These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Torps and Cruise Missiles... do they need a boost?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#61 - 2013-03-20 13:00:33 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
I think people underestimate the value of pure damage types and doing 800+ DPS out to lock range (As opposed to the Mach which does rather less and has a shorter locking range too), but on the whole I'd have to agree.


Shhhhh....let them change it Blink

And I've said before (in this thread in fact) that using the Mach as a yardstick is not a good idea - that thing is an oddity. And an oddity I expect to be nerfed into the dust at the balance pass.

As you've (I think you, anyway) said in this thread, the CNR can actually apply that EFT damage, not much else can say the same.
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#62 - 2013-03-20 13:57:59 UTC
sabre906 wrote:
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
Cruise missiles are in no way inferior to turrets.


I stopped reading here. Undock moar...Lol

Seriously?

Not much point in explaining as you seem in capable of reading anything longer than one sentence, but here it is.

-Missiles do the same damage at maximum range they do at point blank while turrets damage drops off quickly once you are beyond 50% of your falloff.

- As I said before missiles do not miss. turrets miss very often. And when they do hit you only have a small chance of doing full damage. Some players think this statement is wrong, but it is true. I have never had a missile miss. Sure if you fire a torp or cruise missile at a target faster than its explosion velocity then it will do no damage. If you fire at someone jumping through a gate they will be gone before the missile hits. This could be considered a miss by players who do not understand the mechanics. I say what are you thinking firing a missile at such a target? As far as I am concerned for it to be a miss there had to be a reason for you to expect it to hit in the first place. A deliberate waste of ammo is not really a miss if there was no chance of hitting a target when you fired. That is the equivalent of firing a turret at a ship beyond 2 times your falloff, you are just wasting ammo.

- With a missile boat you can speed tank as much as possible while having zero impact on your own hit chances, while a ship with turrets suffers as much from tracking penalties from its own speed as it does from the speed of the ship it is targeting. Clever piloting can help in this situation, but if you are firing the right sized missile at the target it will hit every time regardless of the speed of either ship. A frigate no matter how fast it is can not out run the explosion velocity of a small missile with good support skills.

The only real down side to missiles is the delayed damage which is the main reason they are rarely used in PVP. Sure there are exceptions like bombers, and solo PVP pilots that do not know any better. missiles are getting better for smaller ships but are still not popular for fleet operation aside from bomber wings. The delayed damage just causes to many problems with directing fleet DPS. As this is were the bulk of PVP happens in EVE I believe it is right to say missiles are rarely used in PVP. With bombers being the exception not the rule.

If you believe these statements to be wrong then back it up with some actual knowledge. "Undock moar..." does nothing to suport your argument.
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#63 - 2013-03-20 14:09:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Bugsy VanHalen
MeBiatch wrote:
sabre906 wrote:
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
Cruise missiles are in no way inferior to turrets.


I stopped reading here. Undock moar...Lol



i gave him till missiles never miss... apparently he stopped playing in 04...

see ex radius and ex velocity...

Firing a missile at a target you have zero chance of damaging is not a miss it is a waste of ammo. If you use the right size missile for the size of the target ship it will never miss. A frigate can not out run the explosion velocity of a small missile with adequate support skills. Well maybe an interceptor or pirate frigate, but if they fit turrets and are fast enough to avoid your missile damage they will not be able to hit you either. A +10km/s Dram comes to mind.

I guess a player who does not understand game mechanics would consider not hitting a target that is faster than the explosion velocity of your missile a miss. But my answer is, why did you fire an over sized missile at that target in the first place? If you know before you even fire the missile, it will do no damage then why waste your ammo? If you did not know, then it is you lack of knowledge not the missile that is the problem.

