Unfortunately, using long-range missiles in most pvp situations is unrealistic, as the flight time for the missiles, which can be up to 20 seconds, allows plenty of opportunity for your target to evade damage.

raven mission runners will be happy with this change, doubt it'll do much for pvp though, ravens really are not a good choice of ship for pvp in general

Specifically:

5% increased rate of fire for all Cruise Missile Launchers
200 added power grid need for all Cruise Missile launchers

4700m/sec base missile velocity for all Cruise Missiles (up from 3750m/sec)
14 second base flight time for all Cruise Missiles (down from 20 seconds)
25% increase in base damage for all Cruise Missiles
10% increase in signature resolution for all Cruise Missiles

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.

Look forward to hearing your feedback, as always
Rise

intriguing changes i think people would be more likely to use them if you made them THE alpha damage platform ROF is less of an issue i think.

this is nearly 20% dps increase with 25% alpha increase, that is definately a huge increase for them ,
620dps with 250m sig rad for cn cruise missile raven with 10500 mps missile speed, ~10 sec delay at 100km. sounds good enough for me

It's a 30% damage increase

What does signature resolution mean?

hmm maybe i misunderstood the 5% increased rate of fire for all Cruise Missile Launchers part
but to me it is : it takes 5% longer to fire the new volley
Rise have to clarify this it seems

2 reasons why I think I m right:
it is separated from the buffs with the pg need increase
it would make it op 30% dps oh 670dps raven or more ...

...Following Odyssey, we hope to do more work to improve the missile systems in EVE by potentially adding new modules and/or interactions....

They will be the best LR weapon for dps by far, and the second best for alpha...

PS : you are looking at more than 800 dps with fury...

The giveaway is the bit where Rise states "First we will increase their damage by around 30%".

On paper, yes, but not for applied dps. Unless of course, when CCP Rise refered to Scan Resolution on the weapons, he meant explosion velocity. I believe he meant explosion radius though, which would mean it would be harder to apply damage to a target. Especially so without painters.

All in all though, I think these cangese will be a good start. Can't wait to try them on SiSi.

Looks like a promising change. Rattlesnake pilots everywhere rejoice!

Quad-BCS Fury Raven: 879 DPS to ~185 km. Tricky to apply and a good chunk of that range isn't very useful, but that's some impressive raw damage at those ranges...

Oh god ! Your raven isn't a soloBBQroflstompPWNmobile ? I'm sad for you...

You know about huggin/rapier right ?

Oh, and the Raven just got a 7th mid slot.

When do you rebalance the ****** up gunnery skilltree?

Look forward to hearing your feedback, as always
Rise

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.

Look forward to hearing your feedback, as always
Rise

10% increase in signature resolution for all Cruise Missiles

Explosion Radius?

any chance you can either up the explosion velocity and / or decrease explosion radius a bit?

anything that is moving mitigates lots of damage, this would actually help apply that extra damage a bit

Seems like a very big buff and a significant step towards making cruises viable weapons outside of L4 missions

I do already have some concerns over the relative strength of the turtle-tanking Golem teams that have been used very frequently in the past alliance tournaments and the SCL, but if we can see people start to use fleet comps like ravens or navy scorpions in "real EVE" the benefits far outweigh a change in the AT meta

The idea is exaclty that movign thigs take less damage. ITs same as with turrets. The difference is... missiles is constant independent of distance and direction. Missiles do less damage then best care turret scenario but do more than worst case of turrets.

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...

iv watched the AT and past 3 years iv not seen any turtle tanking golems.

bla bla bla ...

10% increase in signature resolution for all Cruise Missiles[/b]

...
Rise

Missile launchers dont have a sig resolution - the ammo has explosion velocity and explosion radius.

Which one did you mean, and did you mean it as a buff or nerf against small/fast targets?

These two improvements will be balanced by an increase in power grid need for the launchers, and a small signature resolution increase for the missiles.

Hey sorry for the signature radius typo. It was meant to be explosion radius. Always getting my radii confused!

