| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Antic
   |
Posted - 2005.11.06 16:44:00 -
[1]
Cruise missiles also need some looking into vs HACs primarily. Considering that they are the middle choise between torps and heavies and torps do better damage agaisnt larger targets and has long enough range by todays standards its not OK that cruise who do low damage against said larger targets does as low damage to cruisers as torps does. Especialy HACs. This with a setup without faction modules.
Makes it pretty pointless to fit cruise compared to torps. The small benefits of range, low fitting cost and speed does not make up for the extrene drawbacks.
Whatever we do people will always compare missle ships performances to turret ship performances. And if theres meant to be a balance here, then cruise vs cruisers need to be looked into.
|
Antic
|
Posted - 2005.11.06 18:22:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Pottsey
ôAs a comparison, an armor tanking battleship running a large rep t2 with 3 hardeners t2 will tank: 4*71/((1-0.6)+(1-0.595)+(1-0.663)+(1-0.708)) = 198 dps.ö
You have to also take into account the high hitpoints on the passive tank at first glance the 198DPS seems better then the shields 172 DPS but its not once you take into account total hitpoints. Take the Raven shields at 16,500. Take off the equivalent amour hitpoints found on an amour tank which is around about 6000. That leaves the shield tank with 10k more hitpoints then the amour tank setup. At 71 HP a sec found on the large rep t2 it will take the amour tank over 2 minuets to heal the same amount of hitpoints as the shield tank has base. ThatÆs not even accounting for the shield regen the passive tank has.
If the battle lasts under 2 minuets your better of with the passive shield tank. If the battle lasts over 2 minutes your still perhaps better off with the passive tank as the HP regne with high hitpoints means you last a long time.
With the new changeÆs due in next patch you should be able to get a Raven with 20002.5 hitpoints and 107.2 HP regen with 30% to all resistance.
After the patch I would change to
Mid slots, 5 large t2 extenders, T2 Invulnerability field
low slots, 5 Shield Relays.
So thatÆs
4*107.2 /((1-0.3)+(1-0.72)+(1-0.58)+(1-0.44)) =218.775
that setup isnt very good for missile ships like ravens. They need the lows for BCUs for an attempt to get some use out of their missiles. How will that calc look without lets say 3 of those shield relays. will it evenfit with 3 BCU IIs on CPU? i somehow doubt it.
|
Antic
|
Posted - 2005.11.07 15:19:00 -
[3]
If defenders are made too good that only fitting one or two launchers with them is a win button against missile ships then we need an anti turret damage module (no disruptor isnt it) wich stops the incomming damage from 3 or more turrets completely on activation and 100% chance as defenders will be. Missile damage is crap as it is. If defenders are made as are suggested here then damage overall must be rised to compensate for the loss of effective launcher slots in the dps calculation.
Also consider that missile launchers has one of the slowest ROFs in the game. So loosing shots from them hurts you more than it does if there was the same type of system against turrets who has a very fast firing speed generaly.
Again disruptors is an EW module and should not be brought into this debate. The viability of EW and counter EW modules is anothre topic altogeather. Missile ships like the raven are slow locking. So ECM is as bad to missile ships as ruptors are to turret ones.
Defender mechanics are borked right now due to their firing angle etc. But NPCs and their cheat mechanics sure use them effectively. Make defenders better and NPCing will be close to impossible in missile ships when the targets use defenders.
|
Antic
|
Posted - 2005.11.11 18:57:00 -
[4]
Originally by: TomB
Cruise: altho wished, these missiles are not meant to smoke cruisers in a single volley, cruise launchers get better DPS vs. smaller targets than siege, without target painters. The main purpose of the cruise launcher was to give players more flexible fitting options and being able to deal damage at longer ranges than the siege launcher + faster at getting to impact.
Nobody is asking for cruise to smoke cruisers in a single volley. We just want the middleground between that and what we have today. Today their damage can be tanked forever, especialy by HACs, and that cant be intended? cus that leaves only BS as targets they work OK against but there torpedoes are so much better. Turrets of the same sizes do not have this problem and can be modified with modules to deal with HACs and other cruisers. Target painters have little to no effect per module compared to tracking computers and similar.
