These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Shingorash
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#261 - 2013-04-17 11:40:15 UTC
amurder Hakomairos wrote:
lilol' me wrote:
We have to remember that usually Cruise Missiles are not supposed to be for ship to ship battles. In RL like the tomahawks they are used to shoot land targets or 'structures' mainly. They not used for moving targets.

So its not really a PVP tool is it. However we used to have the TASM which was an anti ship missile and this is exactly what we need in eve. A NEW Cruise Missile specifically designed for PVP.

They should still be only shooting large ships, but have much much more velocity and perhaps not as much DPS. I know we have rage and precision cruise but I still dont think they are PVP based missiles as they dont have enough velocity.

The changes to say 14 seconds just does nothing to help this. Seriously 14 seconds to hit a target in PVP. Forget it. I know thats base but still.



This. Cruise missiles will be 100% useless and unused in pvp unless a pvp specific version is created with enough velocity that it can fly 200km in 1-2 seconds.


Cruise Missiles with their current changes are 600m/s faster than Heavy Missiles. Bearing in mind how much Drakes are used in fleets I dont see how your comment is valid in anyway?

7050m/s is nothing to scoff at. If you are in a fleet fight at 60km which is about the range a Drake blob would be the Cruise will hit before Heavy's do.

Cruise changes actually make it possible to use them in PVP. Its a massive improvement.
Shingorash
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#262 - 2013-04-17 11:41:53 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
TZeer wrote:
Raven could be useful in PVP. But not with the current mechanics to probing where you get a warp in within 5 sec.


Sure, and if you're trying to use the Raven against fleets that are big enough to have a dedicated covops traveling with them.... well, then maybe you shouldn't use a Raven. That doesn't make it not useful. And hell - the Raven's fully capable of dropping out 900 DPS up close if someone were to warp their fleet on top of them.

-Liang



it would need a change of game mechanics. But what I think would make peopel satisfied woudl be if a cruise missile could be fired.. the raven could warp out .... and the missile fired would still hit and damage the target. That could lead to some interesting tactics


Like Bombs I guess.

The missiles though are guided, bombs are not, if you warp off grid there would be no guidance system and the missiles would miss.

You could change it so that the missiles continue on their current trajectory if you warp out but considering they would likely miss I dont think it would be worth the dev's time to implement the change.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#263 - 2013-04-17 11:42:12 UTC
Funky Lazers wrote:
Agree. Moreover you should be able to use them without the Painters.
Not only you can't use painters on a long range, but also they have a long cycle time so switching targets will be a pain in the a$$.



Painters are, imo, the price for having a 0--max range effective fighting zone with no degradation.

I DO agree on the cycle time though.
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#264 - 2013-04-17 11:51:08 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Funky Lazers wrote:
Agree. Moreover you should be able to use them without the Painters.
Not only you can't use painters on a long range, but also they have a long cycle time so switching targets will be a pain in the a$$.



Painters are, imo, the price for having a 0--max range effective fighting zone with no degradation.

I DO agree on the cycle time though.


I'd like it better if T2 painters weren't worse than Meta 4 painters... :/

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.
Funky Lazers
Funk Freakers
#265 - 2013-04-17 11:55:32 UTC
Shingorash wrote:
Funky Lazers wrote:
amurder Hakomairos wrote:
lilol' me wrote:
We have to remember that usually Cruise Missiles are not supposed to be for ship to ship battles. In RL like the tomahawks they are used to shoot land targets or 'structures' mainly. They not used for moving targets.

So its not really a PVP tool is it. However we used to have the TASM which was an anti ship missile and this is exactly what we need in eve. A NEW Cruise Missile specifically designed for PVP.

They should still be only shooting large ships, but have much much more velocity and perhaps not as much DPS. I know we have rage and precision cruise but I still dont think they are PVP based missiles as they dont have enough velocity.

The changes to say 14 seconds just does nothing to help this. Seriously 14 seconds to hit a target in PVP. Forget it. I know thats base but still.



This. Cruise missiles will be 100% useless and unused in pvp unless a pvp specific version is created with enough velocity that it can fly 200km in 1-2 seconds.


Agree. Moreover you should be able to use them without the Painters.
Not only you can't use painters on a long range, but also they have a long cycle time so switching targets will be a pain in the a$$.


So you should be able to use Guns without Tracking Computers as well then? And perhaps they should remove the cap requirement for Hybrids and Energy weapons as well?