Explosion velocity and explosion radius are known variables, hit chance of turrets is not. Sure if you shoot at a target moving slower than your tracking speed you will hit, but even then how hard you hit is random. Considering all factors the DPS of missiles is just as good as turrets, the only problem is the delayed damage, with is less of an issue when flying solo, or in a well timed bomber wing.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#64 - 2013-03-20 14:19:12 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Naomi Knight wrote:


cruise missiles are never used in pvp NEVER , that tells us how good they are , and even in pve they are crap


I find that a T2 Cruise CNR is still useful, particularly for the long range / EM rat missions that my HAM Tengu sucks at. But you have to put some decent ISK into it to make it worthwhile (T2 Rigors, Core AB, CN BCUs etc). It was a good way to leverage the maxed missile support skills and missile hardwirings that my Tengu alt already had

Would a Mach be better? Maybe a little, but that would require 2 new BS to 5, Gunnery support skills and T2 large projectiles, plus I wouldn't get the use of the +5%s. The CNR only required CML 5 and Caldari BS 4->5.

T2 Fury Cruise do pretty decent damage now, and the +5% EV/GMP/RoF implants really make a difference.



i think he meant pvp not pve...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#65 - 2013-03-20 14:21:58 UTC
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
The only real down side to missiles is the delayed damage which is the main reason they are rarely used in PVP. Sure there are exceptions like bombers, and solo PVP pilots that do not know any better. missiles are getting better for smaller ships but are still not popular for fleet operation aside from bomber wings. The delayed damage just causes to many problems with directing fleet DPS. As this is were the bulk of PVP happens in EVE I believe it is right to say missiles are rarely used in PVP. With bombers being the exception not the rule.

Drake and Tengu do not agree with you.

Kestrel, Condor, Hookbill and Hawk disagree too.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#66 - 2013-03-20 14:47:49 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
The only real down side to missiles is the delayed damage which is the main reason they are rarely used in PVP. Sure there are exceptions like bombers, and solo PVP pilots that do not know any better. missiles are getting better for smaller ships but are still not popular for fleet operation aside from bomber wings. The delayed damage just causes to many problems with directing fleet DPS. As this is were the bulk of PVP happens in EVE I believe it is right to say missiles are rarely used in PVP. With bombers being the exception not the rule.

Drake and Tengu do not agree with you.

Kestrel, Condor, Hookbill and Hawk disagree too.


Aren't people running more and more caracal fleet since the change too?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#67 - 2013-03-20 14:48:30 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Naomi Knight wrote:


cruise missiles are never used in pvp NEVER , that tells us how good they are , and even in pve they are crap


I find that a T2 Cruise CNR is still useful, particularly for the long range / EM rat missions that my HAM Tengu sucks at. But you have to put some decent ISK into it to make it worthwhile (T2 Rigors, Core AB, CN BCUs etc). It was a good way to leverage the maxed missile support skills and missile hardwirings that my Tengu alt already had

Would a Mach be better? Maybe a little, but that would require 2 new BS to 5, Gunnery support skills and T2 large projectiles, plus I wouldn't get the use of the +5%s. The CNR only required CML 5 and Caldari BS 4->5.

T2 Fury Cruise do pretty decent damage now, and the +5% EV/GMP/RoF implants really make a difference.



i think he meant pvp not pve...


I bolded the part that shows you're wrong.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#68 - 2013-03-20 14:49:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
Firing a missile at a target you have zero chance of damaging is not a miss.


:facepalm:

You also seem to be blissfully unaware of the abilities of fast frigates to outrun non-velocity-boosted light missiles with sufficient space. In fact, pretty much everything that you're saying is either wrong, or correct but stupid.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#69 - 2013-03-20 15:36:58 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:


i think he meant pvp not pve...


I bolded the part that shows you're wrong.


i stand corrected

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Ion Breeze
Redshift Syndicate
#70 - 2013-03-21 16:00:51 UTC
Mmm...

Gurista Pure Missile Rohk...

I don't think I would fly anything else ever again...
Umega
Solis Mensa
#71 - 2013-03-21 21:56:17 UTC
Best way to fix cruise, meaning giving it a more reliable PvP usage.. would be to create a strong niche it stands above the rest in. Range.. and nothing else.. isn't the answer. Range + delayed dmg results = even worse.

I'm not a missile fan, I have zero biased sway.. I don't even care if 'BS-class' launcher charges get changed. But I do feel like cruise is severely lacking on the PvP front.

