Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 25 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Knives Thomsan
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.25 15:04:00 -
[691] - Quote
This changes nothing. No one is going to use cruise missiles. The problem is not flight time. Having a 10 second delay before your first damage hits was a good enough penalty for the fact that your subsequent missiles are sure to hit unlike guns. Damage is the problem and this change actually decreases the DPS for a Navy Raven. It does increase alpha, but that doesn't help when you're fighting tanky cruisers to battleships at range. |
TehCloud
Carnivore Company
47
|
Posted - 2013.05.25 16:57:00 -
[692] - Quote
Knives Thomsan wrote:This changes nothing. No one is going to use cruise missiles. The problem is not flight time. Having a 10 second delay before your first damage hits was a good enough penalty for the fact that your subsequent missiles are sure to hit unlike guns. Damage is the problem and this change actually decreases the DPS for a Navy Raven. It does increase alpha, but that doesn't help when you're fighting tanky cruisers to battleships at range.
Could you be telling any more bullcrap? I don't think thats possible.
4700m/sec base missile velocity for all Cruise Missiles (up from 3750m/sec) - Damage is now applied faster after firing
25% increase in base damage for all Cruise Missiles - a 25% increase in Damage is a nerf? Please do explain me how.
My Condor costs less than that module! |
Devil Inside Us
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.25 18:00:00 -
[693] - Quote
Knives Thomsan wrote:This changes nothing. No one is going to use cruise missiles. The problem is not flight time. Having a 10 second delay before your first damage hits was a good enough penalty for the fact that your subsequent missiles are sure to hit unlike guns. Damage is the problem and this change actually decreases the DPS for a Navy Raven. It does increase alpha, but that doesn't help when you're fighting tanky cruisers to battleships at range.
Reading is for chumps....
... I mean champs... reading is for champs... |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
284
|
Posted - 2013.05.26 09:45:00 -
[694] - Quote
Knives Thomsan wrote:This changes nothing. No one is going to use cruise missiles. The problem is not flight time. Having a 10 second delay before your first damage hits was a good enough penalty for the fact that your subsequent missiles are sure to hit unlike guns. Damage is the problem and this change actually decreases the DPS for a Navy Raven. It does increase alpha, but that doesn't help when you're fighting tanky cruisers to battleships at range.
How can 5% increase in ROF, and a 25% increase in damage, with a minor penalty to explosion radius (which was pretty good already) be a reduction in damage? We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061
http://www.thedeadrabbitsociety.com |
marVLs
159
|
Posted - 2013.05.26 10:29:00 -
[695] - Quote
Yeah increase number of missiles in t2 launcher |
Lugalzagezi666
149
|
Posted - 2013.05.26 15:51:00 -
[696] - Quote
marVLs wrote:Yeah increase number of missiles in t2 launcher Lowering the volume of missiles would be better imo.
|
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3009
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 13:54:00 -
[697] - Quote
So any comments from CCP why these long range weapons received such an absurdly ridiculous overbuff?
I guess balancing range with dps was a boring idea and had to be scrapped.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
740
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 14:48:00 -
[698] - Quote
Roime wrote:So any comments from CCP why these long range weapons received such an absurdly ridiculous overbuff?
I guess balancing range with dps was a boring idea and had to be scrapped.
Is it an overbuff? It seems to be that rail/tachyon BS get similar DPS figures around the 50-70 km mark, without the problem of delayed damage. This gives cruise a niche beyond that range, up to the soft 150 km cap, although if we include the Naga in this then cruise only has a meaningful DPS advantage beyond 120 km or so. Indeed, it seems that this is a good example of "balancing range with DPS", as the DPS advantage of cruise only manifests itself at range, where it is countered by the delay.