That is basically what you are saying right? Each weapon system has drawbacks as well as benefits. You just have to learn to deal with them.


I didn't say "without TC". If TCs/TEs affect missiles that would be great and remove a lot of problems.

As for drawbacks missiles have already a lot of them, like bad tracking (expl radius and speed), flight time and defenders.

Whatever.
TZeer
BURN EDEN
No Therapy
#266 - 2013-04-17 12:03:13 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
TZeer wrote:
Raven could be useful in PVP. But not with the current mechanics to probing where you get a warp in within 5 sec.


Sure, and if you're trying to use the Raven against fleets that are big enough to have a dedicated covops traveling with them.... well, then maybe you shouldn't use a Raven. That doesn't make it not useful. And hell - the Raven's fully capable of dropping out 900 DPS up close if someone were to warp their fleet on top of them.

-Liang



it would need a change of game mechanics. But what I think would make peopel satisfied woudl be if a cruise missile could be fired.. the raven could warp out .... and the missile fired would still hit and damage the target. That could lead to some interesting tactics



Not really.

Based on the same reason you don't see paper thin sniper setups @ 150km+ any more. You simply don't have time to align and warp out again, if they try to scan you down when you come in.
monkfish2345
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#267 - 2013-04-17 12:37:27 UTC
well hopefully with their slight hint at "re-imagined exploration" they will also fix combat scanning so we can have the days of the sniper bs fleets.

they were very much at the forefront of fleet PvP up until getting a warp in on a fleet at range was reduced to seconds regadless of the situation.

for those that remember both kiting and sniping were both very viable. and the change meant that near stationary sniper was no longer possible and everything started to revolve and mobility and kiting. It also meant things like ceptors had important roles in providing warpins (ccp should take a look at their own promotional videos)
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#268 - 2013-04-17 12:38:13 UTC
i would like to post my opinion.

PvE
The Dmg from fury cruise was fine for PvE [I use a Navy Raven], because its a long range weapon system. It does about 700 DPS, but to apply your dps you need 3 rigs and a TP [mostly used for smaller targets]. Compared to Torpedos, which do about 900-1000 dps, at about 45KM-70KM range [with 3 range rigs, and no rage ammo] Cruise was fine. If i want more dmg, then i need to use torps, but because they have low range i cant use Rage ammo, so im stuck with normal ammo or Javelins for longer range.

After this change my Navy Raven Cruise-Fit will do about 1000 DPS too, the same DPS as Torps fitted for long range. There is no advantage to use Torps anymore.

@Rise
If you want the Torps to be competitive in PvE then increase the range and reduce the Rage penalty's from the Torps.

PvP
I usually dont pvp, but i cant image them beeing better now.
SongSinger
BlitzStrike
#269 - 2013-04-17 12:40:00 UTC
why not do that after the destruction of target, missiles automatically switched to the nearest locked target
can implement this feature using the module
Shingorash
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#270 - 2013-04-17 12:40:32 UTC
Funky Lazers wrote:
Shingorash wrote:
Funky Lazers wrote:
amurder Hakomairos wrote:
lilol' me wrote:
We have to remember that usually Cruise Missiles are not supposed to be for ship to ship battles. In RL like the tomahawks they are used to shoot land targets or 'structures' mainly. They not used for moving targets.

So its not really a PVP tool is it. However we used to have the TASM which was an anti ship missile and this is exactly what we need in eve. A NEW Cruise Missile specifically designed for PVP.

They should still be only shooting large ships, but have much much more velocity and perhaps not as much DPS. I know we have rage and precision cruise but I still dont think they are PVP based missiles as they dont have enough velocity.

The changes to say 14 seconds just does nothing to help this. Seriously 14 seconds to hit a target in PVP. Forget it. I know thats base but still.



This. Cruise missiles will be 100% useless and unused in pvp unless a pvp specific version is created with enough velocity that it can fly 200km in 1-2 seconds.


Agree. Moreover you should be able to use them without the Painters.
Not only you can't use painters on a long range, but also they have a long cycle time so switching targets will be a pain in the a$$.


So you should be able to use Guns without Tracking Computers as well then? And perhaps they should remove the cap requirement for Hybrids and Energy weapons as well?

That is basically what you are saying right? Each weapon system has drawbacks as well as benefits. You just have to learn to deal with them.


