These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#641 - 2013-05-08 15:24:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Hagika
Malcanis wrote:
Zetak wrote:
14 sec flight time is still too much.

with max skill it is 21 sec flight time. totally worthless. Reduce the flight time to 10 sec and give more speed to the missile it is what is needed. waaay more.

To show you an example: I do caldari missions right? so that gives me a lot of npc ecm. I launch my missile to the enemy ship, which is usually 60 km away before my missile could hit, I'm ecm-ed and my missile which should have hit the enemy ship, possibly destroying it, does no damage at all, because I lost my lock. whats the point of the huge flight time if such things can happen?


Missiles already in flight after you get ECM'd still hit.

You are also neglecting to mention that there are very very few PvE cases where the new cruise missile will actually need to be in flight for the full 21 seconds. On a Raven your lock range is, what? 93Km?



Shocked

Is it really some dev disease that goes around and ignores the countless posts of PVP issue?
They are fine for PVE. Its pvp where it becomes a problem.
Remove the 10% increase to explosion radius, and increase the velocity a bit more. Base flight of 7 seconds.

Also about this being the single biggest buff in 7 years..There hasnt been a buff in that long. That is the problem.
CCP has ignored it till now.
That is not a player fault, that is a serious lazy streak by the devs. This would be like taking your car to a mechanic for a bad running engine, and then 7 years later he finally gets back to you and says.. Well I have it running better now though it still runs a little rough.

Then he wonders why you are mad. Its because it has been 7 years, then has the nerve to tell us we should be happy.
Yet it is still not fully fixed, then explains it will run alright for city driving (PVE) but not highway driving (PVP) and you wonder why people want it fully fixed?

That is because taking back to the mechanic might have us waiting for another 7 years to get it running the way it should.
Really the simplest solution is to fire the mechanic and get better ones, though players can not fire devs, but we can sure not pay them.

So when can we get our transmission fixed (Torpedoes) ? Is that a few years away from now?
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#642 - 2013-05-08 15:43:21 UTC
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
You seems not to get it, i already said numerous times, thats its a speed issue, and who said ABing is bad? if everyone is using missiles, then ABing is becoming more popular because you can better speed-tank missiles.


Your analysis needs to reflect reality - and the reality is that ABing battleships are deeply uncommon. Since you are not arguing that everyone will be using cruise, then you cannot simultaneously argue that BS will suddenly start fitting ABs to mitigate missile damage, it's a logical absurdity.

Quote:
Anyway you seems to lack basic math skills, it doesnt matter if i put them on all V or all 0 Skills.
- 25% more speed
- 25% better trackling
Have a educated guess, it doesnt matter. You wont hit better because your drawback is increased by 25% which is the same number you get from your boost.
- Traversal Velocity / (Distance * Tracking) [All 0 Skills]
- Traversal Velocity * 1.25 / (Distance * Tracking *1.25) [All 5 Skills]
- Use basic mathematic skills
- Traversal Velocity / (Distance * Tracking) [All 5 Skills]

Its the same numbers, you dont get anything if you put all 5 skills.


For guns, yes - although only if you have max transversal. For missiles, no - TNP and GMP, and the formula handles the data differently anyway. Maths, eh?

Quote:
Edit: There is no reason, why should i include ship fittings, if i want to show, that missiles have a speed-issue?


Do you frequently PVP in unfit ships?

In any case, it's not a problem if missiles have a speed issue in itself - what matters is whether the ships are usable and balanced, and a missile speed issue is only one of the many elements to consider - we don't fly missiles, we fly ships. You haven't even tried to compare the actual applied DPS across various ranges, you've framed the argument purely in terms of applied damage percentages, which is meaningless in itself. Looking back, you did exactly the same thing on page 26. It's not useful.

Indeed, it is readily arguable that, as long as a missile ship* is well balanced overall, a missile speed issue is a good thing, as it means that a pilot can gain access to additional damage via the appropriate support mechanisms. This rewards player knowledge and takes us away from a dull, predictable and homogeneous "you will always deal ~X amount of damage using this missile regardless of what you or your target does".