It is indeed an increase, which means that more of the damage will be mitigated by size. This will of course be more than offset by the increase in base damage, but the idea is that the performance increase will be more substantial for larger targets.

These two improvements will be balanced by an increase in power grid need for the launchers, and a small explosion radius increase for the missiles.

Did you mean for this to be a nerf against small targets, or a buff?

This... is about way more than I wished for, this... is what we get. Awesome.
Thank you!

if firewall doesn't get nerfed to **** you may aswell give them infinite volley damage, because in no relevant fight will they ever hit anything

Way more than I expected, tbh. Only problem I see: Rof means a rof bonused ship will go through cargo even faster and missiles are pretty large to carry around in the first place. Perhaps consider reducing the size of missiles?

Could you explain what's awesome in turning Cruise missiles into Railguns?
Edit: a worse version of railguns, as you see from the post below.

How come this didn't apply to Drakes or Tengus? Honest question.

I don't see where these are the same as Railguns. Railguns behave differently.
Missiles will always be missiles, they have their own strenghts and weaknesses, thats what some call over powered, and others useless.

I now have a reason to train into cruise missiles, rather than just "skipping" them. It fits my play style, and i believe many others' too.

Suppose that Tempest is moving at a speed of 120 m / s and has a signature 360 meters. Raven shoots him with cruise missiles (fury) (velocity _ of explosion 91 m / s, the radius of of explosion 403 meters), all skills 5,, implants: +5% velocity blast, 5% explosion radius)
even at such a low speed of Tempest, damage reduction would be about 32%
correct me if I'm wrong

Suppose that Tempest is moving at a speed of 120 m / s and has a signature 360 meters. Raven shoots him with cruise missiles (fury) (velocity _ of explosion 91 m / s, the radius of of explosion 403 meters), all skills 5,, implants: +5% velocity blast, 5% explosion radius)
even at such a low speed of Tempest, damage reduction would be about 32%
correct me if I'm wrong

Now stop using Fury and use the correct ammo. Full damage.

not sure what you mean, firewall effectively killed all missile doctrines in large scale 0.0 warfare

my first post was a little snarky and I'm all for 'personal skill' making a difference, but in its current form a few dedicated smartbombing ships can nullify an entire fleets worth of damage. even more so from ships that don't move very fast (like ravens)

How come this didn't apply to Drakes or Tengus? Honest question.

This will of course be more than offset by the increase in base damage, but the idea is that the performance increase will be more substantial for larger targets.

Explosion Radius?

Edit: If it is ER and I have used the missile damage forum correctly (?), it looks like Fury Cruise will out-damage Rage Torps against signatures of 384m or smaller when 2 TPs are used (the cut-off seems to be 528m without TPs).

Coupled with much greater range, those cut-offs seem too high and perhaps a smaller damage bonus is in order?

Now stop using Fury and use the correct ammo. Full damage.

Im not sure if smartbombs will work at all due to insane missile speed (10k/s) and server ticks of 1 sec.

meaning that cruise will probably have past the SB radius before the server tics and they wont be effected at all, theoretically the smartbomb /should/ kill the cruise, but i want to test it first.

I thought fury's were ment to be the anti bs ammo type?

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.

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.

Righty, one by one:

5% increased rate of fire for all Cruise Missile Launchers
25% increase in base damage for all Cruise Missiles

Way more than I expected, tbh. Only problem I see: Rof means a rof bonused ship will go through cargo even faster and missiles are pretty large to carry around in the first place. Perhaps consider reducing the size of missiles?

so all these changes mean is a cruise missle will hit a bs harder if it is sitting still. but if it moves the ages old problem that was created during the speed nerf still remains, they cant hit anything that is smaller than a bs or moving.

awesome buff for mission runners

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

With those changes, I think we'll start seeing more Typhoon/Raven fleet concepts, which is great of course as it brings diversity

Is there more not-ships stuff planned for Odyssey? I remember in the frigate thread that something to make rifters better or light missile kiting worse might happen. I'm fine with minmatar being awful, but light missile kiting does upset me.

