EVE Search - Assault Launcher for Battleships (using Heavy Missiles)

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Assault Launcher for Battleships (using Heavy Missiles)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sunviking	Posted - 2011.03.09 11:28:00 - [1] Edited by: Sunviking on 09/03/2011 11:30:06 The subject is: Should there be an Assault-style launcher for Battleships, which fires Heavy Missiles, in addition to the The Cruiser-sized Assault Launcher which fires Standard Missiles? Please discuss, sensibly. There are potentially many angles of discussion on this, along with several pros and cons.
Paikis Red Federation	Posted - 2011.03.09 12:08:00 - [2] It sure would be great if there were Heavy Assault Missiles in this game... Shame about that huh?
Wacktopia Dark Side Of The Womb	Posted - 2011.03.09 12:12:00 - [3] Edited by: Wacktopia on 09/03/2011 12:17:04 Hello Mr Cruise, may I introduce you to Mr Siege? Edit: In case someone misses my point... there are already long and close range BS missiles in the game. We do not want 'even closer BS missiles that can do even more damage and hit lower sigs for more damage'.
Athena Silk Stimulus Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2011.03.09 12:13:00 - [4] Originally by: Paikis It sure would be great if there were Heavy Assault Missiles in this game... Shame about that huh? Congratulations at completely missing his point.
Sonya Kranz	Posted - 2011.03.09 12:14:00 - [5] i think the biggest concerns there would be the effects on PvP situations, the effects on PvE would probably be neglectable. Think about what a missile battleship would do in a fight against a smaller target with a full rack of bonused cruiser weapons... Especially compared to their gunnery counterparts, which would not be able to hit consistently with such accuracy. Bad idea most likely.
Lutz Major	Posted - 2011.03.09 12:15:00 - [6] Great! That's what my 120m/s Raven needs: another close-combat weapon. Expense of ammo would sure decrease, because my Drones would kill all enemies before I'd be even within reach.
Duchess Starbuckington	Posted - 2011.03.09 12:25:00 - [7] Quote: there are already long and close range BS missiles in the game. Quote: Great! That's what my 120m/s Raven needs: another close-combat weapon. ... Have you ever actually used missiles? You do realise that a Raven firing bonused heavy missiles would be reaching out to around the 100km mark? The point isn't range, it's sacrificing dps for good ability to hit smaller targets. I'm neither for or against this, but I just thought those points were so stupid they deserved a mention. _________________________________ ROCKET STATUS: FIX IN PROGRESS...
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.09 12:38:00 - [8] Originally by: Paikis It sure would be great if there were Heavy Assault Missiles in this game... Shame about that huh? it sure would be great if you knew what you were talking about when you made smart remarks. OP is referring to Assault Launchers. He's asking for a Large sized weapon that fires medium ammo at an increased rate. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Lutz Major	Posted - 2011.03.09 12:38:00 - [9] Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington Quote: there are already long and close range BS missiles in the game. Quote: Great! That's what my 120m/s Raven needs: another close-combat weapon. ... Have you ever actually used missiles? You do realise that a Raven firing bonused heavy missiles would be reaching out to around the 100km mark? The point isn't range, it's sacrificing dps for good ability to hit smaller targets. I'm neither for or against this, but I just thought those points were so stupid they deserved a mention. OP is talking about 'assault' style weapons. My current 'range' of cruise missiles are 190km, the ratio between heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles is about 1/4, so Assault Cruise Missiles would travel ~45km. WOOOOOOOOOT!
Sonya Kranz	Posted - 2011.03.09 12:40:00 - [10] Originally by: Sunviking Should there be an Assault-style launcher for Battleships, which fires Heavy Missiles, in addition to the The Cruiser-sized Assault Launcher which fires Standard Missiles? are you guys even reading? lol
Duchess Starbuckington	Posted - 2011.03.09 12:43:00 - [11] Ok, I'm gonna use nice small words so your simple mind can understand it. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Assault_Missile_Launcher_II Do you see this? This is an assault missile launcher. It is a weapon that goes on cruisers (those things one size below battlecruisers) and it fires frigate sized missiles. What the OP (that's the post at the top) is suggesting, is a battleship sized launcher that fires heavy missiles (the cruiser equivilent of light missiles) at a faster rate than a normal HML. Get it yet? Or do I have to add some pretty pictures for you? _________________________________ ROCKET STATUS: FIX IN PROGRESS...