*The problem with the future cruise Raven isn't cruise, it's the Raven, and its inferiority relative to ABCs as a large-weapon skirmish platform in terms of mobility, cost and MWDing cap consumption. These are problems common to all ABS. Ironically, the new cruise would make a cruise Naga quite attractive now (it should not be changed!).
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#643 - 2013-05-08 16:03:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Bucca Zerodyme
Gypsio III wrote:
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
You seems not to get it, i already said numerous times, thats its a speed issue, and who said ABing is bad? if everyone is using missiles, then ABing is becoming more popular because you can better speed-tank missiles.


Your analysis needs to reflect reality - and the reality is that ABing battleships are deeply uncommon. Since you are not arguing that everyone will be using cruise, then you cannot simultaneously argue that BS will suddenly start fitting ABs to mitigate missile damage, it's a logical absurdity.

Quote:
Anyway you seems to lack basic math skills, it doesnt matter if i put them on all V or all 0 Skills.
- 25% more speed
- 25% better trackling
Have a educated guess, it doesnt matter. You wont hit better because your drawback is increased by 25% which is the same number you get from your boost.
- Traversal Velocity / (Distance * Tracking) [All 0 Skills]
- Traversal Velocity * 1.25 / (Distance * Tracking *1.25) [All 5 Skills]
- Use basic mathematic skills
- Traversal Velocity / (Distance * Tracking) [All 5 Skills]

Its the same numbers, you dont get anything if you put all 5 skills.


For guns, yes - although only if you have max transversal. For missiles, no - TNP and GMP, and the formula handles the data differently anyway. Maths, eh?

Quote:
Edit: There is no reason, why should i include ship fittings, if i want to show, that missiles have a speed-issue?


Do you frequently PVP in unfit ships?

In any case, it's not a problem if missiles have a speed issue in itself - what matters is whether the ships are usable and balanced, and a missile speed issue is only one of the many elements to consider - we don't fly missiles, we fly ships. You haven't even tried to compare the actual applied DPS across various ranges, you've framed the argument purely in terms of applied damage percentages, which is meaningless in itself. Looking back, you did exactly the same thing on page 26. It's not useful.

Indeed, it is readily arguable that, as long as a missile ship* is well balanced overall, a missile speed issue is a good thing, as it means that a pilot can gain access to additional damage via the appropriate support mechanisms. This rewards player knowledge and takes us away from a dull, predictable and homogeneous "you will always deal ~X amount of damage using this missile regardless of what you or your target does".

*The problem with the future cruise Raven isn't cruise, it's the Raven, and its inferiority relative to ABCs as a large-weapon skirmish platform in terms of mobility, cost and MWDing cap consumption. These are problems common to all ABS. Ironically, the new cruise would make a cruise Naga quite attractive now (it should not be changed!).


Listen, this is my last post, i wont ever talk to you again, because you fail to understand anything im trying to point out. Players complained about Dmg-Application of Missiles, then i tried to find the cause and why missiles suck compared to Turrets. Then i posted the cause from my point of view and my reasoning why its bad. Yet its true that my work only is theoretically, but the issue, which dont let missiles work in practice is still the same.

Besides you, i have tried to be productive, yet you still refuse to post a proper argument except "use the right ammo, missiles are fine". You did never tried to explain your reasoning and never posted a proper suggestion.
Jill Antaris
Jill's Open Incursion Corp
#644 - 2013-05-08 17:15:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Jill Antaris
Gypsio III wrote:
Ironically, the new cruise would make a cruise Naga quite attractive now (it should not be changed!).


But, but, but I liked the naga with missiles as it was on sissi. Cry

Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
....

Listen, this is my last post, i wont ever talk to you again, because you fail to understand anything im trying to point out. Players complained about Dmg-Application of Missiles, then i tried to find the cause and why missiles suck compared to Turrets. Then i posted the cause from my point of view and my reasoning why its bad. Yet its true that my work only is theoretically, but the issue, which dont let missiles work in practice is still the same.

Besides you, i have tried to be productive, yet you still refuse to post a proper argument except "use the right ammo, missiles are fine". You did never tried to explain your reasoning and never posted a proper suggestion.