Why should fleetcoms prefer Cruise over Rails? Raven over Rokh?
Switchable damage type - alright, but is that all? Not too much considering their drawbacks: delayed volley, damage application, firewall.
But indeed, they are good for PVE now.

Oh boy, an explosion radius increase.

Please, PLEASE let this thing not be so much as to make the Raven permanently fit a target painter in it's seventh med slot regardless of weapon choice. I don't want the Raven to have to depend on this module to do damage. Other than that, things look... Pretty solid, actually. And now we wait eagerly for the torpedo changes.

I understand need of balance when it comes to pvp but when we speak of pve.. Everyone already want to fly tengu.. After this everyone want to fly raven and golem. This is really frustrating. Please give people more choices to fly in pve and dont force everyone to fly caldari crap.

All improved now, but yes we'll have to see if the increased speed allows a significant amount of damage to slip past a firewall now.

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.

Even if they do, I'd consider this more like an exploit, rather than intended operation.
While rails are inherently immune to such things and hit instantly. So what's the reason?

Maybe this is the way should be - cruise missile will only be usable in PVE. There are weapons that are useless in PVE - blasters - so that would be a kind of symmetry. If that fair enough?

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.

Look forward to hearing your feedback, as always
Rise

Even if they do, I'd consider this more like an exploit, rather than intended operation.
While rails are inherently immune to such things and hit instantly. So what's the reason?

Maybe this is the way should be - cruise missile will only be usable in PVE. There are weapons that are useless in PVE - blasters - so that would be a kind of symmetry. If that fair enough?

Why dont you just make target painters viable, instead of "other ideas" ?

Could you do this with making caldari more power as they already are. Most flown t3 is tengu everyone want tengu. Everyone flown drake. Soon its everyone flown raven. I am seriously worried that my eve experience after odyssye is going to deep garbage. You are making too many hard changes for one update. I would personally tell my friends to wait for over this expansion because you will be dealing with lot of balancing issues after this update. There are too many changes to the old working eve that I enjoy.

Yes please buff the faction that already is one of the most viable source of money. Highsec, lowsec.. You can make their ships also invulnerable and don't forget scramble immunity.

Could you do this with making caldari more power as they already are. Most flown t3 is tengu everyone want tengu. Everyone flown drake. Soon its everyone flown raven. I am seriously worried that my eve experience after odyssye is going to deep garbage. You are making too many hard changes for one update. I would personally tell my friends to wait for over this expansion because you will be dealing with lot of balancing issues after this update. There are too many changes to the old working eve that I enjoy.

Yes please buff the faction that already is one of the most viable source of money. Highsec, lowsec.. You can make their ships also invulnerable and don't forget scramble immunity.

CCP Rise: Any comments at least on whether you have Torpedo changes coming too? Or is this Cruise Missiles only?

Good changes.....


But completely worthless when it comes to long range PVP.


1: Any ship on grid can be scanned down in 5 sec.
2: Caldari in general is the slowest locking race in EVE.
3: Missiles will take over 10 sec to reach target.


Combine that and you have a very cool concept on paper, until you take probes into account. And you realize that you are scanned, pointed and going down in a ball of fire before your missiles have even started doing any damage.



For this to actually be worth anything, CCP need to change the scanning mechanic.

And no, increasing" warp to" range on grid to 250km does not fix it. As anyone with half a brain will just be loitering just outside grid and wait for stupid people coming in at range.


TL:DR

Cool on paper, worthless in reality, until CCP fix the 5 sec scantime to get warp ins.

Seems like my worries came true and CCP went the lazy route with large missile changes...
Buff damage and speed to them so everyone is happy but in turn make them even more hard to apply damage.

Sorry but i was hoping for some changes that would make them more different from other weapon systems, but seems like the gap is instead closing even more with soon instant flying missiles using TE's and affected by TD's?

iv watched the AT and past 3 years iv not seen any turtle tanking golems.