I didn't say "without TC". If TCs/TEs affect missiles that would be great and remove a lot of problems.

As for drawbacks missiles have already a lot of them, like bad tracking (expl radius and speed), flight time and defenders.


Tracking Computers could be used to affect Missiles as you said for Exp Radius and Exp Velocity but I the bonus would have to be small as there are rigs, tp's and web's that already affect those 2 attributes.

As for drawbacks, yes missiles have them but so do guns, energy and hybrid use cap, energy tracking is terrible at close range, projectile has a poor optimal, blaster have poor optimal and falloff unless you use T2 Null and Optimal Range scripts in TC's.

It's not quite so simple to buff them as you would have to buff guns as well.

As 2 different weapon systems they both have their good and bad points, but on the basis you can still hit things at 0 with missiles and you cant with rails, beams or arty I think on balance they are fine. You cant expect to hit everytime and hit for full damage.

Unless you added a drawback to missiles like a minimum arming distance it wouldnt be fair to make them better from an exp radius and velocity standpoint.

If you compare the benefits and drawbacks of missiles to guns they are actually fairly balanced. The only real difference is the instant damage of guns against the flight time of missiles. BUT, Missiles will hit for "full damage" at any range in their max whereas guns are affected by optimal and falloff.

On a balance standpoint, Missiles are actually fine. To adjust them would make them overpowered in the grand scheme of things.
Shingorash
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#271 - 2013-04-17 12:45:12 UTC
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
i would like to post my opinion.

PvE
The Dmg from fury cruise was fine for PvE [I use a Navy Raven], because its a long range weapon system. It does about 700 DPS, but to apply your dps you need 3 rigs and a TP [mostly used for smaller targets]. Compared to Torpedos, which do about 900-1000 dps, at about 45KM-70KM range [with 3 range rigs, and no rage ammo] Cruise was fine. If i want more dmg, then i need to use torps, but because they have low range i cant use Rage ammo, so im stuck with normal ammo or Javelins for longer range.

After this change my Navy Raven Cruise-Fit will do about 1000 DPS too, the same DPS as Torps fitted for long range. There is no advantage to use Torps anymore.

@Rise
If you want the Torps to be competitive in PvE then increase the range and reduce the Rage penalty's from the Torps.

PvP
I usually dont pvp, but i cant image them beeing better now.


Torps at close range against BC's and BS will still easily out DPS Cruise Missiles with similar TP / Web setups. Torps could do with some extra range though.

Rails, Arty, Beams and Cruise are all good for 150km+, Auto's with Barrage, Pulse with Scorch and to a somewhat lesser extent Hybrids with Null will all hit to 50km and beyond. Torps really need some extra range, 45km with Jav's is basically the max without rigs to increase it (about 58km I think from memory), but at that range Target Painters are literally hit and miss as the optimal goes at 45km.

Also is you look at the Navy Apoc, Machariel and a couple of other ships you can hit for real good damage at 60km+.

Torps would be fine with a little extra range and perhaps a longer range on Target Painters.
SongSinger
BlitzStrike
#272 - 2013-04-17 12:55:43 UTC
if you make a torpedo speed as the rocket, the range is 45 km for rage torpedoes
but the need to reduce the bonus range of  a stealth bomber
John Ratcliffe
Tradors'R'us
IChooseYou Alliance
#273 - 2013-04-17 13:13:54 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Specifically:

5% increased rate of fire for all Cruise Missile Launchers
200 added power grid need for all Cruise Missile launchers

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)
25% increase in base damage for all Cruise Missiles
10% increase in explosion radius for all Cruise Missiles


Why increase the PG need for Launchers FFS? That makes ZERO sense. Some CNR fits are already PG tight with max skills as it is - just leave the PG requirement alone.

The rest is fine IMHO.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#274 - 2013-04-17 13:15:59 UTC
Shingorash wrote:

Torps at close range against BC's and BS will still easily out DPS Cruise Missiles with similar TP / Web setups. Torps could do with some extra range though.


there is no close range in PvE. The only BS-Rats are the Angel and some Serpentis, which come close, the other NPC's usually stay at 40+ KM. See yourself:

http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/npc_ships.php

Lets do same Math. I will compare the Dmg from Cruise Fury and normal Torps, because i cant use Rage Ammo in a Range-Fit. because i dont have the proper rigs fitted. I wont apply the skills for this example because both weapon system would get the same Bonus, so i can just skip it.

