|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 12:58:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Rip Striker Edited by: Rip Striker on 20/10/2008 12:20:40
Originally by: Cpt Branko
... Ships such as the anti-Falcon cruise Raven/etc are getting hugely nerfed for no good reason. ..
The cruise Raven was never supposed to be the anti-Falcon ship. The true anti-falcon ship is another cruiser sized ship, namely, eccm fitted sniping hacs (the exception being stealth bombers).
In the context of missiles, this means that the Cerberus should be the nemesis to the Falcon. However, for this to work optimally, i. e. for heavy missiles to even reach 250 km, a small boost to heavy missile flight time is needed.
Fly safe!
EDIT: Imo, cruise Raven is anti BC/BS support ship, nothing more nothing less.
You are aware that cruise is inferior DPSwise to HAMs and Torps vs any target where you can deal "full" damage?.
Its effectivly the long range sniper missile with the ideal target for a max skilled pilot seems to be a BC when looking at dps to relative target hp tradeoff and sig radiuses , it also does a respectable job vs cruisers and can to some extent hurt frigates though its not really efficient for that.
When looking at BS to BS damage cruise missiles performance tend to be medium/low dps but good range.
Tbh it looks rather balanced to me , for battleship busting as a missileuser the high DPS option is close range unguided. Cruise & Heavy seems to be the "sniper" missiles and they fill that niche quite well.
|
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 14:47:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Rip Striker A single ship should never be able to become an öeffectiveö weapon against cruisers, battlecruisers, and battleships....simultaneously.
Since when is any ship with cruise missiles as their only dpssource effective versus battleships?
At best a cruiseraven can be considered semieffective.
If the DPS of a torpraven(close range dps) is your rationale for making cruisemissiles useless I just .. dont get it.
While it is the same hull those 2 fits are so radically different that it might as well be 2 different ships and you will never have access to both weapon systems in any combat situation unless you gimp yourself.
Should also be mentioned that the rigfits for optimalizing performance is different with these 2 setups.
|
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 16:21:00 -
[3]
As a PvE carebear I might be in the wrong place but wont severe loss of effectivness vs moving targets lead to Nightmare being unmatched for all missiontypes and rats regarldess of anything?
Atm it outperforms any other ship for most missions with Angels and battleship heavy gurista missions being the exception.
While this isnt a big priority for PvPers gutting missiles vs moving targets will hurt both minmatar and caldari missionrunners. Gallente is kinda ok due to their dronedependance but making missiles worthless isnt a nice way of doing things and tbh while more diversity is a nice homogenization where 1 ship is best for everything is not.
|
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 18:11:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Hyveres on 23/10/2008 18:11:34
Originally by: oilio I actually hope they DON'T address the PvE issue, because there will be such amazing drama - I drool at the thought of such rage being vented upon CCP!
Any smart caldari missionrunner should be close to owning nightmare anyway.
From what I am seeing it will be better even when facing angels than anything the caldari has in their lineup. |
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 09:23:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Karl Luckner
Originally by: Vanthropy and how can anyone honestly say that nerfing mission farming is bad?
Sure, the game with the worst PvE I ever encountered has to be nerfed even more.
And they wont be nerfing mission farming they will just make it so to be effective you should be flying gallente and amarr ships. Yes both will be needed to have proper efficiency vs the "bad" types of rats(gallente for gurista/serp/angels) Amarr for the rest.
|
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 11:42:00 -
[6]
Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 25/10/2008 10:56:53
Originally by: Wannabehero
Cruise missiles and Torpedoes will do ~ 50% or less the damage they do currently against NPC's
So its ok for every race to have falloff/reduced damage (some times 0 dmg at certain ranges) in their weapons systems but caldari should hit with 100% dmg from 0-max range with no down side to the system they use?.
A look at sweet spots for other systems and a comparison should be made but your dreaming if you think you should be able to hit for 100% at every range available to your weapon system and not be effected by the speed of the target.
The whole nerf speed idea was a bad one as tackling should be virtually essential in pvp and now it is not just raw dmg. As long as over time DPS is the same yes.
Amarr ships will do missions faster than caldari ships as long as the enemies are not Guristas or Angels.
Gallente ships will do missions faster than caldari as long as the enemies are not Blood raiders or sansha.
Tbh in any situation where you take "mission efficiency" Caldari ships come out as 2nd or 3rd. But their flexibility means that over time we can compete with others.
Though nothing will beat a Nightmare in mission/time efficiency.
What you want is to make certain caldari is the worst setup in any situation it seems cause that is where we are heading at the moment. But what the hell do you care you dont fly em anyway.