A 14 second flight time isn't really "instant".

I wasn't talking about after these changes but where we are heading with this kind of changes. These changes still won't fix the pvp problems with them which results at some point with even more speed added and more and more until they are almost instant.

Figure that has to be a key comment, with the Rate of Fire increasing its got to be a must to reduce the size, as well as the mineral requirements for building them. It shouldnt become more expensive (albeit slightly) to kill a target as a result of these changes, it should remain identical.

these changes with the new typhoon... cruise nano phoon anyone?
the new bonus of the phoon sure helps with the dmg application.
maybe not as a main doctrine but a complementary wing?

pfbt, do you care to back up that assertion, at all, in any way? Who ever promised you that your ammo costs would never go up?

Besides, with a **25% damage buff** your isk/damage costs are going to go _down_ substatially anyway

Seems like a very big buff and a significant step towards making cruises viable weapons outside of L4 missions

I do already have some concerns over the relative strength of the turtle-tanking Golem teams that have been used very frequently in the past alliance tournaments and the SCL, but if we can see people start to use fleet comps like ravens or navy scorpions in "real EVE" the benefits far outweigh a change in the AT meta

The most flown T3 is the Loki, followed by Proteus > Legion > Tengu.

The most flown BC is the Naga, the most flown combat BC is the Cane.

Wat

If you could notice I spoke of of money making and PVE. Those ways you cover loses not PVP itself. Yes, loki and proteus are very liked but Tengu, gives superior range, and very good dps to any NPC type. Yes it not perfect to every but really good.

There is WAY more to PVE than Level 4 missions and blasters are far from useless for PVE. Likewise, while these missiles will be most likely used for PVE activity, they are finally not totally laughable for PVP.

Capless weapons system with decent damage... Isn't the Geddon getting missile slots? Not to mention the Typhoon, Raven, Navy Scorpion, and Rattlesnake.

Yeah, I think that when all is said and done the Typhoon is the main ship that will leverage Cruise missiles the best. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, is done to make Torps more viable on the Raven (and Geddon).

Its true that PVE is easier to be balanced. But seeing these changes that take place I am afraid that PVE balance is forgotten. And yes, missiles do need buff in PVP.

Geddon will not be a missile boat, yes it gets launcher slots but the main damage system will be drones. You do not get enough bonuses nor slots to make it missile boat. Typhoon perhaps.. Rest are caldari boats that don't count.

right now i can not image a situation where the raven will be hands down better than the phoon. In PvP that is.
with the 5th mid slot you even can tank the phoon on shield. maybe raven can have a bigger buffer but phoon is just so much smaller and agile. way better for long range fighting.
Torps don't need much to be "fixed" maybe a little help with application of oomph and they get scary. could make the phoon way overpowered very quickly.

Terrible change. Can't hit anything with cruise missiles before and now it's even harder.

ffs

So wait, buffing cruises and slightly changing them so they don't become anti-frigate death machines in the process makes them terrible?

not sure what missiles you using for these numbers. but cn missiles have a base of 345, fury 420, precision 300.
granted its been a good year since I sat in or even looked at a raven with out thinking its gonna die fast, so please go slowly for me.

Each missile had a maximum engine range of about four hundred thousand kilometers, after which its main thrusters would exhaust the onboard fuel. Once that happened the missile would continue on its last trajectory until it ranged in on its target. If it survived to reach tactical range, its tactical thrusters would attempt to make adjustments in order to get as close as possible to an evading enemy before detonating.

These changes look extremely promising, but I have to confess that my excitement level spiked high enough that it rang the "may be OP" bell in my head.

-Liang

So it's not just me. I was mooting that the 15% mentioned in other threads risked being OTT (in PvE).

30%....on a properly fit CNR is going to be nothing short of hilarious.


I'm not sure it enough for PvP, but certainly for PvE the raven pilots are going to be laughing their way to the bank.

Edit: Don't get me wrong I like it but....damnit, it's a BIG boost.

