The did tweak the numbers quite a bit. It was originally 50% (which explains why it wasn't your experience, if it was long enough ago) then they dropped it to 20% which was too drastic and finally buffed it back up to 35%. This is per the 2.2 beta 5 release notes which is the most recent concrete information I could find - and it happens to coincide with some informal testing of my own with reverb mines. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/beta-2-2-update-5.295657/
Do reverberating cascade torpedoes need an adjustment?
- Thread starter amadeus1171
- Start date
The did tweak the numbers quite a bit. It was originally 50% (which explains why it wasn't your experience, if it was long enough ago) then they dropped it to 20% which was too drastic and finally buffed it back up to 35%. This is per the 2.2 beta 5 release notes which is the most recent concrete information I could find - and it happens to coincide with some informal testing of my own with reverb mines. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/beta-2-2-update-5.295657/
Its only been about 3 months since it l last used them.
Last edited:
Rather than just tweaking numbers, I'd be happy enough if they didn't magically ignore MRPs. It seems odd that a module expressly designed to protect modules is completely useless against the biggest and most common threats to a ship's modules (reverb and feedback mods).
Reverb cascade, despite the description implying otherwise, also doesn't depend on shields being up to be functional.
Back in 2.2 before MRPs I was using a vette with double braced sturdy drives (to allow the thrusters to survive more seeker hits) that was actually slower than torpedoes. I recall one encounter where I tried to preserve my shield gen by activating silent running so the torpedoes would simply impact the hull, with the idea that I'd just let the shields regenerate afterwards. Torpedoes smacked into the nose of the ship, about 90m from the shield generator, destroyed the shield gen, did normal hull damage, and didn't harm any other modules.
Have tested this every major revision since, and this is still how it works.
Don't really mind special effects bypassing module armor (a reverberating cascade weapon isn't shooting the generator directly), but I really would prefer it if they appeared to work in accordance with their descriptions (shouldn't be anything to reverberate or cascade against if the shield generator isn't powered), rather than everything just being treknobabble.
Frankly I'm just glad that 10k MJ shields have a counter at all, and someone makes a thread to say they're overpowered because someone dedicated nearly every hardpoint on their ship to being able to counter their specific build? If your large-pad ship gets taken down by a small ship running reverb torpedoes, their single remaining small hardpoint shouldn't be a threat to you unless you literally put no reinforcement whatsoever onto your hull.
A hyperspecialised build defeats a minmaxed build that it's specifically built to counter. This should not be a surprise. let's see that small-ship torpedoboat blow its load on a hulltank/hybrid that doesn't rely on its shields to survive and watch how far they get.
A hyperspecialised build defeats a minmaxed build that it's specifically built to counter. This should not be a surprise. let's see that small-ship torpedoboat blow its load on a hulltank/hybrid that doesn't rely on its shields to survive and watch how far they get.
Hmmm...
Maybe torpedos should have more mass. They're supposed to be massive modules of destruction. A buff to their kinetic damage and increase in their velocity would also help balance out their mass.
If a small ship decides to stack up on torpedoes then the cost in mass should be represented as compared to the ship's mass, so the ship's max speed is much less and their shields less effective. For this trade-off torpedoes should do more kinetic damage and travel at a faster speed. 300km/s should be good, no?
Maybe torpedos should have more mass. They're supposed to be massive modules of destruction. A buff to their kinetic damage and increase in their velocity would also help balance out their mass.
If a small ship decides to stack up on torpedoes then the cost in mass should be represented as compared to the ship's mass, so the ship's max speed is much less and their shields less effective. For this trade-off torpedoes should do more kinetic damage and travel at a faster speed. 300km/s should be good, no?
No. Even at 300 m/s they can be still outrun but almost any ship engineered and boosting. The weight would primarily affect couriers and vipers, and these are not the most common torp runners (Mambas, Clippers, even DBX better suited for this IMO). For other ships without EPT, the mass penalty would be a minor annoyance, but not significantly alter their ability to land the torps.
Also, your claim 4 torpedos can destroy any shield is wrong. Many engineered 7/8 sized shields can have integrity well over 200 and require 5 or even 6 torpedos, which is literally more than many small ships can carry at all.
Secondly, there is already an fairly straightforward counter to torpedoes which is to not get hit with them. If you're checking loadouts in supercruise as you should be, you should know when they are coming and evade appropriately.
You seem to make to want it harder to defeat massive shield tanks with absurdly strong shields when they are already overpowered. Do you just feel small ships should literally have no way of taking down larger ones? If so I disagree, and if we take away shield counters (reverb torp/mine, cascade rails) then basically every battle is just number stacking a vette/conda/cutter and facetanking each other for an absurdly long amount of time.