Now, sure, there are many other factors to consider, such as host platform mobility, tank and fittings, damage types, cap use, "tracking" close-up etc, but you criticised the weapon itself, not the Raven and Typhoon when fitted with cruise specifically, nor in comparison to their attack BS counterparts or ABCs. |
Nick Bete
The Scope Gallente Federation
219
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 15:40:00 -
[699] - Quote
You can safely ignore anything that Roime character said. Reading his posts in other threads he comes off as an arrogant bittervet who thinks he knows what's best for the game more so than CCP. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
740
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 16:19:00 -
[700] - Quote
Nick Bete wrote:You can safely ignore anything that Roime character said. Reading his posts in other threads he comes off as an arrogant bittervet who thinks he knows what's best for the game more so than CCP.
If I did that I'd ignore all my own posts too. Actually I find Roime's posts to be pretty sensible generally, so I was surprised to see him suggest that new cruise was much too good. |
|
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
67
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 16:40:00 -
[701] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:If I did that I'd ignore all my own posts too. Actually I find Roime's posts to be pretty sensible generally, so I was surprised to see him suggest that new cruise was much too good.
He hates all missiles for some reason, and constantly advocates nerfs for them and the ships that use them. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3019
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 20:53:00 -
[702] - Quote
Well this got personal. Nick is probably referring to my posts about hisec, which are far from sensible and certainly arrogant, but I do have many years until vet status. No idea where Sal got the missile hate idea from.
Gypsio III wrote:Roime wrote:So any comments from CCP why these long range weapons received such an absurdly ridiculous overbuff?
I guess balancing range with dps was a boring idea and had to be scrapped. Is it an overbuff? It seems to be that rail/tachyon BS get similar DPS figures around the 50-70 km mark, without the problem of delayed damage. This gives cruise a niche beyond that range, up to the soft 150 km cap, although if we include the Naga in this then cruise only has a meaningful DPS advantage beyond 120 km or so. Indeed, it seems that this is a good example of "balancing range with DPS", as the DPS advantage of cruise only manifests itself at range, where it is countered by the delay. Now, sure, there are many other factors to consider, such as host platform mobility, tank and fittings, damage types, cap use, "tracking" close-up etc, but you criticised the weapon itself, not the Raven and Typhoon when fitted with cruise specifically, nor in comparison to their attack BS counterparts or ABCs.
Cruises outdps rails already at short range ammo, and do over twice as much damage at extreme ranges. Tachyons hold up at medium range, yes, but turrets lose damage with range, cruises are equal or better at medium range and get progressively better with range.
Disadvantage of delayed damage is real, but also situational.
When fitted on ships things gets more bizarre- Cruise TFI outdamages a blaster NMega shooting CNAM. Slot layout and drones play a big part, but imho something is very wrong.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
740
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 00:10:00 -
[703] - Quote
Roime wrote:Cruises outdps rails already at short range ammo, and do over twice as much (and way more) damage at extreme ranges.
When fitted on ships things gets more bizarre- Cruise TFI outdamages a blaster NMega shooting CNAM. Slot layout and drones play a big part, but imho something is very wrong.
Yeah, I think it's your numbers that are wrong, because as far as I can tell, none of this is true. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3022
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 06:39:00 -
[704] - Quote
That's always possible, would be cool. Without ship bonuses, V skills.
450mm II / AM / 29+24 / 40dps Cruise Missile Launcher II / Mjolnir Cruise / 65.8 45dps Tachyon II / Multif. / 26+20 / 46dps
450mm II / Spike / 130+3 / 27dps Tachyon II / Aurora / 119+25 / 30dps Cruise Missile Launcher II / Mjolnir Fury / 105.8 / 63dps
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
740
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 07:56:00 -
[705] - Quote
Very interesting, but we don't fly weapons, we fly ships. The DPS numbers of fitted ships shows no particular DPS advantage to cruise at medium-ish ranges (50-70 km). One reason for this is because the six-launcher Raven and Typhoon are competing with 7- and 8-turreted BS. Also, it's absurd to compare Fury with Spike and Aurora.
