These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
#41 - 2014-04-03 12:22:39 UTC
Kaea Astridsson wrote:
See alot of people calling for Mordu ships in these threads, aren't Mordu ships just Caldari ships? I haven't seen a Mordu in anything unique. And it would be a real bummer with just another "pirate" faction ship that's just basically a paint job.


Lorewise, they're Gallente/Caldari (as opposed to the Caldari/Gallente of the Guristas)

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#42 - 2014-04-03 12:31:18 UTC
Hagika wrote:
IIshira wrote:
My CNR chews through stuff way faster than before it's "demise" ...

If that was a nerf can you pretty please nerf the Nightmare in a similar fashion?? Say cut the 5% per level damage bonus down to 10% per level and just to make sure it's a horrible ship to fly add a 5% per level bonus to optimal and falloff. I promise if you do this I'll make a post complaining about it!

Thanks

IIshira


It was made a better pve boat as stated, and because cruise were fixed, it helped. In terms of PVP, its still never used.
Which was the whole problem to begin with.


Is it used less for PvP? Because I don't see how it has been made worse for PvP than it was.

I haven't had occasion to try it myself, but to me it seems like it would be considerably better than the old CML CNR. Damage application, alpha, DPS and speed have all been significantly improved and those are pretty important. You can't kite it, it can do good damage to medium hulls, ~800-1000 fully selectable damage type, tracking independent DPS that can hit out to lock range and it also has a decent dronebay to help deal with lights, and it has 7 midslots.

If you can't make something out of that then I don't even know what you'd want.

Yeah sure it lost the utility high, but an extra midslot is worth the trade for a shield tanking ship IMO.

So... How exactly has it been "nerfed"? "Didn't get as much buff as I wanted" does not equal "nerfed".

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#43 - 2014-04-03 13:53:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Caitlyn Tufy
^ What Malcanis said. It's a pretty cool ship, the CNR's only problem is that Navy Phoon tends to do better in fleets, because it has higher potential dps and speed. In small fights though, that thing will murder anything battlecruiser and down and be more than a match for a ship its own size - including lone Phoons.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#44 - 2014-04-03 22:51:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Hagika
IbanezLaney wrote:
Sometimes you have to look at the alpha and applying that damage - not the dps.

People put too much emphasis on DPS when looking at which ships to fly.




Having a large alpha is nice, but here is the problem. Missiles do not have the largest alpha and by a weapon design, they of all things should, the other problem is the delay on hitting the target due to travel time. Lets not forget that missiles take up a bunch of cargo space. So Arties do more alpha and you can fit far more ammo in the ship.

Im all for a ridiculous alpha but factor in sig radius alone cuts a ton of missile damage, then factor in speed and everything else that affects missile damage and that alpha becomes useless. How often do you see a missile ship insta popping anything? Say a BS vs a frig. Gun ships do it all the time, not missile ships. The frig can be sitting still and it almost never happens and they have the 2nd largest alpha in game. Every weapon system besides missiles with far smaller alpha can blop a ship.

Since this is the case, it is better just to have a ship that spews of a flurry of death. The really sad thing is, with todays modern technology, we can put a missile a moving target that is moving almost as fast as the missile and it still doesnt suffer from explosion velocity in the sense that Eve does. We can put missiles right down mine shafts that are only a little bigger around than the bomb or missile. Yet In the futuristic time of Eve, you can send a a missile to a ship flying 4 times slower than the missile itself and the ship can literally take little to 0 damage. Modern day missiles dont care about your sig radius, if you fire a tomahawk with no explosive warhead at a speeding car, that car will be a heap of metal shortly after.

Before you mention size of the missile vs target size, run from a train going down the tracks and be slower than it and let me know what happens when the weapon is bigger than the target. You dont take little to no damage, you get to go splat by the whole thing.

You do not need an explosion, a medium size missile to tank will do plenty enough kinetic damage to a tank to destory it without the need for explosions.

In the first Gulf war, the United States used non guided bombs dropped from planes at 10,000 or more feet, that were made from old battleship barrels cut to size and filled with concrete to 500-1000 pound weights. They would crush iraqi tanks to pretty much pancakes upon impact. Crazy,cheap and effective, but EVE cant have reliable missiles......
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#45 - 2014-04-03 23:18:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Hagika
Malcanis wrote:
Hagika wrote:
IIshira wrote:
My CNR chews through stuff way faster than before it's "demise" ...

If that was a nerf can you pretty please nerf the Nightmare in a similar fashion?? Say cut the 5% per level damage bonus down to 10% per level and just to make sure it's a horrible ship to fly add a 5% per level bonus to optimal and falloff. I promise if you do this I'll make a post complaining about it!