If your problem is not inherently about smaller vs larger ship PvP, but instead getting ganked in a large warship... well that's just not an issue IMO. A well built cutter/vette/conda is nearly ungankable if flown and engineered correctly (in fact most ships are ungankable flown and built correctly but especially something with at least 10k hit points).
Last edited:
Also warships have historically feared torpedoboats (now typically referred to as fast attack craft) for as long as motorised boats have existed, roughly around the time of the american civil war. The concept is fairly simple - a large number of small, agile, fast, expendable vessels can easily overwhelm the defences of a battleship as its large cannons are fairly useless against such small and numerous targets, though their relatively short ranges limit them mainly to coastal defence roles.
Basically - only one torpedoboat needs to get through to cripple a battleship, and the fact that they're so cheap means you can have a hundred of them.
The modern destroyer derives its name from "torpedo boat destroyer" in that the original destroyers were specifically created as escort craft for larger warships to protect them from torpedoboat attacks - faster than a battleship and armed specifically for taking down smaller boats.
Basically - only one torpedoboat needs to get through to cripple a battleship, and the fact that they're so cheap means you can have a hundred of them.
The modern destroyer derives its name from "torpedo boat destroyer" in that the original destroyers were specifically created as escort craft for larger warships to protect them from torpedoboat attacks - faster than a battleship and armed specifically for taking down smaller boats.
Creepy players... lmao
Oh no! Little ships should be able to take down larger ships, but not just one little ship! It should take many.
I still have nightmares of a wing of 8 npc vultures ambushing me in my Anaconda when I entered an USS. shiver...
Why should it take many if the small ship pilot flies well and the large ship pilot poorly? I simply disagree. Being able to afford the larger ships should open additional styles and options, but the primary determinant of any combat is and should be pilot skill, assuming similar levels of engineering and build quality on the ships. (And since money is so easy to come by, here "afford" basically means the patience to fully engineer grind a large ship, rather than just purchase one - an unengineered large ship is basically target practice for any engineered warship).
How often have you been torp'ed by CMDRs by the way? The attack that stands out in your mind is PvE, which makes me wonder how often you've actually been successfully wing ganked or had "normal" PvP where torps decided the battle.
Reverb is balanced by the solo button.
Should a Fast Attack Craft be able to sink a Battle Ship? The notion itself is insulting.
As far as unskilled pilots being able to afford more combat-able ships, well, that's Frontier's fault, isn't it?
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
A small fiberglass boat full of ordnance can incapacitate a US Navy destroyer.
USS Cole bombing - Wikipedia
As pointed out before, that's exactly what torpedoes are designed to do, take out larger vessels.
U-Boats did very, very well during WWII.
You didn't actually answer my question. How often have you been torp'ed by CMDRs?
If you think you shouldn't have to worry about small combat ships because you're flying a biggun, well that's on you. The game is the way it is and any analogies you make to actual naval warfare are irrelevant. Anyway, no one who's any good at PvP is complaining about small ships being overpowered.
Has anyone actually agreed with you yet in this thread? I question the wisdom of posting a thought, having nearly unanimous disagreement with it, then doubling down. Sure you're welcome to feel the way you do but it seems unlikely you're convincing anyone here.
Last edited:
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
An Anaconda is similar in size to the HMS Manchester.
It was sunk by these:
It was sunk by these:
why don't you ask the crew of the SMS Szent István? Oh, you can't 'cause they're at the bottom of the Strait of Otranto along with the ship.
Not only is the answer yes as several have already pointed out, but historically until aircraft came along the other severe threat to battleships was from ... mines.
It's almost like Frontier is explicitly referencing naval history here.
I was nearly certain this was sarcasm, but in case it's not I'll point out that fast attack craft in WWI and WWII actually did sink several cruisers and at least a few battleships. Indeed, PT boats were expressly built as a cheap counter to capital ships. Many PT boats carried the same 21-inch torpedoes that would later sink the ARA General Belgrano with a single hit.
Also, modern capital ships are essentially always screened by destroyers, CAPs, and riddled point defense weapons because a single anti-ship missile launched from a 100km away by an obsolete fighter or attack craft could easily result in the loss of a ten billion dollar collection hardware and hundreds of lives.
Anyway, the largest pilotable ships in ED are quite small in the great scheme of things. Even a Corvette or Cutter aren't anywhere near capital ships.
Or much smaller submarines sinking huge vessels with... torpedoes.
But again, the analogies are just window dressing, the game mechanics are what they are.