Strange Kid	Posted - 2011.03.09 12:44:00 - [12] Originally by: Wacktopia Edited by: Wacktopia on 09/03/2011 12:17:04 Hello Mr Cruise, may I introduce you to Mr Siege? Edit: In case someone misses my point... there are already long and close range BS missiles in the game. We do not want 'even closer BS missiles that can do even more damage and hit lower sigs for more damage'. Think you missed his point though, as heavy missiles and standard missiles are not a close range, heavy dps variant. The excact opposite ;) As for the topic, AML caracals and drakes are a niche of their own and the counter argument to them being overpowered vs. frigs is losing to similiar sized ships and frigs running from them. Quick check on t1 bs which would field these fast-shooting (up to 500-600dps?) heavy missile racks would be raven, rokh, tempest, scorpion, typhoon (am i missing some?). I would allow these ships a chance to wtf pwn bad vagabonds and such, but the good cruiser-battlecruiser pilots would always have a shot at escaping. A rokh blob would hardly be a replacement for drake ones, but armor tanking typhoon blob does sound like an interesting choise. Overall I don't see too many negatives to it, there should be battleships designed to counter small fast cruisers. It would only increase options on the battlefield and hopefully shift focus back towards BS'es a bit which I would like. The only requirement would be to make the heavy missile racks high enough DPS to matter, but low enough not to make a heavy missile raven dps like a tengu.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.09 12:46:00 - [13] Originally by: Sonya Kranz i think the biggest concerns there would be the effects on PvP situations, the effects on PvE would probably be neglectable. On the contrary, it would make the Raven into a PvE monster. 8 effective launchers at BS 5, with an additional 20% effective RoF Bonus (extrapolating from the difference between a standard launcher and an assault launcher) giving 10 effective launchers (compared to the Drake's 7 effective launchers or 8.75 if using Kinetic), full damage type selectability, effective range out to locking range, plus the ability to be able to usefully fit 4 BCUs, which is worth an extra 5-6% DPS. The CNR would be even better with 11.66 effective launchers. In essence, you'd get a ship with more firepower than a Kinetic-using Tengu, plus BS level EHP (thus much less vulnerable to ganking), plus it would be incredibly easy to fit, thus not needing to fit anything better than T2. "Assault heavy" launchers would be a PvEer's dream. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Wacktopia Dark Side Of The Womb	Posted - 2011.03.09 12:48:00 - [14] Originally by: Strange Kid Originally by: Wacktopia Edited by: Wacktopia on 09/03/2011 12:17:04 Hello Mr Cruise, may I introduce you to Mr Siege? Edit: In case someone misses my point... there are already long and close range BS missiles in the game. We do not want 'even closer BS missiles that can do even more damage and hit lower sigs for more damage'. Think you missed his point though, as heavy missiles and standard missiles are not a close range, heavy dps variant. The excact opposite ;) Kinda. But their effect is they will hit for more damage. Ergh, just don't think it would be a good idea to add a weapon that would hit smaller targets better on one race's BS. We don't need another Drake.
Tore Smith Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2011.03.09 13:13:00 - [15] Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington Ok, I'm gonna use nice small words so your simple mind can understand it. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Assault_Missile_Launcher_II Do you see this? This is an assault missile launcher. It is a weapon that goes on cruisers (those things one size below battlecruisers) and it fires frigate sized missiles. What the OP (that's the post at the top) is suggesting, is a battleship sized launcher that fires heavy missiles (the cruiser equivilent of light missiles) at a faster rate than a normal HML. Get it yet? Or do I have to add some pretty pictures for you? nice. i chuckled. on topic: i want to like the idea. it basically goes the same direction as the proposal to generally bonus medium weapons on bs hulls as well with a bit of juice on top. you either have more raw dps with big guns or more applied dps with medium ones ofc depending on target. its probably a balancing nightmare though. and add the point that they would have to make a turret equivalent...
Millie Clode Amarr Insert Cool Name Here	Posted - 2011.03.09 13:28:00 - [16] Originally by: Tore Smith and add the point that they would have to make a turret equivalent... Now THAT would be a fun idea. Make things like the dual-heavy pulse laser and dual-425mm autocannon use medium ammo and increase their tracking to compensate :) ---------- Who, me?
Sunviking	Posted - 2011.03.09 13:43:00 - [17] Good to see some discussion here. Just to confirm, Yes, I am talking about a Battleship launcher that fire Heavy Missiles at a fast rate. I am Not talking about Heavy Assault Missiles or Heavy Assault Launchers.
Zhim'Fufu	Posted - 2011.03.09 14:32:00 - [18] Nice idea and one I would personally like to see added but alas ccp is trying to reduce missile spam and not increase it so I doubt it would ever see the light of day. Unless they figure out how to apply the changes they did to fighterbomber torps to all missiles but I'm not holding my breath on that one. Originally by: Response to bitter carebear tears in local [19:44:46] CCP Incognito > sorry i can't talk about game mechanics. you need to use your brains and figure it out.