Don't mind Gypsio he can be a bit harsh, however if it includes missiles and math he is practically always right.

Let me give you a few tips where your scenario and math might have flaws to it:

- You did chose the smallest BS in eve, damage application against every other will be better and I guess it is more sensible to use a average BS size to get more comparable data, this is basically something people always use to make a point(like using blaster dps as reference when people want more dps for her weapon, excluding big differences in the effective combat range and horrible tracking at blaster optimal or when people demanded that minmatar ships with acs should deal just as much dps at range as scorch lasers fitted hulls, excluding the far bigger cap and fitting requires and the lower speed)

- You use a thing that isn't used in eve for your calculations(AB BS in pvp)

- You missing damage types and fittings, what most of the time gives missile ships that are not restricted by the kinetic damage bonus a substantial advantage against projectiles(purity of damage) and even higher against lasers\hybrids since they can't change damage types at all.

-You assume turrets wouldn't have optimal and falloff since you skipped that part of the turret damage formula, missiles keep her dps at any range, on the other hand turrets will lose dps to falloff behind optimal range or by being forced to use weaker long range ammo and a lot of tracking when using T2 long range ammo -> overall the new raven can out damage every other turret BS at around 80km+. Also you calculated hit chance, not dps, since it excludes the wrecking hits and hit chance doesn't scale linear with dps. 50% hit chance give a lot less than 50% dps since htis that give you high damage will get cut off first and count as misses(damage scales between 1,5 and 0,5, basically hit chance + 0,5, so at 50% hit chance you will to get hits between 50% and 100%, so a average about 75%), leaving you with 0.52 x 0,75 = 0,39 = 39% of your dps.

The main reason for the CM damage buff to me seams actually that CCP balancing missiles around not doing full damage in most situations and rewarding gang concepts that can archive full damage with them. That is a very good thing, in my opinion.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#645 - 2013-05-08 17:52:33 UTC
Jill Antaris wrote:


The main reason for the CM damage buff to me seams actually that CCP balancing missiles around not doing full damage in most situations and rewarding gang concepts that can archive full damage with them. That is a very good thing, in my opinion.


I really don't see how this will be that usefull compared to a short range battleship bringning more paper dps. The only way a raven will apply high dps in a gang is if the gang put painters and web on the target to reduce the target velocity and increase it's signature. At the same time, the short range battleship also get much less problem of transversal speed/sig radius because the same target is also webbed/painted.

If you have logi support, the range bonus will become a liability in case they get probed and warped to because the logi pretty much ahve to be with the short range/web/painter part of the gang since they are the one most likely to take damage but if the enemy pull off a probe->warp then your raven are stuck with a weak tank and no support while the rest of your fleet is stuck out of range.

The typhoon will probably be viable in gang but will ahve to skip the range advantage of cruise to stay with it's gang but at least it has an application bonus to not have it's dps completely reliant on the rest of the fleet.
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#646 - 2013-05-08 17:55:54 UTC
Jill Antaris wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Ironically, the new cruise would make a cruise Naga quite attractive now (it should not be changed!).


But, but, but I liked the naga with missiles as it was on sissi. Cry

Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
....

Listen, this is my last post, i wont ever talk to you again, because you fail to understand anything im trying to point out. Players complained about Dmg-Application of Missiles, then i tried to find the cause and why missiles suck compared to Turrets. Then i posted the cause from my point of view and my reasoning why its bad. Yet its true that my work only is theoretically, but the issue, which dont let missiles work in practice is still the same.

Besides you, i have tried to be productive, yet you still refuse to post a proper argument except "use the right ammo, missiles are fine". You did never tried to explain your reasoning and never posted a proper suggestion.


Don't mind Gypsio he can be a bit harsh, however if it includes missiles and math he is practically always right.