Now, sure, there are questions of additional modules needed to achieve that range on the turret boats, tank and ease of fitting etc. But these factors already exist with current cruise, and let's just say that nobody finds them convincing at the moment. It may be that the combination of >20% more damage and the reworked Raven and Typhoon becomes sufficiently attractive to "flip" current usage patterns, but given the expected superiority of ABCs in the "attack BS" role I don't see it. In any case, CCP is showing a willingness to tweak ships fairly soon after changes are made, so I'm not particularly concerned if Typhoon/Raven do turn out to be too popular. |
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 14:01:00 -
[706] - Quote
Roime wrote:That's always possible, would be cool. Without ship bonuses, V skills.
450mm II / AM / 29+24 / 40dps Cruise Missile Launcher II / Mjolnir Cruise / 65.8 45dps Tachyon II / Multif. / 26+20 / 46dps
450mm II / Spike / 130+3 / 27dps Tachyon II / Aurora / 119+25 / 30dps Cruise Missile Launcher II / Mjolnir Fury / 105.8 / 63dps
Uh, why don't you compare Fury with Javelin and Gleam instead there chief? You wouldn't want people to think you were picking stats to support your predetermined conclusion would you? ;)
OR.... you could just not be bad and use faction ammo as a comparison, ya know, since missiles have exactly ZERO analogues with T2 turret ammo.
Fact: Cruise missiles/launchers were WAY underpowered and needed a considerable buff. |
Samas Sarum
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 14:23:00 -
[707] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote:Roime wrote:That's always possible, would be cool. Without ship bonuses, V skills.
450mm II / AM / 29+24 / 40dps Cruise Missile Launcher II / Mjolnir Cruise / 65.8 45dps Tachyon II / Multif. / 26+20 / 46dps
450mm II / Spike / 130+3 / 27dps Tachyon II / Aurora / 119+25 / 30dps Cruise Missile Launcher II / Mjolnir Fury / 105.8 / 63dps
Uh, why don't you compare Fury with Javelin and Gleam instead there chief? You wouldn't want people to think you were picking stats to support your predetermined conclusion would you? ;) OR.... you could just not be bad and use faction ammo as a comparison, ya know, since missiles have exactly ZERO analogues with T2 turret ammo. Fact: Cruise missiles/launchers were WAY underpowered and needed a considerable buff.
I don't think he was cherry picking, he was picking the long-range ammo equivalent. It wouldn't make sense to compare a 105.8km Fury with a 17+25km Gleam. That would be cherry picking on YOUR part.
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
741
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 14:30:00 -
[708] - Quote
Samas Sarum wrote:
I don't think he was cherry picking, he was picking the long-range ammo equivalent. It wouldn't make sense to compare a 105.8km Fury with a 17+25km Gleam. That would be cherry picking on YOUR part.
Yeah, looking at it more, I think he's trying to pick the most powerful ammo available for use at "long" range. For turrets, that has to be long-range T2 ammo, but Fury cruise still has sufficient range to be considered.
But I really don't think the comparison is meaningful because the ranges and DPS figures neglect everything from skills, modules and ships. I mean, that sort of comparison would suggest that current Cruise is hilariously OP, but then reality comes crashing home. I think it's a case of posting numbers without thinking hard enough about what they actually mean. |
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 14:38:00 -
[709] - Quote
Samas Sarum wrote:Trolly McForumalt wrote:Roime wrote:That's always possible, would be cool. Without ship bonuses, V skills.
450mm II / AM / 29+24 / 40dps Cruise Missile Launcher II / Mjolnir Cruise / 65.8 45dps Tachyon II / Multif. / 26+20 / 46dps
450mm II / Spike / 130+3 / 27dps Tachyon II / Aurora / 119+25 / 30dps Cruise Missile Launcher II / Mjolnir Fury / 105.8 / 63dps
Uh, why don't you compare Fury with Javelin and Gleam instead there chief? You wouldn't want people to think you were picking stats to support your predetermined conclusion would you? ;) OR.... you could just not be bad and use faction ammo as a comparison, ya know, since missiles have exactly ZERO analogues with T2 turret ammo. Fact: Cruise missiles/launchers were WAY underpowered and needed a considerable buff. I don't think he was cherry picking, he was picking the long-range ammo equivalent. It wouldn't make sense to compare a 105.8km Fury with a 17+25km Gleam. That would be cherry picking on YOUR part.