How about a new racial slapped on the raven.. drop the RoF, give it 7 or 8 'turret' slots.. keep the velocity.. and add scan reso/target range bonus. Something that'll push it atleast 300+ res and roughly 150km lock range at Caldari BS V, before sebos added. Give it the ability to significantly hammer down a lock faster than other BSs, partially making up for that first alpha volley insta-hits by other weapon's systems. It also enhances the tank and/or dps-alpha.. by taking away the need for an extra sebo/sig amp eating up slots.

Change cruise themselves.. not just ships using them. Simple.. imo..

Best range + best potential alpha. (incoming numbers out of ass example...) On average you got the arty platforms of nado/mael/pest abouts 11k. Give cruise the ability to unleash say 14kish.. maybe as high as 15k alpha potential from cruise. Drop their RoF significantly, make them the worst dps. Having worse RoF than arty isn't entirely a bad thing on a missile platform.. it's going to do some dmg, eventually.. arty's can, and do, flat out miss.. which might give cruise better dps projection vs appropriate targets for the weapon platform.

 Ume-Pro Studios
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#72 - 2013-03-22 07:42:04 UTC
Cruise missiles lack damage, but limiting them to Raven alone is wrong. Besides, it would be weird to have one single hull designed precisely for weapons no other ships use.

On the other hand, range is far excessive and can hardly be exploited at all, more so given how Raven needs 2 sensor boosters to reach out to its 'optimal' range.

Still, this is something CCP is aware of, they just don't feel like messing with armament separately from battleships.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#73 - 2013-03-22 08:42:16 UTC
cruise Raven already have the best dps of any T1 ship at 80km. Cruise missiles don't lack damage.
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#74 - 2013-03-22 08:59:40 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
cruise Raven already have the best dps of any T1 ship at 80km. Cruise missiles don't lack damage.

and thats why in fleets people use the cruise raven!!!!!

come on start using your brain i know it is hard for some who never used it before,
dps is just a stat in eft /in game fitting , you then have to take into account how it can apply that dps , and there cruise missiles just flat out way wrose than the gun platforms, and that the target painter cant rly shot that far doesnt help at all
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#75 - 2013-03-22 09:02:38 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
cruise Raven already have the best dps of any T1 ship at 80km. Cruise missiles don't lack damage.


If only all targets would stay at 80km (and not warp off).

Also if they could sit still, but keep their MWDs running, that would be super helpful too.

"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.
#76 - 2013-03-22 09:09:35 UTC
Umega wrote:
Best way to fix cruise, meaning giving it a more reliable PvP usage.. would be to create a strong niche it stands above the rest in. Range.. and nothing else.. isn't the answer. Range + delayed dmg results = even worse.

I'm not a missile fan, I have zero biased sway.. I don't even care if 'BS-class' launcher charges get changed. But I do feel like cruise is severely lacking on the PvP front.

How about a new racial slapped on the raven.. drop the RoF, give it 7 or 8 'turret' slots.. keep the velocity.. and add scan reso/target range bonus. Something that'll push it atleast 300+ res and roughly 150km lock range at Caldari BS V, before sebos added. Give it the ability to significantly hammer down a lock faster than other BSs, partially making up for that first alpha volley insta-hits by other weapon's systems. It also enhances the tank and/or dps-alpha.. by taking away the need for an extra sebo/sig amp eating up slots.

Change cruise themselves.. not just ships using them. Simple.. imo..

Best range + best potential alpha. (incoming numbers out of ass example...) On average you got the arty platforms of nado/mael/pest abouts 11k. Give cruise the ability to unleash say 14kish.. maybe as high as 15k alpha potential from cruise. Drop their RoF significantly, make them the worst dps. Having worse RoF than arty isn't entirely a bad thing on a missile platform.. it's going to do some dmg, eventually.. arty's can, and do, flat out miss.. which might give cruise better dps projection vs appropriate targets for the weapon platform.


The problem with this is that the big advantage of alpha is that it's front-loaded damage. Rear-loaded alpha misses out half the utility of the doctrine in the first place.

To illustrate this, let's compare A Tornado snipe alpha gang with your equal sized Raven snipe-alpha gang, engaging each other at long range.