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol	Posted - 2011.03.09 15:34:00 - [19] Originally by: Sunviking Good to see some discussion here. Just to confirm, Yes, I am talking about a Battleship launcher that fire Heavy Missiles at a fast rate. Yes it would be a nice idea. It would also increase the feeling of a versatile multi purpose ship which a battleship shoud be. [I'd also like to see the energy turret bonus on the Ashimmu changed to all in stead of mediums ]
stoicfaux Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.09 16:00:00 - [20] Edited by: stoicfaux on 09/03/2011 16:05:48 I like the principle of the AHML, but I hate the idea of a dedicated launcher. Plan B: fix precision cruise missiles. Pros: easy fix. Cons: wouldn't be as effective against frigates as the AHML. Plan C: add a new cruise missile ammo for dealing with frigates, say Flak missiles or a two stage cruise missile where the cruise missile chassis carries a standard or heavy missile. Once it is close to the target it launches the standard/heavy missile. Alternative ammo keeps the big launcher's slower rate of fire which is balancing. The potential downside is that alternative ammo allows missile battleships to deal with any target size, which could be overpowered. ----- "Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you! -- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Machiavelli, and PvP"
Dorian Wylde	Posted - 2011.03.09 16:07:00 - [21] Edited by: Dorian Wylde on 09/03/2011 16:13:02 Originally by: Wacktopia Edited by: Wacktopia on 09/03/2011 12:17:04 Hello Mr Cruise, may I introduce you to Mr Siege? Edit: In case someone misses my point... there are already long and close range BS missiles in the game. We do not want 'even closer BS missiles that can do even more damage and hit lower sigs for more damage'. The same situation exists at the Cruiser level, Heavy and Heavy assault, yet CCP saw fit to include the Assault launcher firing light missiles for use against frigates. There is no real reason why the same situation doesn't exist for Battleships, giving people an extra option against smaller ships, rather than having to waste mid slots on target painters, and rig slots on rigors. Also, who is "we"? You speak only for yourself, so don't try and muck up the topic by claiming to speak for anyone else, it simply makes you look ignorant and foolish. Originally by: Tore Smith and add the point that they would have to make a turret equivalent... Why? Is there a turret equivalent for the assault launcher that's already in the game? Missiles and Turrets are different, this is one example of that, and the OP's idea would be expanding on that example. Turrets don't factor into this situation at all.
Brodde Dim Hyper-Nova	Posted - 2011.03.09 16:59:00 - [22] Why not take it all the way, and also create super-assault-launchers, that fit on BS and fires standard missiles.
Salpad Caldari Carebears with Attitude	Posted - 2011.03.09 18:49:00 - [23] Originally by: Lutz Major OP is talking about 'assault' style weapons. My current 'range' of cruise missiles are 190km, the ratio between heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles is about 1/4, so Assault Cruise Missiles would travel ~45km. WOOOOOOOOOT! Wrong. Heavy Missiles already exist within the game, and have well-known stats. The OP wants to have a module scaled for his battleship, that can launch this pre-existig type of missiles, Learn to read. -- Salpad
Salpad Caldari Carebears with Attitude	Posted - 2011.03.09 18:56:00 - [24] Originally by: Brodde Dim Why not take it all the way, and also create super-assault-launchers, that fit on BS and fires standard missiles. Yes, why not. One poster suggested to solve the anti-cruser problem with a new type of cruise missile, but it is much better of a battleship has to fit for either anti-BS or anti-cruiser, on the module level, instead of merely by changing ammo type. And as long as it is a choice made on the module level, there is nothing wrong with the concept of anti-frigate launcher, nor with similar g·ns and drones that are one size but work best against targets one size smaller, or even two sizes smaller. Keep in mind, guys, the DPS on AML sucks, compared to HML. This isn't a no-brainer choice. PVE BS pilots wouldn't unthinkingly flock towards anti-cruiser modules. Rather they'd have to make a hard, difficult, anguishing choice. Same with PVP pilots. -- Salpad
Goose99	Posted - 2011.03.09 19:04:00 - [25] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Sonya Kranz i think the biggest concerns there would be the effects on PvP situations, the effects on PvE would probably be neglectable. On the contrary, it would make the Raven into a PvE monster. 8 effective launchers at BS 5, with an additional 20% effective RoF Bonus (extrapolating from the difference between a standard launcher and an assault launcher) giving 10 effective launchers (compared to the Drake's 7 effective launchers or 8.75 if using Kinetic), full damage type selectability, effective range out to locking range, plus the ability to be able to usefully fit 4 BCUs, which is worth an extra 5-6% DPS. The CNR would be even better with 11.66 effective launchers. In essence, you'd get a ship with more firepower than a Kinetic-using Tengu, plus BS level EHP (thus much less vulnerable to ganking), plus it would be incredibly easy to fit, thus not needing to fit anything better than T2. "Assault heavy" launchers would be a PvEer's dream. 5% bonus to Cruise and Siege Launcher Rate Of Fire and 10% bonus to Cruise Missile and Torpedo Velocity per level Raven only has bonus to cruise missiles and torps, that's why no one use hmls on it already. So no, it wouldn't be OP unless you change Raven's ship bonus too.