Let me give you a few tips where your scenario and math might have flaws to it:

- You did chose the smallest BS in eve, damage application against every other will be better and I guess it is more sensible to use a average BS size to get more comparable data, this is basically something people always use to make a point(like using blaster dps as reference when people want more dps for her weapon, excluding big differences in the effective combat range and horrible tracking at blaster optimal or when people demanded that minmatar ships with acs should deal just as much dps at range as scorch lasers fitted hulls, excluding the far bigger cap and fitting requires and the lower speed)

- You use a thing that isn't used in eve for your calculations(AB BS in pvp)

- You missing damage types and fittings, what most of the time gives missile ships that are not restricted by the kinetic damage bonus a substantial advantage against projectiles(purity of damage) and even higher against lasers\hybrids since they can't change damage types at all.

-You assume turrets wouldn't have optimal and falloff since you skipped that part of the turret damage formula, missiles keep her dps at any range, on the other hand turrets will lose dps to falloff behind optimal range or by being forced to use weaker long range ammo and a lot of tracking when using T2 long range ammo -> overall the new raven can out damage every other turret BS at around 80km+. Also you calculated hit chance, not dps, since it excludes the wrecking hits and hit chance doesn't scale linear with dps. 50% hit chance give a lot less than 50% dps since htis that give you high damage will get cut off first and count as misses(damage scales between 1,5 and 0,5, basically hit chance + 0,5, so at 50% hit chance you will to get hits between 50% and 100%, so a average about 75%), leaving you with 0.52 x 0,75 = 0,39 = 39% of your dps.

The main reason for the CM damage buff to me seams actually that CCP balancing missiles around not doing full damage in most situations and rewarding gang concepts that can archive full damage with them. That is a very good thing, in my opinion.


I dont read your whole post.
You dont get it either, i wont talk to ppl like you anymore because you dont know anything about a proper argument.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#647 - 2013-05-08 18:10:22 UTC
Jill Antaris wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Ironically, the new cruise would make a cruise Naga quite attractive now (it should not be changed!).


But, but, but I liked the naga with missiles as it was on sissi. Cry

Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
....

Listen, this is my last post, i wont ever talk to you again, because you fail to understand anything im trying to point out. Players complained about Dmg-Application of Missiles, then i tried to find the cause and why missiles suck compared to Turrets. Then i posted the cause from my point of view and my reasoning why its bad. Yet its true that my work only is theoretically, but the issue, which dont let missiles work in practice is still the same.

Besides you, i have tried to be productive, yet you still refuse to post a proper argument except "use the right ammo, missiles are fine". You did never tried to explain your reasoning and never posted a proper suggestion.


Don't mind Gypsio he can be a bit harsh, however if it includes missiles and math he is practically always right.

Let me give you a few tips where your scenario and math might have flaws to it:

- You did chose the smallest BS in eve, damage application against every other will be better and I guess it is more sensible to use a average BS size to get more comparable data, this is basically something people always use to make a point(like using blaster dps as reference when people want more dps for her weapon, excluding big differences in the effective combat range and horrible tracking at blaster optimal or when people demanded that minmatar ships with acs should deal just as much dps at range as scorch lasers fitted hulls, excluding the far bigger cap and fitting requires and the lower speed)

- You use a thing that isn't used in eve for your calculations(AB BS in pvp)

- You missing damage types and fittings, what most of the time gives missile ships that are not restricted by the kinetic damage bonus a substantial advantage against projectiles(purity of damage) and even higher against lasers\hybrids since they can't change damage types at all.

-You assume turrets wouldn't have optimal and falloff since you skipped that part of the turret damage formula, missiles keep her dps at any range, on the other hand turrets will lose dps to falloff behind optimal range or by being forced to use weaker long range ammo and a lot of tracking when using T2 long range ammo -> overall the new raven can out damage every other turret BS at around 80km+. Also you calculated hit chance, not dps, since it excludes the wrecking hits and hit chance doesn't scale linear with dps. 50% hit chance give a lot less than 50% dps since htis that give you high damage will get cut off first and count as misses(damage scales between 1,5 and 0,5, basically hit chance + 0,5, so at 50% hit chance you will to get hits between 50% and 100%, so a average about 75%), leaving you with 0.52 x 0,75 = 0,39 = 39% of your dps.

The main reason for the CM damage buff to me seams actually that CCP balancing missiles around not doing full damage in most situations and rewarding gang concepts that can archive full damage with them. That is a very good thing, in my opinion.


Buff the phoon and tempest tanks a bit and then raise the sig rad to meet the rest of the ships. Nerf their speed to be on course with the rest of the ships. Matar enjoys benefits that few other in game ships get. Whats interesting how he picked the smallest BS in game when in fact, it is a battleship and it can have a battleship tank, it nearly matches the raven, yet its sig radius is battle cruiser size and it is still faster with 2 armor plates and rigs on. The raven is faster by 8 m/s if you stick a nano fiber in a low slot.

A battleship weapon should be able to hit all battleships without difficulty. Irony... the phoon using the same weapons can hit the raven and other battleships with no issue with its bonus, fair? Of course not.. It has advantages in every category except range. So it is better than the raven, so his example shows exactly why they need to be apply damage better.

So as you mention how CCP is buffing missiles around rewarding game concept, I would like to point out a matar missile ship that can do solo work with missiles and it uses a caldari weapon and is better at using it than caldari !
Not only that, every other weapon system and race in game uses a weapon system that can be used very well for solo or gang work and yet again, the caldari is the exception.

Surely we can not actually enforce the game lore of a race with superior weapons and defense to actually be better than others, of course not..We cant even have them on equal footing, never ! A handful of people want them behind everyone.

Do you see something wrong with that? You dont obviously.. Is that balance? It is not.
So your rewarding game concept comes at the cost of a race's ships and the people who fly them to be unhappy with the time and money they spend and I am betting your response will be either fly another race or dont play eve.. That about right?

Also Gypsio will pick and choose his battles carefully and throw what evidence he can, but he will argue against something does not produce the proper argument, as already stated.

No one is right all the time. Also with eve and with all modules and possibilities and ideas of people, to say that Afterburners are not used, is a load of crap.

Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#648 - 2013-05-08 21:45:20 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

The typhoon will probably be viable in gang but will ahve to skip the range advantage of cruise to stay with it's gang but at least it has an application bonus to not have it's dps completely reliant on the rest of the fleet.

As soon as we're talking torpedoes the Raven's shield tank becomes an issue, because it forces it to rely on support ships to provide tackle, etc., whereas the Typhoon can provide this itself, though it is ture that if you want a really massive tank the Typhoon loses DPS to fit it.
TZeer
BURN EDEN
Lock Range Enjoyers
#649 - 2013-05-08 23:58:57 UTC
Can someone enlighten me the point of cruisemissiles having 200km ++ range?

Except NPC killing.

You will never be able to use that range to your advantage. Any close range/medium range setup will simply warp to you before any of the missiles have reached the target.....


CCP, WAKE UP, and fix the god damn scanning mechanic! How many years have it been now? 2-3?
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#650 - 2013-05-09 00:05:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
I had a good look at the "attack" BS earlier, using the Failheap EFT files, to get a proper comparison between cruise Raven/Typhoon and the turret ships when fitted for 50-100 km ranges. Honestly, the turret ships look poor. They don't have the tank of the combat BS and most have risible mobility. The Apoc has entertaining cap problems and they're all flimsy. They're caught in a horrible middle ground, not having the brawling abilities of combat BS and not having the mobility of ABCs.

So these are the peers of the cruise Raven/Typhoon, which look quite good in comparison. Both can be shield fit, either ASB for local reps or buffer/resists and they have generally superior damage projection, in exchange for the delay ofc. Shield Typhoon can go 1439 m/s with a 831 DPS overloaded tank; ASB Raven can do 1125 m/s with a 1226 DPS overloaded tank, while keeping room for a painter. Both do 681 DPS out to lock range, with no real damage application problems against BS and really fat Drake-like BCs.

Which is better as a cruise boat? Hard to say, really. Raven is tougher but slower and is better when hostile logi are on the field; Typhoon applies damage better to sub-BS, if you don't have ranged webbing support. The different drone bays don't really come into it much, as the best use of drones for a ship attempting to operate in the 50-100 km window is as anti-tackle defence, and the larger drone bay of the Typhoon gives it no particular advantage there. I think I'd choose shield Typhoon in a smaller gang that needed as much mobility as it could get, and Raven in a larger one, where reduced flight time and additional toughness/ewar was more important. Maybe the Typhoon should be more clearly forced into being an armour boat?