I suppose to compensate they could take away your drone bay.

ok seems cruise are now fixed (though firewall still seems to be a problem)

now for torps...

i am thinking instead of velocity they need more flight time

as they should not be able to catch up with faster ships...

also they need thier explosion radius reduced and velocity increased so that they can hit ships bc and up...

and then cuss you just boosted torps you need to reduce the bonus on stleath bombers or else they would be uber op.

Done bay is really good for pushing EFT warrior numbers up

We're not going to ignore the effect this has on the AT meta, don't worry.

Please don't balance the game around the artificial AT environment, the AT rules can be adjusted to control the AT.

I was thinking more about the forum comedy that would generate.

"Great, now my Raven rocks in missions... unless there are frigates and cruisers... which eat me alive and there isn't a thing I can do about them."

I was thinking more about the forum comedy that would generate.

"Great, now my Raven rocks in missions... unless there are frigates and cruisers... which eat me alive and there isn't a thing I can do about them."

Figure that has to be a key comment, with the Rate of Fire increasing its got to be a must to reduce the size, as well as the mineral requirements for building them. It shouldnt become more expensive (albeit slightly) to kill a target as a result of these changes, it should remain identical.

I don't quite get all the cheering people.
Now at the bright side it has been mentioned that there will be more options added to improve explosion velocity/lower explosion radius in "the future".
But Large missiles being used mostly for PvE what will this add?
More then anything faster BS killing potential and this category in and of itself is not the mayor chunk dictating mission completion time.
30% increased damage yesh hello hurray, but the 10% decrease in "tracking" is only going to grow exponentially when sig radius go smaller.
Okay elite cruisers and frigs is what you have drones for, but in the end drones rly don't do that much dps without a dedicated hull, rather fragile too... Especially with the wonderful new AI in combination with elite rats and hitting return means MWD away in a straight line getting them single shot.
Bottom line 2 steps forward 1 step backward, but that one step backward... The unmodified difference in applied damage through "tracking penalties" against anything but an abandoned BS....
Kinda scary, no Im not a number cruncher but the "BIGGER" problem concerning Cruise missiles actually took a step backward looking at it by itself, since the dps buff was plain horribly overdue independent of tracking.

Breaking news: we don't balance modules in this PvP game around their effect in PvE. That tail doesn't wag this dog. As examples of where PvE rates might get plain nerfed for the benefit of the game, see recent HM nerf, upcoming TE nerf (that probably should be a Mach+tier3 BCs nerf).

Breaking news: right now Cruises suck very hard at PvE compared to AC/Blasters/Pulses.
Those who say cruises will be OP just never flew any Gun ship and have no idea how bad their CNRs/Ravens/Golems are.
So even with this 30% damage buff missiles (cruises) won't be as good as ACs or Blasters: there are still Painters, AB rats, Defenders and overdamage. Those 4 things will keep missiles inefficient.

Now I want to see a Torp changes.

We're not going to ignore the effect this has on the AT meta, don't worry.

Turrets are pretty great, I agree. But honestly I've flown a great many kinds of ships and cruise is pretty damn good at PVE - especially with 30% more damage. You sound like someone that doesn't know how to fit a missile ship TBH.

-Liang

Ed: Protip: filling your lows with CPRs is Doing It Wrong.

Breaking news: right now Cruises suck very hard at PvE compared to AC/Blasters/Pulses.

I take it that no one see's the extra fitting requirements as being too big a hurdle to overcome?

Just gathering opinion...

Breaking news: comparing a long-range weapon with three short-range ones is unlikely to give useful information. You probably thought that HMLs didn't need nerfing because they had much lower DPS than medium blasters too.

I've been doing PvE since 06 and believe me I know how to fit ships.

Who cares if it's a long range weapon or a short one? In PvE performance matters only.

Who cares if it's a long range weapon or a short one? In PvE performance matters only.

Tbh you kinda sound like an EFT warrior here. In many missions, exploration sites, and anoms, there are independent groups of enemies that can be more than a 100km apart.