Thanks

IIshira


It was made a better pve boat as stated, and because cruise were fixed, it helped. In terms of PVP, its still never used.
Which was the whole problem to begin with.


Is it used less for PvP? Because I don't see how it has been made worse for PvP than it was.

I haven't had occasion to try it myself, but to me it seems like it would be considerably better than the old CML CNR. Damage application, alpha, DPS and speed have all been significantly improved and those are pretty important. You can't kite it, it can do good damage to medium hulls, ~800-1000 fully selectable damage type, tracking independent DPS that can hit out to lock range and it also has a decent dronebay to help deal with lights, and it has 7 midslots.

If you can't make something out of that then I don't even know what you'd want.

Yeah sure it lost the utility high, but an extra midslot is worth the trade for a shield tanking ship IMO.

So... How exactly has it been "nerfed"? "Didn't get as much buff as I wanted" does not equal "nerfed".



The potential to hit is better, but in PVP, there is almost always a web,scram from the tackle. So the phoon with its already far superior damage wins. Now realistically in PVP guns are used far more just on the fact that they apply damage instantly, missiles do not do that so right there, most are shunned from that area. Solo kiters from the frig lines get some use. Though in the PVP a gun ship is always preferred.

Before you mention the drake, it was the tank and short time for people to get into. The missile system wasnt great. Null sec alliances put it to use because it could handle the incoming damage and the logi had time to rep it. It was not a good damaging ship, then of course CCP in their almighty wisdom says.. Hey nerf the missile system it uses !

The drake still gets used on the fleets, other groups still complain, then CCP says.. Hey now we will nerf the tank.
Then shortly to follow they buff medium guns essentially handing the heavy missile system a second nerf.

Now the drake is laughed at in every respect and is hardly used now. So now missile users are stuck with rockets that require 2 webs to make them worth while, light missiles that actually do work. Craptastic medium missile systems, both HAMS and Heavies are garbage. Now we have cruise missiles that actually work after years of being garbage and Torps are really lacking. The capital ship missile line is so sad that even asking to bring a phoenix on a fleet will get you laughed at or kicked from fleet for asking such a ridiculous question.

By the way, im a gun user. Unlike others, the lopsidedness of the effectiveness of guns vs missiles is so bad that even other gun users are speaking out on it.

Most people who ask about what weapon systems to use either starting out or in PVP are always told guns. For PVE guns are still more than equally effective as missiles.


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.
Lucine Delacourt
The Covenant of Blood
#46 - 2014-04-04 06:03:29 UTC
HAMs and the HAM Drake are not as bad as you are trying to convince people.
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#47 - 2014-04-04 06:16:07 UTC
Hagika wrote:
Im all for a ridiculous alpha but factor in sig radius alone cuts a ton of missile damage, then factor in speed and everything else that affects missile damage and that alpha becomes useless. How often do you see a missile ship insta popping anything? Say a BS vs a frig. Gun ships do it all the time, not missile ships.


Good luck hitting anything with a high transversal on a gun-based BS. That's one of the differences between guns any missiles - guns have a potential to do a lot of damage or none at all, while missiles do a realiable amount of steady damage. The only reason missiles are looked down upon in fleets is delayed damage on target calling.

Quote:
Null sec alliances put it to use because it could handle the incoming damage and the logi had time to rep it.


It was used because it was one of the few ships in game that had the range, capless dps and could permarun an MWD, while being relatively noob-friendly as well. The infamous ubertank Drake was an exception to this rule, proving how little people understood the Drake's real power.
Luwc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#48 - 2014-04-04 08:08:56 UTC
Hagika wrote:
Ever since the demise of the DPS of the Navy Raven under a crazy idea that somehow missiles are viable at super long range, when it take missiles forever and a day to travel.

It would be nice to have a high dps Pirate Faction Missile boat. Something that missile users can be proud of.



Rattlesnake ?!

http://hugelolcdn.com/i/267520.gif
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#49 - 2014-04-04 08:18:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
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.
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#50 - 2014-04-04 16:31:18 UTC
Luwc wrote:
Hagika wrote:
Ever since the demise of the DPS of the Navy Raven under a crazy idea that somehow missiles are viable at super long range, when it take missiles forever and a day to travel.

It would be nice to have a high dps Pirate Faction Missile boat. Something that missile users can be proud of.



Rattlesnake ?!