As for torps, well, I'm still hoping that torps get a bit more range, to greatly help the Raven's damage projection abilities in a world of Barrage and Scorch. Given the magnitude of the cruise damage boost, they may well need a bit more damage too, to clearly differentiate them. With GMP now affecting torps their damage application is generally okay, although a bit more explosion velocity may lessen the need for a web. An ASB torp Raven can fit 3 BCS with a 1057 DPS overloaded tank, with MWD, ASB, point, painter and web. Torp Typhoon is a bit odd - it's restricted to web range really, which means that the explosion velocity bonus doesn't really help it. Active armour torp Typhoon look pretty flimsy, really; buffer Typhoon seems much better, having buffer similar to a Raven while retaining dual BCS, but with additional tackle/ewar slots.

So for torp boats, a choice between buffer Typhoon and ASB Raven? Both seem viable, tbh. I'd still like to see torps get a bit more range though.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#651 - 2013-05-09 03:38:49 UTC


As for torps, well, I'm still hoping that torps get a bit more range, to greatly help the Raven's damage projection abilities in a world of Barrage and Scorch. Given the magnitude of the cruise damage boost, they may well need a bit more damage too, to clearly differentiate them. With GMP now affecting torps their damage application is generally okay, although a bit more explosion velocity may lessen the need for a web. An ASB torp Raven can fit 3 BCS with a 1057 DPS overloaded tank, with MWD, ASB, point, painter and web. Torp Typhoon is a bit odd - it's restricted to web range really, which means that the explosion velocity bonus doesn't really help it. Active armour torp Typhoon look pretty flimsy, really; buffer Typhoon seems much better, having buffer similar to a Raven while retaining dual BCS, but with additional tackle/ewar slots.

So for torp boats, a choice between buffer Typhoon and ASB Raven? Both seem viable, tbh. I'd still like to see torps get a bit more range though.[/quote]

Yes with the current cruise buff, torps do need a little more damage, and definitely range, also apply damage a bit better.

Unfortunately no word on any possible torp changes. I do hope they make Rage hit well enough to do more damage against Battleship sized ships.

If they do disappoint and keep them a cap ship and structure weapon, then they need to buff the damage significantly. As it sits, they are only about 50 more dps over void and blaster ships can use that against small ships.

Jill Antaris
Jill's Open Incursion Corp
#652 - 2013-05-09 05:05:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Jill Antaris
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:

I dont read your whole post.
You dont get it either, i wont talk to ppl like you anymore because you dont know anything about a proper argument.


You are right I don't get your argument. It is based around wrong calculations, flawed scenarios and has nothing other than your opinion "I'm right, you are wrong." to defend it. If this is a proper argument, the discussion around it is pointless.

Frostys Virpio wrote:
Jill Antaris wrote:


The main reason for the CM damage buff to me seams actually that CCP balancing missiles around not doing full damage in most situations and rewarding gang concepts that can archive full damage with them. That is a very good thing, in my opinion.


I really don't see how this will be that usefull compared to a short range battleship bringning more paper dps. The only way a raven will apply high dps in a gang is if the gang put painters and web on the target to reduce the target velocity and increase it's signature. At the same time, the short range battleship also get much less problem of transversal speed/sig radius because the same target is also webbed/painted.


CMs are a long range weapon system and should be compared to long range weapon systems. If you compare CM DPS against auto cannon and blaster dps in falloff, add the utility of the massive range, the free damage type selection and the ability to hit smaller ships at close range it is actually pretty awesome for a long range weapon system. Sig is less a problem for turrets, since you only need to reduce one figure(transversal) to a low enough value and can use range as a tracking multiplier. However, missiles also got the advantage of being transversal/range independent, meaning you can still move around quick and at any desirable range without reducing your damage on the target.

