Ships & Modules

Actually a Torpedo does about 100% of it's damage to a 2x 1600mm II / 3x Trimark Mega that sits still.

It should do roughly 90% damage to said Mega when it moves, 66% damage if the Mega overheats the MWD, 50% if there is a Loki booster (66% again if the Loki booster only runs "Rapid deployment"). It does 40% damage if the Mega dualprops an AB, 30% if it overheats or run the AB with a Loki booster. Then there's implants and pills, but there are some corresponding implants and pills for missiles accuracy (note: some, the amount favours tanking, so it's eligable to raise the point at least) so let's not get into that.

You will likely get similar accuracy figures if you sit still in your turret ship and shoot at someone moving around.

Though it's nice to see that you backpedal on the AB now, saying "it's the only counter" since initially you wouldn't even admit that as a counter .

One of the first things i pointed out a couple of threads ago was that one of the "drawbacks" of missiles is that an AB is more of a direct counter to missiles than it is to turrets. You seem to agree with me about that now, which means this whole discussion about damage figures is pretty moot, since i just wanted you to concede that missiles had a different balance than turrets so you can't compare them straight off or apply turret-logic to missiles (or argue the unfairness of there being no TD, TC or TE in the system). I'm quite happy with the concession that the AB is the balancing factor, nevermind MWD, links and heat: that's of secondary importance anyway.

All i ever wanted to open up your eyes to is that an AB (links, heat etc.) will reduce corresponding missile damage by alot, whereas running an AB against a corresponding turret ship with an MWD the "speed" in the sig-speed relative can (should) be void and the 400sig guns will still apply most of it's damage to the 400sig ship even if it runs an AB, overheats it and is boosted by maxed "Rapid deployment" links, leaving that to reduce virtually nothing at all unless the attacking ship screws up his own accuracy. Overall, using an AB against an equal-size turret ship is generally regarded as a poor tactic, whereas against a missile it is almost always a good tactic.

Once you concede that, we are good. At the same time, you should also be able to identify that drawback in the missile system then and see why it never was overpowered in the first place, people were just bad at countering it in general .

As for the comment about "how many ships warps out of missile damage?" the answer there too is: there used to be alot. There were even strategies developed for it. Ever heard of "rolling safes"? You would have small gangs run (some still probably do) an Interceptor or Covops or something burning off-grid as a warp-out point for friendly ships disengaging. If i ran a sniping concept today i would still probably use an alt for something like that (especially a CovOps because then you can use that as a prober too). They are not uncatchable but they are unlikely to be lost even if you just leave them floating, due to probe-warp delays and the necessity to have a faster ship catching them.

apologies accepted.

I see that I could have been a bit clearer in my initial explanation.

I'm aware of T2 variants of missiles and yes the base line lies there, but I also mentioned there could be a variable in launchers and or t1 missiles as well, I don't think that changes that much to the diference in missiles and turrets, not more than the heavy missiles nerf already did.

I think the link to Drake (and in a lesser way Tengu) fleets is intresting, but heavy missiles where faster than cruise (top 20 ships seems to indicate there are less of those fleets now ) it take's a while before cruise missiles do signifantly more dps than heavy's there is a short period early in a combat the Heavy missile dps used to be higher than cruise DPS.

then there is the fact that drake blobs where used to engage much larger ships, in which case the slow drake is relative fast.

also cruise do double the damage in close to 3 times the radius.

so the damage is spread disproportional, all in favour of the medium missile.

They aren't asking them to break Torps/Cruise missiles. They're asking them to make cruise missiles useful. When was the last time you saw a Raven/CNR fleet doctrine that involved cruise missiles and sitting back at 200km blapping **** after 20 seconds of flight time?

Now when was the last time you saw a large turret ship doctrine? Oh right, Foxcats, Hellcats, Sniper T3 fleets, Rokhs, and more.

Yeah, you don't see them because cruise missiles suck. They're ****. Nobody uses them outside of missions, and that's just because Torps have low range. So yeah, cruise missiles. Buff them.

There's not any evidence of large missiles being bad here.

As for warp off and firewall, why didn't they obsoleted Drake and Tengu fleets ?

@Noisrevbus : I *never* said the AB didn't countered missiles. I'm not saying large missiles are too good, nor am I saying they are bad. I'm asking why people think they are bad, because I don't see how they could be bad considering the numbers.

To this question, the most answered argument is flight time and low dps.

Dps is not low though, compared to any long range ship, dps is rather good (cruise missiles), or very good (torpedoes).

As for the delayed damage, I never heard about Tengu or Drake fleet being countered because of warpoff. Why if this is a so crippling drawback of missiles ?

And for the firewall, did it really countered Tengu fleet on a regular basis ? Because I tend to see it as a gimmick more than a reliable and easy counter...

PS : Heavy missiles received a buff to their flying speed ; before, Raven's cruise missiles were as fast as Tengu's heavy missiles (heavy and cruise had the same base speed).

It kinda looks like you're being intentionally obtuse here. But anyway...

Cruise DPS is poor at the ranges that matter and it can't really be argued otherwise. Fury DPS can only be fully applied to t3 BS; CN cruise can fully hit almost all BS and fat Drakes,but is lower at 518 DPS. 518 DPS is deeply unimpressive at normal engagement ranges. A Naga can deal 700 DPS at 100 km, a Scorch Abaddon can deal 730 DPS at 60 km, a Rokh can deal 609 DPS at 60 km or 507 DPS at 95 km. So the Raven has basically no DPS advantage at any range that actually matters.

The delayed damage matters more because of logi warning and less because of warp-off. The Raven itself is flimsy relative to Rokhs and Abaddons. While any one of these factors could be overcome with significant advantages elsewhere, the sad fact is that the Raven suffers from deficiencies in all of them.

Basically, stop looking at the raw cruise numbers. Instead, try to envisage a situation where you'd use a cruise Raven gang. Then consider the alternatives.

Except that's not true. Drakes and tengus proved that if you have a good missile system (heavies) paired with good hulls then you could get good results with missile fleets. You can't say the same for large because their are serious issues with both cruise missiles themselves and the hulls that use them. The Raven will be rebalanced in Odysseye along with the rest of the t1 battleships, which just leaves the weapon system for balancing.

Eve is primarily balanced around pvp, not pve, so saying a weapon system isn't useful for pvp means by definition that it should be rebalanced.