They dont do much more damage to small targets than torpedoes do to compensate for the loss in damage against large targets. This hardly makes them useful.
|
Antic
|
Posted - 2005.11.11 19:29:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Antic on 11/11/2005 19:35:39
Torpedoes is hardly a short range weapon in todays gameplay. From your arguments its clear you have never used them. Rockets are short range. Thats about it. Nobody needs or uses ranges of 250k because missile combat are all within or around the 60k range. And torpedoes are already well qualified for those ranges.
Actualy as you are part of the frigate inty lobby i doubt you used anything larger than standards. You are just afraid the missiles will be able to insta own you in your uber inty like before cold war.
However you seem to totaly ignore, intentialy or not, that nobody is asking for that. And no it do not make any sense at all that torpedoes do more damage to HACs than cruise. It totaly invalidates the usefulness of Cruise as you sacrifices your damage against BS when you fit them.
|
Antic
|
Posted - 2005.11.12 04:18:00 -
[6]
I second j0sephine, cummilla and grey area.
Both heavies and cruise need looked at. And greys aproach to deal with the missile system seems much better than the current one. It simply do not make sense that a stationary or slow moving target would take little to no damage. This goes for structures like POS and NPC structures too. Same way that whilst nobody want cruise to smoke cruisers in one volley, nobody wants them to be so bad that they can be tanked indefinately in a HAC and thats the situation we have now.
I doubt we will see large turrets being nerfed towards cruisers so i see no inbalance in bringing cruise up to the middle ground.
|
Antic
|
Posted - 2005.11.12 17:49:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Antic on 12/11/2005 17:56:32
Originally by: Ithildin
Ok, here we go. This thred was interesting and constructive until the usual whining began. If you want Cruise Missiles or Torpedoes to be cruiser/frigate mashers, then why not introduce an arbitrary no-hit range? Say Cruise Missiles can't hit frigates within 40km and cruisers are invulnerable within 30km? No? You're saying that change turned out to be utter BS (not "battleship" this time, lads) when they tried it on test server?
*sigh*
Let's just give missile launchers a tracking value, optimal range, and falloff.
There are things that needs fixing, certainly, but battleship missiles smashing smaller ships? No. Not when battleship missiles can't be dodged (dodged != warping away) by battleships.
Cruise Missiles keeps doing 100% damage on a blasterthron that's in the mood for some lovin'. 1400mm Howitzers do not.
Seriously, if you call legitimate concerns whining then i think you are posting in the wrong place.
give missiles tracking etc then you have to remove the traveltime.
NOBODY have asked for cruise or torps to own frigs. They have not asked for them to own cruisers either. Just to do more damage agaisnt cruisers because right now they dont scratch the paintwork and can be tanked indefinately regardless of how you fit your ship, especialy by HACs.
Tov put it best, it dosnt make sense that the weapon system that has delayed damage and every conievable major disandvantage in the game, has the lowest DPS of all in the game.
Finaly if atleast cruise is not made better against cruisers then for the sake of balance i fully expect CCP to make it impossible, regardless of fitting, for larger turrets to do the same. Wich isnt the case today. But if they do this, then the real turret whining will start.
Its the same old "I dont care about anyone else as long as nobody takes away MY toys or advantages" mentality thats plaguing the debate where turret users slam missile concerns.
|
Antic
|
Posted - 2005.11.16 02:24:00 -
[8]
lower RoF would make anti missile defences more powerfull. As more of your DPS gets cut out for each missile shot down by defenders or other things. That has to be taken into account too.
|
Antic
|
Posted - 2005.11.27 08:34:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Antic on 27/11/2005 08:34:41
It would be disturbing if they make the t2 missiles as the thing to balance missiles due to the cost of the already expensive ammo.
There need to be changes to the sig radius part, slight ones. And the adition of a module that affects the same atribute. Explosion velocity has slight to no effect on missile DPS compared to the explosion radius atribute on anything larger than a ceptor.
|
| |
|