacles for missiles. I completely agree, but I don't want to solve this problem through Cruise Missiles as a system. I have other ideas for dealing with it, unfortunately they will likely not make it in for Odyssey.


Wonderful to know that is on the drawing board.
Elated is the word of the day
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#94 - 2013-04-16 16:06:22 UTC
SMT008 wrote:
With those changes, I think we'll start seeing more Typhoon/Raven fleet concepts, which is great of course as it brings diversity Cool

Why should fleetcoms prefer Cruise over Rails? Raven over Rokh?
Switchable damage type - alright, but is that all? Not too much considering their drawbacks: delayed volley, damage application, firewall.
But indeed, they are good for PVE now.
Grunnax Aurelius
Black Rams
Radicalized Apes
#95 - 2013-04-16 16:11:52 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
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.


Ruin my Corax's and Kestrel's weapon system and you die! No Touchie!!!

Cruise Missile Changes, Perfect change, combined with the new Raven Changes, the new Raven is going to be MAD, not only for PvE but PvP aswell, i have already punched the numbers into EvEHQ and i love it.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=342042&find=unread

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#96 - 2013-04-16 16:13:36 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
SMT008 wrote:
With those changes, I think we'll start seeing more Typhoon/Raven fleet concepts, which is great of course as it brings diversity Cool

Why should fleetcoms prefer Cruise over Rails? Raven over Rokh?
Switchable damage type - alright, but is that all? Not too much considering their drawbacks: delayed volley, damage application, firewall.
But indeed, they are good for PVE now.

All improved now, but yes we'll have to see if the increased speed allows a significant amount of damage to slip past a firewall now.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Aglais
Ice-Storm
#97 - 2013-04-16 16:14:52 UTC
Oh boy, an explosion radius increase.

Please, PLEASE let this thing not be so much as to make the Raven permanently fit a target painter in it's seventh med slot regardless of weapon choice. I don't want the Raven to have to depend on this module to do damage. Other than that, things look... Pretty solid, actually. And now we wait eagerly for the torpedo changes.
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#98 - 2013-04-16 16:16:04 UTC
I understand need of balance when it comes to pvp but when we speak of pve.. Everyone already want to fly tengu.. After this everyone want to fly raven and golem. This is really frustrating. Please give people more choices to fly in pve and dont force everyone to fly caldari crap.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#99 - 2013-04-16 16:18:03 UTC
Aglais wrote:
Oh boy, an explosion radius increase.

Please, PLEASE let this thing not be so much as to make the Raven permanently fit a target painter in it's seventh med slot regardless of weapon choice. I don't want the Raven to have to depend on this module to do damage. Other than that, things look... Pretty solid, actually. And now we wait eagerly for the torpedo changes.


The main change torps need is to increase its explosion velocity much like the HAMS have got a higher exp velocity than HM's by about 20m/s there is about 2m/s difference between torps and cruises.

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#100 - 2013-04-16 16:18:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Theia Matova wrote:
I understand need of balance when it comes to pvp but when we speak of pve.. Everyone already want to fly tengu.. After this everyone want to fly raven and golem. This is really frustrating. Please give people more choices to fly in pve and dont force everyone to fly caldari crap.

Put Cruise on your Armageddon? SmileSmileSmile

Or Typhoon for that matter.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.