BZZT
He is comparing dps values so the relevant stat here is damage. Fury is the high dps missile whereas the the other two are low dps ammos - remember I *said* missiles and turrets don't have T2 equivalents.
ALSO - fury has a lower flight time with the same velocity (hence smaller range) than T1 so I KNOW his numbers are wrong. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3032
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 15:29:00 -
[710] - Quote
Gypsio,
first you critisized my assertion for not focusing solely on the weapon system, but when I didn't include ship stats then you critisize that? Considering all ships have either a RoF or damage bonus, their effect is not as big as you might think, the numbers just get bigger but relations stay the same.
Yes, large LR turrets and the new cruises are pretty much equal at medium ranges. Same missiles are superior damage-vise at shorter and longer ranges. I'm also aware that under certain conditions turret tracking formula has advantages over missile damage formula, and vice versa, and I'm not ignoring delayed damage, which is also situational.
I just don't think that large rails are a weak weapon system, and cruises outdamaging them at all ranges with no cap penalty and selectable damage type means that they were overbuffed. I'm also not saying that cruises didn't need a buff, just that less would have been sufficient. I'm also unsure whether the current missile BS were rebalanced for the new cruise stats or old ones, but they do seem incredibly powerful in the damage department compared to the traditionally highest damage platforms.
And for the others, feel free to compare high-damage close range turret ammo with the missiles. I chose T2 LR ammos for turrets to reach similar range to the missiles.
Trolly,
if you can supply the numbers that you KNOW are correct, please do so. I do not guarantee that my numbers are the absolute truth and I'm ready to reconsider my opinion if proven wrong.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
|
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
339
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 15:35:00 -
[711] - Quote
Cruise missiles are over buffed IMO and will become similar to what HML were : better than torp in almost all situations and better than most LR weapons in almost all situations. |
ExAstra
Echoes of Silence
125
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 16:59:00 -
[712] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Cruise missiles are over buffed IMO and will become similar to what HML were : better than torp in almost all situations and better than most LR weapons in almost all situations. This is fine because cruise missiles have a way cooler launching animation with that sudden acceleration. Justifies everything. Save the drones! |
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
93
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 17:08:00 -
[713] - Quote
I really doubt that CM are to good. They are very strong on a typhoon with that precision bonus, and cause the typhoon is that fast. On any other ship though, the applied damage seemed - at least on SiSi - still considerably low. And missiles work completely different compared to turrets, just setting those numbers up and deducting anything from it seems to simple. In addition, nothing besides a couple battleships uses CM - and one more well-working damage system won't turn any tide towards everyone using mysterious OP-CMs.
So CMs are at least good now, just want to experience a scenario on TQ featuring a CM-Battleship-gang/fleet/roam. |
ExAstra
Echoes of Silence
125
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 17:52:00 -
[714] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:I really doubt that CM are to good. They are very strong on a typhoon with that precision bonus, and cause the typhoon is that fast. On any other ship though, the applied damage seemed - at least on SiSi - still considerably low. And missiles work completely different compared to turrets, just setting those numbers up and deducting anything from it seems to simple. In addition, nothing besides a couple battleships uses CM - and one more well-working damage system won't turn any tide towards everyone using mysterious OP-CMs.