Rattlesnake is a drone boat that happens to have missile slots, not a missile boat.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#51 - 2014-04-04 16:45:44 UTC
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.
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#52 - 2014-04-04 17:08:39 UTC
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?
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#53 - 2014-04-04 17:12:05 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Chris Winter wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Hagika wrote:
Its not as bad as you claim, I assure you. Also ever use rage torps on a non moving drake? Its hundreds of damage less per shot even with the use of a stealth bomber as compare to faction. Dont even try it with a torp Battleship,

In fact HAM's you cant even hit another cruiser standing still without reduced damage and its a cruiser weapon.
Rockets require dual webs to be fully effective on another frig.


Anyone using Rage torps (explosion radius 580.5 m) against a battlecruiser deserves everything they get.

Your statements about rocket and HAM damage application are wrong, and obviously so.

Actually, with no skills HAMs have an explosion radius of 125m, so there aren't many cruisers they'll hit for full damage in that case. Even with perfect skills they still have an explosion radius of 93.75m, which is large enough that quite a few cruisers won't get hit for full damage.

As for rockets, with perfect skills they have an explosion velocity of 225, which is slower than all frigs, and many frigs do indeed need to be double webbed to get that low...and that's without a propmod.


GMP exists for a reason. Train it.

All combat cruisers have sigs above 93.75 m. Out of all 58 cruisers, only the logis have a smaller sig - and a couple of them have larger sigs once you've actually fit some mods to them.

Rockets have an explosion radius of 15 m. This is half the sig of any frigate. I would say that I trust that I don't have to explain to you what effect this has on the effective explosion velocity, but it appears that I do. In the case of a frigate with sig 30 m, the effective explosion velocity is doubled to 450 m.

Hagika's statement is invalid except in the extremes, which cannot be construed as being representative of typical performance.



Surely extremes never happen right? people dont dual prop or orbit high speed out of web range. Or really take the time to carry a long point,scram and web all at the same time.


Your extremes happen every day...Thats not what you call extreme. People very rarely unless the ship is specifically made for it, carry 2 different points at the same time plus a web on top of that. Only 1 real ship for that purpose is the gallente recon.
Which even carrying a web at the same time will get you looks.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#54 - 2014-04-04 17:18:14 UTC
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.


baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#55 - 2014-04-04 17:18:30 UTC
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
^ What Malcanis said. It's a pretty cool ship, the CNR's only problem is that Navy Phoon tends to do better in fleets, because it has higher potential dps and speed. In small fights though, that thing will murder anything battlecruiser and down and be more than a match for a ship its own size - including lone Phoons.


Navy raven has a massive advantage, everyone want to shoot it because its a raven. Its fun having people tackle themselves.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#56 - 2014-04-04 17:27:58 UTC
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Hagika wrote:
Im all for a ridiculous alpha but factor in sig radius alone cuts a ton of missile damage, then factor in speed and everything else that affects missile damage and that alpha becomes useless. How often do you see a missile ship insta popping anything? Say a BS vs a frig. Gun ships do it all the time, not missile ships.


Good luck hitting anything with a high transversal on a gun-based BS. That's one of the differences between guns any missiles - guns have a potential to do a lot of damage or none at all, while missiles do a realiable amount of steady damage. The only reason missiles are looked down upon in fleets is delayed damage on target calling.

Quote:
Null sec alliances put it to use because it could handle the incoming damage and the logi had time to rep it.


It was used because it was one of the few ships in game that had the range, capless dps and could permarun an MWD, while being relatively noob-friendly as well. The infamous ubertank Drake was an exception to this rule, proving how little people understood the Drake's real power.



The drake went unchanged for years, someone came up with a good way of using it, then it was nerfed because people were too lazy to do a counter. When large null sec alliances used it in mass, it became a typical numbers game and people cant be bothered to find a counter, they called for nerfs. So CCP did exactly that, they nerfed not only the tank but the big scary missile system as well.

It did well as a fleet ship, solo on the other hand, not so much.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#57 - 2014-04-04 17:30:54 UTC
Anyways. back to topic.

So Mal, are you thinking Mordus or is there a better chance of just a whole new pirate race coming to game for the missile pirate race?
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#58 - 2014-04-04 17:33:48 UTC
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?
Last Wolf
Umbra Wing
#59 - 2014-04-04 17:37:20 UTC
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?

That awkward moment at the Gentlemen's Club when you see your sister on the stage....and you're not sure where to put the money....
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#60 - 2014-04-04 21:16:49 UTC
Hagika wrote:
Anyways. back to topic.

So Mal, are you thinking Mordus or is there a better chance of just a whole new pirate race coming to game for the missile pirate race?


of course

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016