Val'Dore Word Bearers of Chaos Word of Chaos Undivided	Posted - 2011.03.09 19:07:00 - [26] I could dig this change. Having more options as a BS pilot is always a good thing. ~No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously.~ Tiericide
oldmanst4r Minmatar oldmanst4r's Corporation	Posted - 2011.03.09 19:12:00 - [27] Well you'd probably be looking at battleships fitted with rapid fire long-range anti-cruiser weapons the real question is would that be overpowered? What battleships can use missiles effectively? Ravens and Typhoons are really the only battleships that can use missiles effectively. They both have a 5% ROF bonus to launchers. For comparisons sake Assault Missile launchers have a base RoF of 9.6 standard launchers have a base RoF of 12. Conveniently heavy launchers have the same Rof as standards allowing us to set the base RoF at 9.6 for the "Assault Heavy Missile Launcher IIs". AMLs also use about 70% of the CPU and half the grid of normal cruiser sized launchers, so AHMLs should use the same proportion of cruise missile launcher grid and CPU. Applying these attributes to Heavy launchers gets us.....a launcher that would do (according to my rough and brief calculations). 86 dps per launcher with 4xBCS II and a 5% ROF bonus. On a Raven this would give us 514 dps with faction and 576 dps with Rage and 430 and 470 dps on a 'phoon respectively. With ranges of 124km and 84km as well. Not awful numbers but nothing to right home about. You get perfectly selectable drake dps on a battleship platform. Nothing to special, but an interesting capability nonetheless. Plus the savings on grid and cpu would allow you to fit plates and neuts with reckless abandon, although i'm not sure how helpful that would be overall. Originally by: CCP Shadow snip Castration successful. Shadow.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.09 19:20:00 - [28] Originally by: Salpad Originally by: Brodde Dim Why not take it all the way, and also create super-assault-launchers, that fit on BS and fires standard missiles. Yes, why not. One poster suggested to solve the anti-cruser problem with a new type of cruise missile, but it is much better of a battleship has to fit for either anti-BS or anti-cruiser, on the module level, instead of merely by changing ammo type. And as long as it is a choice made on the module level, there is nothing wrong with the concept of anti-frigate launcher, nor with similar g·ns and drones that are one size but work best against targets one size smaller, or even two sizes smaller. Keep in mind, guys, the DPS on AML sucks, compared to HML. This isn't a no-brainer choice. PVE BS pilots wouldn't unthinkingly flock towards anti-cruiser modules. Rather they'd have to make a hard, difficult, anguishing choice. Same with PVP pilots. I'm not so sure about PVE pilots. Or rather, I'm pretty sure that you're wrong: A CNR equipped with T2 "AHMLs" and 4x T2 BCUs would do 513 DPS with T1 missiles and 653.52 with T2 Furies. And then add drones. Those seem like respectable numbers to me. If there were such a thing as "Faction AHML"s and that CNR fitted 4x CN BCUs, he'd be putting out 560 missle DPS just with T1 ammo. And bear in mind that this is all with the huge precision bonus that using HMLs over Cruises gives. A Fury HML has way better precision and explosion velocity than a T1 cruise). So more effective damage is employed without needing target painters and such. A T2 AHML firing T2 Furies would do 14% more raw DPS than a T2 Cruiser launcher fitting T1 ammo, and even more than that as effective DPS. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Baraka Saibot	Posted - 2011.03.09 19:35:00 - [29] 9/10... For actually not trolling, but still, for the most of the first posters completely missing the point and trying to be smartasses.
baltec1 Antares Shipyards	Posted - 2011.03.09 20:16:00 - [30] Originally by: Lutz Major Great! That's what my 120m/s Raven needs: another close-combat weapon. Expense of ammo would sure decrease, because my Drones would kill all enemies before I'd be even within reach. You could always nano the raven...

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.