do you not realise how OP it is if cruises and torps can do as much damage if not more than blasterboats do with their tiny range where is the balance there?

That's very short sighted of CCP then. They shouldn't cater to one playstyle; any balance should cover all aspects of game play.

Well, with Guns I need 1-2 TEs and a Web to apply my damage effectively. You can even hit frigs with blasters/ACs.
To do the same using missiles I need 1-2 painters, a Web and 2-3 Rigs.

Speaking of PvP, how does the change make Cruises any better than before? I mean the damage will be still penalized after this change or will become worse because of Expl radius increase.

So is it a PvP or PvE buff?

Right now i can't see any Torp boat that can do more DPS than the Vindicator, Machariel or Kronos... ok, maybe the Kronos, but I wouldn't count on it, not even if Torps get a damage buff.

by my math, this means each missile will do 291 damage rather than 253 and thats worst case scenario; an AB tempest with no sig increase from a shield tank and no speed decrease from an armor tank.

seriously though, who runs an AB on a battleship?

TL;DR
unless the battleship is LOLz afterburning and not MWDing your cruise missiles will do full damage.

Speaking of PvP, how does the change make Cruises any better than before? I mean the damage will be still penalized after this change or will become worse because of Expl radius increase.

So is it a PvP or PvE buff?

Please keep in mind this change is not comprehensive. Following Odyssey, we hope to do more work to improve the missile systems in EVE by potentially adding new modules and/or interactions.

So, as a few of you have mentioned, damage application is one of the biggest obstacles for missiles. I completely agree, but I don't want to solve this problem through Cruise Missiles as a system. I have other ideas for dealing with it, unfortunately they will likely not make it in for Odyssey.

You should read the dev-comments in this thread..



+



Page 1 and 5.

I dont need any of this modules in PvE, my RAVEN is FINE at the moment. So they will be propertly used in PvP, but wouldnt that be OP, since Cruise do a lot of dmg now? Anyway i dont see Raven of any use in PvP with or without the modules, because Typhoon is better.

The signature radius bloom caused by MWD more than off sets the damage reduction from the speed. This is why afterburners are so popular, no sig bloom. This is why you see cruisers with 100mn afterburners, more speed without the sig bloom of a MWD. In practice a cruise missile will do more damage to a battleship that has an active MWD than it will to one running an afterburner.

A 100mn Micro Warp Drive II increases signature radius by 500%.So a tempest with a MWD would have a signature radius not of 340m but over 2000m. Even a rage torp will hit that for full damage. Afterburner has 0% increase to signature radius. The speed of an afterburner directly mitigates damage, while a MWD has the opposite effect. MWD is effective damage mitigation against slow tracking turrets, but not missiles.

Medium rail-guns. Medium rail-guns? Medium rail-guns! Medium rail-guns, medium rail-guns, medium rail-guns! MEDIUM RAIL-GUNS

I think you missed something before BS-sized weapons...

As far as missiles are concerned, they take the longest time to train for, so obviously they should do the most damage.

Hint: there are no railguns in RL, but there are in EVE.

Hi CCP Rise, thanks for these changes! It seems like this will give poor cruise missiles a fighting chance in PVP. Along those lines, could I offer the following suggestion?

Please make Cruise Missiles have 280 structure hitpoints. This would bring them in line with Torpedoes and make them less susceptible (but not immune) to firewalling.

Thanks very much for the consideration!

Hi CCP Rise, thanks for these changes! It seems like this will give poor cruise missiles a fighting chance in PVP. Along those lines, could I offer the following suggestion?

Please make Cruise Missiles have 280 structure hitpoints. This would bring them in line with Torpedoes and make them less susceptible (but not immune) to firewalling.

Thanks very much for the consideration!

Hi CCP Rise, thanks for these changes! It seems like this will give poor cruise missiles a fighting chance in PVP. Along those lines, could I offer the following suggestion?

Please make Cruise Missiles have 280 structure hitpoints. This would bring them in line with Torpedoes and make them less susceptible (but not immune) to firewalling.

Thanks very much for the consideration!

Hi CCP Rise, thanks for these changes! It seems like this will give poor cruise missiles a fighting chance in PVP. Along those lines, could I offer the following suggestion?

Please make Cruise Missiles have 280 structure hitpoints. This would bring them in line with Torpedoes and make them less susceptible (but not immune) to firewalling.

Thanks very much for the consideration!

Hint: there are no railguns in RL, but there are in EVE.

Is it just me or do ROF bonuses to long range weapons with delayed damage just make no sense at all?

Increase the damage bonus and remove the ROF bonus.

maybe you could give cruise missiles uniqueness by making them accelerate over the entire flight path. This would make flight time pretty much the same for long and medium range encounters, but wouldn't create an instant hit weapon at close range.

Personally I'd still like to see missiles that are still in flight when their target is destroyed auto switch to the next target you have locked up. Of course they might not have the range left to make it to that target, but it would mean that a lot of those "wasted" volleys would still do some good... leaving the initial travel time delay as the main drawback to long range missile use.

Obviously this would be a very powerful change and would have to be carefully considered. Especially since it would likely mean that a missile boat could simply leave his missile launchers on during a fight, and as long as he had targets locked (and in the order he wanted them) he would be constantly spewing out effective damage.

30% DPS buff? Well, now there's two less reasons to fly a PvE Golem. CNR w/Fury = 786 DPS * 1.32% = 1037 DPS. Golem w/ CN torps = 1002 DPS. CNR costs ~430M isk versus Golem's ~800M isk.

And no, I don't see the increased explosion radius as being a problem for the CNR.