Hagika wrote:
Buff the phoon and tempest tanks a bit and then raise the sig rad to meet the rest of the ships. Nerf their speed to be on course with the rest of the ships. Matar enjoys benefits that few other in game ships get. Whats interesting how he picked the smallest BS in game when in fact, it is a battleship and it can have a battleship tank, it nearly matches the raven, yet its sig radius is battle cruiser size and it is still faster with 2 armor plates and rigs on. The raven is faster by 8 m/s if you stick a nano fiber in a low slot.


Most pests and phoons are shield tanked, will have a sig above 400 and you will probably fit at least one painter on a CM BS. Also with lower ehp, the slightly reduced damage will not be a issue, since it would, under realistic situations, take a similar time to take it down as if you buff it. One advantage of having a sig/speed tank for missile DPS actually is that it can be easy negated by webs and painters, giving you full dps against the lower ehp.

Hagika wrote:
A battleship weapon should be able to hit all battleships without difficulty. Irony... the phoon using the same weapons can hit the raven and other battleships with no issue with its bonus, fair? Of course not.. It has advantages in every category except range. So it is better than the raven, so his example shows exactly why they need to be apply damage better.


That is not really how eve works, and if it would be the case I doubt CCP would improve CM dps by this much. You can migrate or even completely avoid turret dps at close range, especially with long range turrets and reduce it at range with falloff. Turret based BS also have to web targets to archive reasonable dps on them, if you don't work at high ranges and still within optimal(one reason why lasers got the best effective tracking and damage on the target in gang fights at medium range, even if they have the lowest tracking value). In my opinion CMs are at a very good spot with the damage buff compared to turrets, they are even a bit to good if you purely look at the dps combined with the high range.
Jill Antaris
Jill's Open Incursion Corp
#653 - 2013-05-09 05:05:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Jill Antaris
Gypsio III wrote:

So for torp boats, a choice between buffer Typhoon and ASB Raven? Both seem viable, tbh. I'd still like to see torps get a bit more range though.


Well phoon is better as torp brawler in solo/small gang, given it can fit all the tackle and a painter to apply good torp dps without relaying on extra tacklers. What I would really like for torps if the influence of speed negation is lessoned and more based around sig, so mwding BCs outside of tackle range would take high dps after painting, making the raven more of a med range ship, that relay's less on hard tackling(web/scram) and more on simply painting targets and engaging at 20km+.
Zetak
State War Academy
Caldari State
#654 - 2013-05-09 05:48:35 UTC
Hagika wrote:
A battleship weapon should be able to hit all battleships without difficulty. Irony... the phoon using the same weapons can hit the raven and other battleships with no issue with its bonus, fair? Of course not.. It has advantages in every category except range. So it is better than the raven, so his example shows exactly why they need to be apply damage better.

So as you mention how CCP is buffing missiles around rewarding game concept, I would like to point out a matar missile ship that can do solo work with missiles and it uses a caldari weapon and is better at using it than caldari !
Not only that, every other weapon system and race in game uses a weapon system that can be used very well for solo or gang work and yet again, the caldari is the exception.

Surely we can not actually enforce the game lore of a race with superior weapons and defense to actually be better than others, of course not..We cant even have them on equal footing, never ! A handful of people want them behind everyone.

Do you see something wrong with that? You dont obviously.. Is that balance? It is not.
So your rewarding game concept comes at the cost of a race's ships and the people who fly them to be unhappy with the time and money they spend and I am betting your response will be either fly another race or dont play eve.. That about right?



I can only support this statement. I expected that the amarr will get the missile focused ships. Why? oh yeah, because of high tech Khanid Kingdom? No? Nothing? I did not expect that the minmatar nation will get missiles and it is interesting that the matari nation mastered the missile platform suddenly...Smile

I mean before the rebalancing the ships, mostly khanid ships were using missile systems. With the exception of phoon and their dreadnough. Khanid ships were plain awsome missile platforms, armor tanked, but there was one thing that was mandatory: they had one less missile launcher slot. I know it was assault focused, but still it was put down plainly.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#655 - 2013-05-09 16:07:55 UTC
Even in a Raven, who wants to wait 10s before the volley damage is applied? Every other buff in the world is meaningless if the damage is never applied. ... ohhhh .. he warped off too fast ... ohhhh ... he burned back to the gate too fast and jumped through .. ohhhhh ... we all wasted a volley or two on a ship that popped already.

