Torpedo Missile Attack Battlecruiser

Maybe if it had ACs… but who puts ACs on a Tornado :rofl:?

OP really hates the Raven/Typhoon for some reason. They’re not expensive (esp after insurance) and they tank waaaaaaaaaay better.

1 Like

I know right, and make great torp platforms

So a speed tank glass cannon version of a raven. The potential for fun is there. Power level looks to be on part with artillery tornadoes. It lacks the tracking weakness so probably needs large weakness somewhere.

It would get more use as a PvP platform than station bashing from the high alpha. Paired with a set of target painters, it can take out tacklers with one volley. It may be hard to counter at range once that beast gets up to speed.

Nerf the base speed a bit and reduce the mid slots and you’d have something interesting without too overpowered.

The slot layout does fit better with the caldari theme, maybe one for caldari and one for min. Reverse the mid/low count for minmatar version.

Series of events:

  1. OP makes bad suggestion
  2. Comprehensive reasons have been provided for why suggestion was bad
  3. @Flashrain, who has previously proposed Pokémon Evolution for Ships, Wild Magic for Weapons, XXL Structures, Weapons-That-Get-Weaker-Over-Time, Ships With Super-Duper Special Abilities!!1!, among other aggressively idiotic ideas via topics and replies, expands on bad suggestion

Why does this not surprise me? You truly are a special kind of stupid.

1 Like

torps already have “large weakness” that is missile version of “tracking weakness”

it’s called missile application mechanics. And torps apply crap to subcaps.
But considering this:

It makes sense for them to apply crap to target way smaller than intended.


Missile damage has a “soft damage limit” and a “hard damage limit” determined by a combination of the explosion-velocity-to-ship-velocity ratio (higher is better), explosion-radius-to-ship-signature-radius ratio (lower is better), and a hidden variable not shown in game but exposed in database and shown in 3rd party tools like pyfa called a Damage Reduction Factor (it only increases damage applied, so the name is misleading). All of this determines how much damage - up to and never exceeding 100% - is inflicted (turrets can inflict up to 300%). The hard damage limit is strictly determined by the radius ratio - if the ratio is less than 100%, then that % is the amount of damage that is applied. So a rage torpedo with a 774m explosion radius being used against a frigate with a 35m radius will inflict 4.5% damage even if the frigate was stationary, which is literally less than a T1 rocket after you math it out. This situation can be enhanced by increasing the precision of the missileboat (ie. lowering explosion radius somehow) and/or painting the target to increase its signature radius (perhaps the target uses an MWD/MJD to bloom its sig for the duration, etc). The precision math is such that rage/fury missiles often inflict less damage than even T1 (ie. non-Faction) missiles. This is also true of turret ammo where non-Faction T1 usually outperforms T2 in the absence of paints and webs in most situations, hence it is usually best not to use Fury/Rage missiles or T2 turret ammo solo since you don’t have fleetmates to help with webs and paints (though if your fit compensates for the precision penalties of T2 ammo, then you’ll be fine).

Actual Damage = Raw Damage * Precision. If your precision is far lower than your raw damage, your actual damage will suck. This is why, for example, Upwell structures with anti-subcapital launchers offer three missile sizes; the smaller missiles have lower raw damage but far superior precision, so their actual damage against small/fast craft will be far superior than using the larger missiles which offer more raw power but lack the necessary precision needed to contribute 100% or close to 100% damage. In EVE they say bigger isn’t always better; this is certainly true for ships, but it is even more true for missiles.

TLDR: Missiles have precision mechanics parallel to turret tracking mechanics. Large missiles like torpedos and XL missiles have massive weaknesses such that they do laughable damage to small/fast targets.


Congratulations to You dear sir, for wills and patience to actually write down details of missile application mechanics, which I have lacked and just named mechanic in place hoping it would suffice :wink:

1 Like

Not every class of ship automatically gets a hull bonused for certain weapon systems either, especially not out-of-class weapons.

Plus…if you want a mobile sub-battleship torpedo platform, perhaps you should be looking at stealth bombers instead of ABCs.

Big Country Boy, you comments are baseless and are nothing more than recycled common place comments made by bot trolls who frequent the forums

Get a life and stop injecting anecdotes from the scripts that read and listen to on t.v.

