| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sorja
   |
Posted - 2005.01.06 04:53:00 -
[1]
Besides the lower CPU and grid requirements for cruise launchers, why would one equip them on a scorp/raven ?
Everybody says siege are better, but there must be a catch 
|
jamesw
|
Posted - 2005.01.06 04:57:00 -
[2]
I'm pretty sure its something to do with their CPU and grid requirements. 
--
jamesw
Rubra Libertas Militia
 Originally by: RollinDutchMasters
I fly a dominix, its like a portable blob in a can
|
Hellcat
|
Posted - 2005.01.06 05:06:00 -
[3]
Can cruise launchers fire Torps ? or just Cruise/Defender missiles.
Siege launchers can fire (cruise, torpedos & defenders) and they have a much faster base rate of fire, and a greater capacity to hold more missiles.
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2005.01.06 05:13:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Scorpyn on 06/01/2005 05:13:29
Siege launchers have a higher rof, can load more ammo, and can fire both cruise missiles and torps.
Siege launchers are a lot better than cruise launchers, except when it comes to fitting reqs.
|
Elemmakil
|
Posted - 2005.01.06 05:37:00 -
[5]
Aren`t fit reqs important?
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2005.01.06 06:00:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Scorpyn on 06/01/2005 06:00:35
Fitting reqs are important, but if you're able to fit it then there is no additional problems 
(except that the rest of your setup might be gimped but you get my point hopefully)
|
magickangaroo
|
Posted - 2005.01.06 06:16:00 -
[7]
the only reason ud fit them is cos of the less cpu and grid. they dont fire torps and have a worse rof and a ithink capacity.
really thou if u cant fit a shield tank on a raven and fit siege...well u shouldnt be in a raven spend some time getting ur eng,elec, weapon upgrades to level 5 then play in a bs.
mgk
|
archangel sean
|
Posted - 2005.01.06 07:19:00 -
[8]
In some extreme cases, you can fit a rack of cruise launchers and fill your lows with balistic controls (instead of pdus) for a gankaraven setup.
|
lollerskates
|
Posted - 2005.01.06 08:43:00 -
[9]
Edited by: lollerskates on 06/01/2005 08:44:53
I was JUST about to start a topic on how underpowered cruise launchers are. If you compare a 350mm rail and a 425, the 350mm is a bit less powergrid, with less damage, but a lower rate of fire, therefore they are a reasonable alternative. You see the same thing with megabeams vs. tachyons, and 1200's vs 1400's, they are ALMOST as good. You can do a good setup with the lower end turrets, just sacrificing a little bit of damage.
However, with missle launcher ops 5, a Siege launcher has an 18 second rate of fire, where a cruise missle launcher has a 21 second rate of fire. Now I suppose it would be perfectly reasonable if you were launching the same ammunition from both, but keep in mind that with a siege you launching a torp every 18 seconds, and with a cruise launcher, it's a cruise missle every 21 seconds.
I think that the cruise launcher should have the same rate of fire as a siege, since not being able to fire torpedos is enough of a nerf, there's no reason it should have a worse rate of fire. I also believe that if cruise missle launchers were a good alternative for long range combat (where you would use cruise missles anyways), minmatar ships would actually start being used again, since they run into fitting problems trying to do 4 or 6 turrets and then sieges (lets not forget that cruise missles were originally supposed to use 500 powergrid).
|
Kaylona Tso
|
Posted - 2005.01.06 08:52:00 -
[10]
Named Cruise Launchers are as good as stock Siege or better for many setups. For NPC huting in 0.0 named cruise aren't so bad for a raven that wants UBER armor tanking. Don't just look at market tech 1 items...
-----
|
lollerskates
|
Posted - 2005.01.06 08:57:00 -
[11]
Edited by: lollerskates on 06/01/2005 08:57:00
Originally by: Kaylona Tso
Named Cruise Launchers are as good as stock Siege or better for many setups.
But a Named Cruise sucks compared to a Named Siege...
Who wants to pay a lot more just to do standard damage? Not me.
|
Jim Steele
|
Posted - 2005.01.06 09:49:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Sorja
Everybody says siege are better, but there must be a catch
Try fitting torps in a cruise launcher, also since they can hold more ammo d.o.t is higher as you have to reload less.
Death to the Galante |
Jim Steele
|
Posted - 2005.01.06 09:51:00 -
[13]
Originally by: archangel sean
In some extreme cases, you can fit a rack of cruise launchers and fill your lows with balistic controls (instead of pdus) for a gankaraven setup.
you can fit a rack of siege with ballistic mods skill permitting, i think you get about 900 ish damage for torps, of course the rest of your setup like shield tanking goes out the window.
Death to the Galante |
Jed Whitten
|
Posted - 2005.01.06 10:23:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Jim Steele
Originally by: archangel sean
In some extreme cases, you can fit a rack of cruise launchers and fill your lows with balistic controls (instead of pdus) for a gankaraven setup.
you can fit a rack of siege with ballistic mods skill permitting, i think you get about 900 ish damage for torps, of course the rest of your setup like shield tanking goes out the window.
Well, the maximum torpedo damage a Raven can deal with stock gear (tech 1, not named) is 705.3 at torpedo level 5 and the lows filled with "Ballistic Control Unit I"'s. But then you won't be able to fit all that many Siege launchers or shield tank propperly due to the Ballistics CPU requirements.
FWIW: Max damage of a cruise missile in the same setup is 470.2 at Cruise Missile lvl5. On another ship with more lows and more ballistic control units (there are some nice named ones out, too) the maximum damage output may of course be higher.
The question of course is how practical such a setup is, as fitting that many damage mods always has a tendency to gimp the setup in other regards like defenses.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |