Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Well this got personal. Nick is probably referring to my posts about hisec, which are far from sensible and certainly arrogant, but I do have many years until vet status. No idea where Sal got the missile hate idea from.



Cruises outdps rails already at short range ammo, and do over twice as much (and way more) damage at extreme ranges. Tachyons hold up at medium range, yes, but turrets lose damage with range, cruises are equal or better at medium range and get progressively better with range.

Disadvantage of delayed damage is real, but also situational.

When fitted on ships things gets more bizarre- Cruise TFI outdamages a blaster NMega shooting CNAM. Slot layout and drones play a big part, but imho something is very wrong.

That's always possible, would be cool. Without ship bonuses, V skills.

450mm II / AM / 29+24 / 40dps
Cruise Missile Launcher II / Mjolnir Cruise / 65.8 45dps
Tachyon II / Multif. / 26+20 / 46dps

450mm II / Spike / 130+3 / 27dps
Tachyon II / Aurora / 119+25 / 30dps
Cruise Missile Launcher II / Mjolnir Fury / 105.8 / 63dps

Uh, why don't you compare Fury with Javelin and Gleam instead there chief? You wouldn't want people to think you were picking stats to support your predetermined conclusion would you? ;)

OR.... you could just not be bad and use faction ammo as a comparison, ya know, since missiles have exactly ZERO analogues with T2 turret ammo.

Fact: Cruise missiles/launchers were WAY underpowered and needed a considerable buff.

Yeah, looking at it more, I think he's trying to pick the most powerful ammo available for use at "long" range. For turrets, that has to be long-range T2 ammo, but Fury cruise still has sufficient range to be considered, although I'd argue that Fury is sufficiently niche to mean that CN would be more appropriate.

But I really don't think the comparison is meaningful because the ranges and DPS figures neglect everything from skills, modules and ships. I mean, that sort of comparison would suggest that current Cruise is hilariously OP, but then reality comes crashing home. I think it's a case of posting numbers without thinking hard enough about what they actually mean.

Gypsio,

first you critisized my assertion for not focusing solely on the weapon system, but when I didn't include ship stats then you critisize that? Considering all ships have either a RoF or damage bonus, their effect is not as big as you might think, the numbers just get bigger but relations stay the same.

Yes, large LR turrets and the new cruises are pretty much equal at medium ranges. Same missiles are superior damage-vise at shorter and longer ranges. I'm also aware that under certain conditions turret tracking formula has advantages over missile damage formula, and vice versa, and I'm not ignoring delayed damage, which is also situational.

I just don't think that large rails are a weak weapon system, and cruises outdamaging them at all ranges with no cap penalty and selectable damage type means that they were overbuffed. I'm also not saying that cruises didn't need a buff, just that less would have been sufficient. I'm also unsure whether the current missile BS were rebalanced for the new cruise stats or old ones, but they do seem incredibly powerful in the damage department compared to the traditionally highest damage platforms.

And for the others, feel free to compare high-damage close range turret ammo with the missiles. I chose T2 LR ammos for turrets to reach similar range to the missiles.

Trolly,

if you can supply the numbers that you KNOW are correct, please do so. I do not guarantee that my numbers are the absolute truth and I'm ready to reconsider my opinion if proven wrong.

This is fine because cruise missiles have a way cooler launching animation with that sudden acceleration. Justifies everything.

Disagreed. I had a Rattlesnake with cruise missiles and Bouncers being used to great effect (dps was boner-worthy) alongside a Snicopalypse. Cruise missiles are doing really well right now, though I don't know if there will be a metagame shift or not.

You see, the whole problem there comes from torps, not cruise missiles. The fact that cruise missiles have an actual function now automatically makes them better than torpedoes in a great deal of situations. Also there's the hilarious fact that if I want an active tanked torp raven (I personally wouldn't bother with a close range buffer+torp setup due to the Raven's utterly anemic passive tank), it has LESS DPS than a buffer tanked cruise raven due to CPU constraints, has to be closer to the target which means you're competing with high DPS guns that will tear the Raven apart in short order given it's previously mentioned poor tank, not to mention that if you get neuted out, your tank is done (cap boosters and regular shield boosters or ASBs is irrelevant; either way your tank is wholly unsustainable and you likely don't have enough punch to end the fight first).

The Typhoon is in a different situation due to it's retardedly small signature radius, similar if not superior speed to the Raven even when you've got two 1600mm II plates and rigs on it (seriously?), and a bonus that means it might actually hurt more with torps if only by doing almost all of the advertised damage per volley.

Torp already have blaster like damage up to 30km, and since the GMP skill apply to them, they have no problem applying their damage on BS.

The problem with cruise is that they now have the same damage than pulse with twice the range.

Of course they don't apply it well on smaller targets, but large LR weapons have trouble for this too. And in fleet with proper support, I think they can really hurt even cruisers, moreover with the Typhoon and precision missiles.

That have the potential to obsolete almost all BS IMO.

any ETA on any torpedo changes?