Now if missiles could change target mid-flight, at least we could minimize wasting dps. Or we could redirect them at the real primary at the last second to confuse logi. At the moment, missiles only makes sense for pvp on stealth bombers only because the platform does not have a turret option.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#656 - 2013-05-09 16:56:54 UTC
Hagika wrote:
...No one is right all the time. Also with eve and with all modules and possibilities and ideas of people, to say that Afterburners are not used, is a load of crap.

In competitive PvP on the BS scale?

Never seen an AB fit even in BS's heyday, granted there was a few weeks after the scram changes where people experimented to sidestep the MWD killing effect, but the ability to move a hunk of junk at 1k/s outweighed the 'what if scenario' thus ending the brief period ... and with the BS hulls being all but extinct the number of actual AB users is likely so small that "not being used at all" is a lot closer to reality than "used by some".
Zetak wrote:
I can only support this statement. I expected that the amarr will get the missile focused ships. Why? oh yeah, because of high tech Khanid Kingdom? No? Nothing? I did not expect that the minmatar nation will get missiles and it is interesting that the matari nation mastered the missile platform suddenly...Smile

Pretty logical progression if you ask me, tribal people throwing rocks at each other -> tribal people invent gunpowder and rudimentary rockets -> tribal people strap rocket to rock.

If CCP were to be completely anal about it they'd make it unguided ordnance (Rockets/HAMS/Torps) to emphasise the rudimentary part .. plays nicely into the idea of cave people finding out that shining a good old flashlight into the enemy's neighboring cave makes the rock(ets) hit better thus giving rise to their TP specialty. Big smile
Zetak wrote:
I mean before the rebalancing the ships, mostly khanid ships were using missile systems. With the exception of phoon and their dreadnough. Khanid ships were plain awsome missile platforms, armor tanked, but there was one thing that was mandatory: they had one less missile launcher slot. I know it was assault focused, but still it was put down plainly.

Khanid is separate from Amarr and there should never be a missile bonus on any ship not sporting a black paint job .. if anything the other bloodlines should be revised to be as distinct as Khanid instead of 'more of the same with a slight tilt' that they ended up being.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#657 - 2013-05-09 17:26:25 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
intriguing changes i think people would be more likely to use them if you made them THE alpha damage platform ROF is less of an issue i think.
-increase the missile velocity much more/reduce flight time
- improve tracking

New modules? .... TD changes at all?
I could see this idea having some merit. The trade off would be delayed damage for the highest alpha. Not sure how the NullMaels would feel about this sort of change. I personally lean toward it benefiting missiles (on the whole as the weapon system) as well as lowering the "High Alpha" fleet doctrines currently causes all the ruckus to the other areas of game balance.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Corine Noas
The Warband.
#658 - 2013-05-13 19:10:32 UTC
We've recently made a test server fleet fight using cruise missile setup and all I can say is that in order to make cruise missiles viable fleet weapon you need to buff their HP a lot. I mean 70 structure, same hp as heavy missiles, is not even funny - one large smartbomb activation vanquishes a whole cruise missile volley. Now imagine a few dedicated firewall battleships...
Yes, you might say firewall is countered by the right positioning, webs etc, but 70 hp is still too low in my opinion. Citadels have ~2k hp (btw why such a huge gap between capital and bs sized?) and still have problems with overcoming carrier/mothership smartbomb firewall.
Kansas Winndu
The Quantum of EvE
#659 - 2013-05-13 20:18:20 UTC
Nice to see that raven is back to the thorn of Mission ships, though nobody will use cruise in PVP, if they had ever heard about torpedo.
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
#660 - 2013-05-14 10:17:40 UTC
With the increase to explosion radius, and no increase to explosion velocity, this change might as well not happen. At least when talking PvP.

Mission runners will be happy tho Lol