I dont care how the math is worked out but atm Caldari are balanced for PvE. A topskill pilot with access to both gallente and Amarr ships will always be faster than us but then that is no problem. Having 2,5m SP in missiles made worthless though is annoying but for me it just means 3-4 months of semiafkness while I get amarr BS up to speed and Large Pulse spec trained. |
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 13:44:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Hyveres on 25/10/2008 13:44:46
Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 25/10/2008 12:03:51
Originally by: Hyveres
What you want is to make certain caldari is the worst setup in any situation it seems cause that is where we are heading at the moment. But what the hell do you care you dont fly em anyway.
This patch is about the highly vaunted "balance" that ppl preached about nano when they found it too hard (compared to mission running) not about making caldari the wort race at any situation. But hey as was pointed out to nano pilots complaining about this nerf "adapt or die" missiles and ravens in particular will not be the new "i-win" button.
Well you dont PvE at all then I reckon.
The drake is awesome for ratting. And the simple fact is that while you start becomming efficient earlier in ships based on the raven chassis(especially the CNR), once you reach a certain point LPwise turretbased ships are always better.
So caldari is newbiefriendly but never #1 at anything when it comes to PvE.
This has made it popular since it allows a 2-3 month old character to start running L4s effectivly, but tbh gallente ships can do this as well and I am not certain they are that much worse than ravens or CNRs.
Missiles however will cap out early while turrets keeps getting more and more powerfull though they do need a larger investment in LP.
And by your logic we should be happy with dealing 2-300 DPS when doing L4s while Amarr and gallente ships are breaking the 1k mark.
Nice balance if you ask me.
|
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.10.26 14:46:00 -
[8]
hmms I wonder if we are seeing a future where dedicated paintergolems are used in gang and fleet operations to boost DPS from other ships. |
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 21:44:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Gypsio III Plain, simple and completely wrong.
The ability to project good DPS to 249 km is immensely powerful. We might see less whining about Falcons if more people realised this...
And it is a pretty good point on TG in a small scale engagement a falcon pilot has 16-24 seconds from the raven locks him untill he dies unless ofcourse he warps out(no more ecmboat interferanc).
While the raven wont have that kind of firepower once missile changes go live a HML cerb can still drop a falcon in 3-4 salvoes. Its DPS is higher than comparable snipers for that range so I dont really see the downsides.
When looking at flighttime and such its a bit under 40 seconds from Cerb lock untill the falcon dies , worst case scenario , heck a paper thing falcon will drop in 30 or less :)
|
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.11.01 16:50:00 -
[10]
Only thing you forget Lebrata is that it would take 2-3 cruiseravens to break the tank on an adequatly tanked battleship at range.
That is assuming cruisemissiles hit for full damage which they wont after patch , so to match the effective DPS of a single pulse apoc with cruise missiles you will probably need 8-10 ravens. Assuming an unwebbed, unpainted target at range ofcourse.
|
|
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.11.01 19:41:00 -
[11]
Originally by: lebrata Edited by: lebrata on 01/11/2008 19:22:18
Originally by: TZeer
Delayed damage?
And "Not having any tracking issues from 0 to the max range" have you ever used misiles?
All people have to do is get their speed up, thats it.
Delayed damage but a higher base dps, choice of dmg types and yes not tracking or optimal range issue from 0 to max of the missile type.
Look ccp have all but said that they want BS weapons to be useless against smaller ships and you seem to be confirming that they are so..........
Which really explains why every single major fleetbattle have turret based snipers instead of missilebased ones as their long range mainstay firepower.
Give me examples where cruisemissiles have dominated gang or fleetbattle engagements and I might take you seriously.
|
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.11.01 20:06:00 -
[12]
Originally by: lebrata
Originally by: Hyveres
Give me examples where cruisemissiles have dominated gang or fleetbattle engagements and I might take you seriously.
http://udie.griefwatch.net/?p=campaigns
All those enough?.
Ahh burn eden :)
The one and only corp that has pulled off missile tactics and since they succeed everything is balanced in your world
|
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.11.01 22:10:00 -
[13]
Because the level of teamwork required to have cruise missiles as an effective weapon system are so high that only a select few can take advantage of it.
Everyone and their grandmothers hamster can use short range and medium range turrets well without having a specialized gang setup that includes support to make your weapon systems actually do damage.
You seem to want balance based on the top few percentages that have the option of forming a specialized gang to make their weapons work. I'd rather have it functional but slightly inferior to turrets. Or as it is now on TQ , specialized for an anti cruiser support role.
|
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.11.04 10:55:00 -
[14]
Originally by: GateScout
Originally by: Cpt Branko My point is, implying that somehow small ships will become any more important in fleets then now is silly.
I disagree. I think this may cause a change in fleet dynamics. You're certainly going to see different fittings on missile boats. This patch almost requires it. We'll see once the final patch comes out.
That is not the issue, the real question is will you see missileboats at all?
|
|
|
|