With cruise, you warp in and start shooting, hit approach on the acceleration gate, and that's it. With blasters, you warp in, burn over to one group, start shooting, burn to the second group, start shooting, burn to the third group, start shooting, burn to the fourth....etc. etc. ad nauseoum and then you have to burn back to the acceleration gate.

In practice, the time you save getting in range by using cruise works out to a much higher isk/hour. The only turrets that can really compare well to cruise in this regard are lasers, and they have their own limitations.

You should define your "damn good" because I have no idea how to measure it.
If you're just a EFT warrior than I know what your good means.
If not, you should describe what is good for you. Is it some "good" when you are able kill a rat or is it when you kill that rat within 15 sec?

I've been doing PvE since 06 and believe me I know how to fit ships.

Oh god ! Your raven isn't a soloBBQroflstompPWNmobile ? I'm sad for you...

You know about huggin/rapier right ?

Oh, and the Raven just got a 7th mid slot.

Pedo Torps Pedo Torps because I shouldn't have to fit 2 target painters to hit a battleship for full damage.

You can probably find some of my old mission efficiency e-peen warrioring threads if you like.

-Liang

Don't forget that Many BS's are getting a Sig.Rad. Increase with the rebalance.

Interesting. Overall damage increase offset by a PG need increase and a decrease of about 1/3rd the range (base flight from 20 to 14 seconds). Get closer... but punch harder. Works for me.

The increase in cruise velocity means an overall range loss of only 12% or so.

Not to mention guided missile precision applies to torpedos now, so with that maxed out, your explosion radius is 337.5m anyway. The smallest sig radius BS (post Odyssey) will be the Typhoon, at 330m. If you're shooting one of those (and it's going slower than 106.5m/s) you lose about 2.2% of your DPS.

The effect of speed on the explosion radius is much more significant - the actual DPS loss against that Typhoon is about 24.5% of on-paper DPS, assuming its base speed of 143m/s. That said, that's 75% of ~940 DPS

Numbers vary with Rage torps, of course. You'll want a target painter (or two or three) then!

I've been doing PvE since 06 and believe me I know how to fit ships.

Yeah, Rage torps need tweaking. Lower explosion velocity than t1/faction and huge explosion radius requires GMP V and multiple support modules to apply that damage.

I'm also not a fan of how Fury missile explosion radius is 72% larger than T1/faction.
With the 10% increase in explosion radius for all missiles, T2 Fury Cruise missiles will have a base radius of 568m and a radius of 426m with GMP V.

Those of you complaining about the explosion radius increase I have to wonder if you have ever used Cruise missiles.

I use a Cruise fit Navy Scorp in our C3 wormhole and I spank the Cruisers for pretty much full damage when they are not MWD'ing.

Sure on a PVP fit you wouldnt have a full rig set of T2 flare or rigor rigs but you would still be able to use the amazing ammo called Precision Missiles.

On my SNI to explosion radius on Precision is about 150 and the explosion velocity is about the same. 1 web on a frigate and you hit them for about 50% damage.

The 30% increase in dps for me is huge, the slighty penalty in explosion radius isnt really going to have that much of an effect.

My SNI has 2 target painters, 2 rigor rigs (third rig is a anti therm because of wormhole rats omni damage) and a web. Anything frigate or cruiser sized melts to Precision and bs take full damage from furys.

The 30% damage bonus is massive, its quite possibly the best change for Odyssey I have seen so far.

Damage application with missiles is a totally different ballgame to guns. Some people here I think dont fully understand the implications. This change is brilliant from my perspective.

My fit is on Battleclinic at the moment. You can drop to T2 for similar respectable figures for level 4's. A web helps a lot but its missing from this fit.

http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/65517-Scorpion-Navy-Issue-Wormhole-PVE.html

Is the explosion radius increase really necessary? Even without the damage application nerf, Cruises aren't hitting anything below BS size for full damage without significant assistance from multiple rigors/tps.