Base Stats:
Cruise Dmg: 300 [current stats] / 300 * 1.25 = 375 [After the patch]
Cruise Fury Dmg: 375 * 1.4 = 525
Torpedo Dmg: 450
Cruise Cycle [T2 luncher]: 17.6 [current stats] / 17.6 * 0.95 = 16.72 [After the patch]
Torpedo Cycle [T2 luncher]: 14.4

14.4 / 16.72 = 0.861244

450 / 0.861244 = 522.5 < 525

so you see Cruise Fury will do the same DPS as Torpedos.
John Ratcliffe
Tradors'R'us
IChooseYou Alliance
#275 - 2013-04-17 13:20:11 UTC
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
...so you see Cruise Fury will do the same DPS as Torpedos.


Until they look at Torpedoes. I can't see CMs ever doing the same DPS as Torps.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Disturbed Drake
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#276 - 2013-04-17 13:20:26 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:


Specifically:

5% increased rate of fire for all Cruise Missile Launchers
200 added power grid need for all Cruise Missile launchers

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)
25% increase in base damage for all Cruise Missiles
10% increase in explosion radius for all Cruise Missiles



YEEEEAAAHHHHH!!!!!! at last!
Shingorash
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#277 - 2013-04-17 13:21:05 UTC
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
Shingorash wrote:

Torps at close range against BC's and BS will still easily out DPS Cruise Missiles with similar TP / Web setups. Torps could do with some extra range though.


there is no close range in PvE. The only BS-Rats are the Angel and some Serpentis, which come close, the other NPC's usually stay at 40+ KM. See yourself:

http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/npc_ships.php

Lets do same Math. I will compare the Dmg from Cruise Fury and normal Torps, because i cant use Rage Ammo in a Range-Fit. because i dont have the proper rigs fitted. I wont apply the skills for this example because both weapon system would get the same Bonus, so i can just skip it.

Base Stats:
Cruise Dmg: 300 [current stats] / 300 * 1.25 = 375 [After the patch]
Cruise Fury Dmg: 375 * 1.4 = 525
Torpedo Dmg: 450
Cruise Cycle [T2 luncher]: 17.6 [current stats] / 17.6 * 0.95 = 16.72 [After the patch]
Torpedo Cycle [T2 luncher]: 14.4

14.4 / 16.72 = 0.861244

450 / 0.861244 = 522.5 < 525

so you see Cruise Fury will do the same DPS as Torpedos.


I was more talking about PVP to be honest, short range weapons in PVE are obviously a poor idea. Then again I do use a Navy Mega with Blasters on my alt so its not all bad :)

If torps had longer range they might work in PVE but I doubt it. For PVP applications though a bit more range would be useful.
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#278 - 2013-04-17 13:39:00 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

5% increased rate of fire for all Cruise Missile Launchers

25% increase in base damage for all Cruise Missiles
10% increase in explosion radius for all Cruise Missiles
Shocked You said that you had plans for cruise missiles..., but damn!!! My CNR is just smiling.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#279 - 2013-04-17 13:45:59 UTC
Shingorash wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
TZeer wrote:
Raven could be useful in PVP. But not with the current mechanics to probing where you get a warp in within 5 sec.


Sure, and if you're trying to use the Raven against fleets that are big enough to have a dedicated covops traveling with them.... well, then maybe you shouldn't use a Raven. That doesn't make it not useful. And hell - the Raven's fully capable of dropping out 900 DPS up close if someone were to warp their fleet on top of them.

-Liang



it would need a change of game mechanics. But what I think would make peopel satisfied woudl be if a cruise missile could be fired.. the raven could warp out .... and the missile fired would still hit and damage the target. That could lead to some interesting tactics


Like Bombs I guess.

The missiles though are guided, bombs are not, if you warp off grid there would be no guidance system and the missiles would miss.

You could change it so that the missiles continue on their current trajectory if you warp out but considering they would likely miss I dont think it would be worth the dev's time to implement the change.



Do not know why missile sin eve could not be as missiles in real life... most use self guidance after they got some distance from their vector platform.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Tub Chil
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#280 - 2013-04-17 13:58:40 UTC
Also it's very ironic that CCP rebalanced heavy missiles so that they match DPS of long range turrets and now gives cruise missiles 2x damage of large long turrets