The Tornadoes fire as soon as they lock, and their combined alpha takes out 1-2 Ravens. The Ravens also fire (let's imagine that they fire at the same time), but by the time the missiles arrive, the Tornados are already in warp...

Basically the ravens will be hugely disadvantaged because they have to sit and wait for their shots to hit and if the Tornado pilots are really smart, then only the ones that get redboxed will warp out, leaving the rest to take another shot that can't be "dodged" in this way.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#77 - 2013-03-22 14:39:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Bouh Revetoile
Naomi Knight wrote:
come on start using your brain i know it is hard for some who never used it before,
dps is just a stat in eft /in game fitting , you then have to take into account how it can apply that dps , and there cruise missiles just flat out way wrose than the gun platforms, and that the target painter cant rly shot that far doesnt help at all

I know english is not an easy language to understand, but I didn't thought that "dps" was so semanticaly close from "damage application".

DPS, like in "damage per seconds" is the best of all T1 battleships at 80km (raw dps).
Hence, cruise missile dps is enough.

Time to travel for cruise missiles is *exactly the same* than for HML Tengu.
Yet, Tengu have no damage delay problem in fleet warfare.
Hence, cruise missiles should have no damage delay problem in fleet warfare.

You see, it's logic. So I don't know about my brain, but yours definitely lack some connections or knowledge.

So, do cruise missiles have problems ?
Certainly, but they certainly not are damage delay or dps in themselves.

BUT, that don't mean these shouldn't be tweaked, because, in conjunction with other parameters, they may add up to the problems.
HOWEVER, unless we know what is the real problem, any unthought proposition is dangerous for the balance of the game.

I admit I don't know why there is no Raven in nullsec doctrine, but my hypothesys are these :
- Tengu is too good compared to Raven ;
- Raven, considering its mobility, don't have enough *resistances* (not ehp problem, resist one, or "resist bonus are OP, if you prefer) ;
- Damage application of cruise missiles make them not good enough to shoot at AHAC which make them too hard of a counter for such a doctrine.

Let's analyze the hypothesys :
- Tengu is better in every respect but raw dps and neutralizer than the Raven. The only advantages of the Raven are a small dps advantage (well, better one since the HML buff), and neutralizers, which don't operate at long range, so it's more of utility. This is, IMO, the reason why the Raven is not used.
- resistance bonus may be OP, because if you consider nullsec doctrine, most of them use resist bonused ships, or T2 ships ; there are some exceptions though, which mean that some parameters can counter the resistance disadvantage. But IMO, this is the possible second problem IMO, a durability problem other factors don't seem to compensate.
- with correct fitting and gallente booster, a huggin can target paint up to 85km (with 74% painter). Is that enough for AHAC ? Maybe not, because of speed, but any way, AHAC will probably be at web range.

A lot of people seem concerned with the "warp off" problem. But can you explain why people don't do that against Tengu, if it is so much of a counter ?
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#78 - 2013-03-22 14:50:48 UTC
I still think 'Big Alpha' is the way forward for cruise missiles and torpedoes (along with some tinkering, either with the missile formulas, or just looking at explosion velocities again).

Just compare the gap between large and XL missiles - there's a heck of a leap from cruise to citadel cruise (5x) compared to Large/XL ammo (2x).

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#79 - 2013-03-22 17:19:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Naomi Knight
tengus can keep range , battleships cant
long range turrets can insta popp ships , cruise missiles cant
add the two togeather and logic will say cruise missiles lack efficiency for pvp---> they lack dmg
Gorn Arming
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#80 - 2013-03-22 19:37:16 UTC
Janna Windforce wrote:
Gorn Arming wrote:
sabre906 wrote:
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
Cruise missiles are in no way inferior to turrets.


I stopped reading here. Undock moar...Lol

You should have read the next sentence--he actually claims that missiles are seldom used in PvP. There's no helping some people.

Anyway, torpedoes are useless without the stealth bomber's 50% explosion velocity bonus


You should read more too, as I've already stated here once and game states too, that bombers have NO explosion velocity bonus. Only missile speed and royal raw damage bonus.

I'm so glad we have IVY league around to give folks like you such a strong handle on game mechanics.