Torps are the odd one out here. Close range high dps guns track better, close range torps "track" worse than cruise. Something needs to be do about torps really more than Cruise.

Is the explosion radius increase really necessary? Even without the damage application nerf, Cruises aren't hitting anything below BS size for full damage without significant assistance from multiple rigors/tps.

And I still don-¦t see how a cruise raven will fit in a pvp fleet.
Raven has some of worst possible scanres. In a fleet with for example 20 bs, 1 raven 19 with guns, the gunships will lock faster and alpha the target which will be dead mostly before the raven has even locked it, never mind locked it AND delivered the missiles.
To fix cruise missiles really we would need sth. stupid that gives a bonus on scanres/launcher. So the cruise missile ship could deliver its damage simultaneously with turret ships.
Of course you can sacrifice a med for a sensor booster on a cruise missle ship but the raven would be uber paper tank then.

Another simulation: 20 turret bs vs 20 raven cruise bs.
Turrett fleet will wreck 1 raven and make the whole stuff 19vs20 before the ravens even get their first volley done.
Really don-¦t see the fix here.
Okay carebears will be happy with it. But almost useless for pvp.

Btw it is already sometimes in PVE hard to see if I should still shoot one cruise volley on a target 60km away. So you waste sometimes dps while you shoot a volley when another still hasn-¦t arrived and maybe wrecks the target.
Cruise missiles often waste dps and the fix with higher flight speed gets wrecked by "the fix" higher rate of fire.

pfbt, do you care to back up that assertion, at all, in any way? Who ever promised you that your ammo costs would never go up?

Besides, with a **25% damage buff** your isk/damage costs are going to go _down_ substatially anyway

Breaking news: we don't balance modules in this PvP game around their effect in PvE. That tail doesn't wag this dog. As examples of where PvE rates might get plain nerfed for the benefit of the game, see recent HM nerf, upcoming TE nerf (that probably should be a Mach+tier3 BCs nerf).

Changing something that is broken shouldnt cost players more, or decrease the isk/hour. However your point about the 25% damage buff is very valid and something I hadn't considered.

What IGÇÖm wishing for? Dear CCP Rise, can you actually make a role for a raven, where he will be better than other ship? Or even comparable. PVE it's not a role IGÇÖm wishing for. And BTW, he suck even in PVE. To make a better fix, you need to ask yourself just one question, "Why do I choose Raven for PVP?" . If you can answer this - your fix is done. But right now, there is no answer.

P.S.
Sorry for my wall of text full of grammar mistakes. English is not my native language. But I can't be silent. I'm sure, if I didn't say anything, my Raven will be useless for 2-3 years more. Hope you actually read this.

Rest assured if cruises were worthless in PvP but allowed pilots to make 10 billion isk/hour in PvE I would bet my mortgage several times over that they'd be nerfed.

People are saying they might be TOO good for PvE and STILL not good enough for PvP.


@Shingorash: Shhhhhhh.

Another simulation: 20 turret bs vs 20 raven cruise bs.
Turrett fleet will wreck 1 raven and make the whole stuff 19vs20 before the ravens even get their first volley done.
Really don-¦t see the fix here.
Okay carebears will be happy with it. But almost useless for pvp.

FYI there is one idea to make sniper raven possible:
Reduce the rof to 25%
Boost the DPH to 400%,
And reduce the ability to damage cruiser sized ships if needed,

The overall DPS can be decreased.

That make raven a good alpha sniper with delayed damage + still useless to target below BC
Thus it won't take the role of current alphaships or sniper ships)

If you need a Sci-fi explanation: Cruise missiles are much greater in size regarding to any other BS sized bullets, which contains a great amount of fillings specifically designed for tactical bombardment.

Just because it's not a giant fleet ship doesn't mean that it won't be useful in PVP. If you can't think of a use for 750 DPS at any range you can lock... well I just don't know what to tell you honestly. But if you really want someone to run your simulation, feel free to tell me the configuration parameters. It'd hardly be the first time and I probably still have my old fleet sim software laying around.

-Liang