The Torp ABC would essentially be the big brother to the Stealth Bomber. Although a warp while cloaked variant would not see the game, a cloaked Torp ABC fleet defending a gate in Null could make pretty short work of most BS and Carriers that come into the system.

Bronson Hughes - Plus…if you want a mobile sub-battleship torpedo platform, perhaps you should be looking at stealth bombers instead of ABCs.

Did anyone say anything about a sub-battleship torpedo platform? Why is it that bots such as yourself, after reading the original, try and change the context of the post to something that is not even being discussed?

Did the opening comment have anything to do with sub-class battleship torpedo platforms?

The conversation is about Torpedo Attack Battlecruisers.

No wonder you people have to fly around in herds to get anything done.

Did you even read the responses you are reacting to? Because it sure doesn’t look like it. Players outlined why your idea fails on the ‘merit’ check, broke down the mechanics of missile damage application to demonstrate the specifics therein, and pointed you at the existing ships that will actually fulfill your stated desired ship role effectively. And you haven’t addressed a single one of those points, just called it all off-topic (which isn’t true - demonstrating how to achieve the goals of a requested within current configuration is 100% topical).

1 Like

SB already has big brothers. Raven + Typhoon + others.

Who said these aren’t mobile? Particularly the Typhoon, which is stupid agile and fast for a BS. Over at United Standings Improvement Agency [USIA], which specializes in mission blitzing and of which I am the Co-Head, we speed tank our Typhoon Fleet Issues and regular Typhoons, so I am quite familiar with how mobile they are with or without AB/MWD. And the Raven isn’t terrible either given its range bonus. Other hulls are just fine and dandy. You are exaggerating mobility issues of missileboat BSes.

Do we need one? No? Didn’t think so.

This is an MMO. Great tasks should require collaboration with others to accomplish. This is by design, and CCP very wisely continues to make changes to the game to encourage fleeting up with others without actually nerfing solo play. Solo play is its own nerf - don’t complain that you can’t accomplish solo what was always meant to be done in fleets.

Besides: anything a Torp ABC can do, the Raven/Typhoon/other Torp BSes can do :roll_eyes:

1 Like

Fly bomber.


1 Like

No body cares what you have to say either.

A Torp ABC would add another niche ship for Alpha Clones to train for. The overall goal of any MMORPE is attract new subscribers with as much Alpha Gems as possible. Trying to force a subscription right away on the new who is attacked or then forced to join a corporation is what keeps most new players from returning as well as comments by Forum Vets who think its their duty to regulate the forums.

Not once have I ever seen any viable idea come from any of those saying that the Torp ABC is a bad idea, not once. But they are quick to shoot down any new ship from players that might threaten some perceived connection.

No, a Raven/Typhoon cannot do the same as the Torp ABC because they are battleships.

You do realize that Attack Battle Cruisers originally came from battleships that were fit to fly at around 2,500 m/3 while having high DPS and hardly no tank all.

OK Boomer. I forgot: it’s all about what YOU want, not about what the game does or doesn’t need and benefit from.



Fun fact: A Missileboat BS can do what a Turret BS cannot. Hence a Missileboat BS can do just about everything a Missileboat ABC can (including speed tanking, and in addition buffer/active tanking, whch ABCs cannot do effectively), but without imbalancing the game or obsoleting the missileboat BSes.

Just see how seriously CSMers and CCP devs take this proposal… go ahead and ping Carebear Champion Jedi Knight CSM Mike Azariah on one extreme and Nullbloc Sith Lord Brisc Rubal on the other, see how seriously they take this proposal. Go ahead, do it. Get your pants pulled down by the CSM. Go ahead.


Apparently you do enough to respond. :rofl:

Anyway it is a stupid idea.


1 Like

Post a link to any idea that you have posted.

Scared people will think your ideas are stupid?

At one time people thought mining barges were stupid as well, not to mention T3 cruisers, all because they changed the mechanics of the game, requiring the players to train more skills.

Salt for your eyes, no courage to post an idea.

No. Alpha has too much already, and should not be able to fly battleships.

1 Like

Whether or not Alpha account should have access to Battleships is irrelevant to this thread.

The ship suggestion itself is wildly unbalanced, regardless of who can use it.


Well T3 cruisers have caused a lot of headache…

If there is ever a missile ABC, then the next thing they will ask for will be a drone ABC and thats a big no. Imo.