So CMs are at least good now, just want to experience a scenario on TQ featuring a CM-Battleship-gang/fleet/roam. Disagreed. I had a Rattlesnake with cruise missiles and Bouncers being used to great effect alongside a Snicopalypse. Cruise missiles are doing really well right now, though I don't know if there will be a metagame shift or not. Save the drones! |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
339
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 18:08:00 -
[715] - Quote
ExAstra wrote:So CMs are at least good now, just want to experience a scenario on TQ featuring a CM-Battleship-gang/fleet/roam. Disagreed. I had a Rattlesnake with cruise missiles and Bouncers being used to great effect (dps was boner-worthy) alongside a Snicopalypse. Cruise missiles are doing really well right now, though I don't know if there will be a metagame shift or not.[/quote] As far as nullsec go, metagame might not shift, because they already heavily rely on AHAC/T3 which are counters to missiles, unless good support allow these missiles to hit these cruisers for good damage (phoon with precision maybe ?) |
Aglais
Liberation Army Li3 Federation
292
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 18:24:00 -
[716] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Cruise missiles are over buffed IMO and will become similar to what HML were : better than torp in almost all situations and better than most LR weapons in almost all situations.
You see, the whole problem there comes from torps, not cruise missiles. The fact that cruise missiles have an actual function now automatically makes them better than torpedoes in a great deal of situations. Also there's the hilarious fact that if I want an active tanked torp raven (I personally wouldn't bother with a close range buffer+torp setup due to the Raven's utterly anemic passive tank), it has LESS DPS than a buffer tanked cruise raven due to CPU constraints, has to be closer to the target which means you're competing with high DPS guns that will tear the Raven apart in short order given it's previously mentioned poor tank, not to mention that if you get neuted out, your tank is done (cap boosters and regular shield boosters or ASBs is irrelevant; either way your tank is wholly unsustainable and you likely don't have enough punch to end the fight first).
The Typhoon is in a different situation due to it's retardedly small signature radius, similar if not superior speed to the Raven even when you've got two 1600mm II plates and rigs on it (seriously?), and a bonus that means it might actually hurt more with torps if only by doing almost all of the advertised damage per volley. |
Zheketri
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 21:59:00 -
[717] - Quote
If this has already been asked, pardon me.
Will we be seeing a Battlecruiser platform for Battleship sized launchers at some point, then? "Once you have taken his place, have you then defeated your enemy?" |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
339
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 22:31:00 -
[718] - Quote
Aglais wrote:You see, the whole problem there comes from torps, not cruise missiles. The fact that cruise missiles have an actual function now automatically makes them better than torpedoes in a great deal of situations. Also there's the hilarious fact that if I want an active tanked torp raven (I personally wouldn't bother with a close range buffer+torp setup due to the Raven's utterly anemic passive tank), it has LESS DPS than a buffer tanked cruise raven due to CPU constraints, has to be closer to the target which means you're competing with high DPS guns that will tear the Raven apart in short order given it's previously mentioned poor tank, not to mention that if you get neuted out, your tank is done (cap boosters and regular shield boosters or ASBs is irrelevant; either way your tank is wholly unsustainable and you likely don't have enough punch to end the fight first).
The Typhoon is in a different situation due to it's retardedly small signature radius, similar if not superior speed to the Raven even when you've got two 1600mm II plates and rigs on it (seriously?), and a bonus that means it might actually hurt more with torps if only by doing almost all of the advertised damage per volley. Torp already have blaster like damage up to 30km, and since the GMP skill apply to them, they have no problem applying their damage on BS.
The problem with cruise is that they now have the same damage than pulse with twice the range.
Of course they don't apply it well on smaller targets, but large LR weapons have trouble for this too. And in fleet with proper support, I think they can really hurt even cruisers, moreover with the Typhoon and precision missiles.
That have the potential to obsolete almost all BS IMO. |
penifSMASH
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
292
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 01:05:00 -
[719] - Quote
Hi I don't know if devs are still reading this thread, but can you increase the HP of cruise missiles? It makes no sense that Torpedo HP is 250ish while Cruise missile HP remains at 70. All the other changes are great. Thanks! |
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers R O G U E
249
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 14:53:00 -
[720] - Quote
any ETA on any torpedo changes? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 25 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |