EVE Search - correct rocket explosion speed

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

correct rocket explosion speed

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 19 post(s)
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.02.26 15:54:00 - [1] Originally by: Deva Blackfire With this one i can agree. Rockets vs ab frig = lolz. It just doesnt work, even if frig is webbed. Yeah. Rockets are okay against webbed non-ABing frigates - they'll do full damage to webbed, non-ABing T1 frigs and AFs, and not lose too much from inties. But the problem is that ABs are actually viable and common on frigates and that rocket platforms often don't have room for a web themselves. Add the missile flight path issues, poor base DPS and tricky fitting requirements and you've got a weapon system that needs help.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.03.02 14:20:00 - [2] Originally by: Mohenna Originally by: Gypsio III Rockets are okay against webbed non-ABing frigates Well, yeah, but how many of these do you see? Excluding scrambled mwders... And even in that best-case scenario, rockets lose damage!! Maths to back this wild statement: Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(MIN(sig/Er,1) , (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^(log(drf) / log(5.5))) sig=35 rifter (up to 44 tristan) Er=20 Ev=85 drf=3 Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(1,(85/20 * 40/vel)^(log(3) / log(5.5))) = Base_Damage * MIN(1,(531.25/vel)^0.644) So damage gets nerfed when 1>(148/vel)^0.644 -> vel > 148 Well, that was my point, that ABs are semi-viable on frigates. I think there's a problem with your maths though - I'm showing full damage with rockets against a 35 m sig Rifter webbed to 215 m/s, with rockets of explo rad 20 m and explo vel 127.5 m/s and the threshold velocity being 223 m/s. Ah, that's the problem, you haven't accounted for TNP in your rocket explosion velocity. But this is away from the point - many frigates don't have the slots to sensibly fit a web, ABs are a semi-viable option on frigates, rocket fitting requirements are excessive, base damage is too low and it's too easy to lose several km of range because of stupid flight path issues.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.04.28 20:22:00 - [3] Originally by: Pohbis There's is not a single missile-boat, were people wouldn't switch to the turrect equivilant in a heartbeat if they were given the choice. That alone speaks volumes about how subpar missiles are. Drake.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.05.27 10:09:00 - [4] Base damage is tragically low as well. The Kestrel gets nice kinetic EFT DPS, but only because it has a 50% damage bonus.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.10.29 11:37:00 - [5] Oh for god's sake, why is this taking so long? A simple fix to increase explosion velocity would suffice, it doesn't require the complete (overpowering) reworking that ACs are getting, just fix the bloody roflkets so that they don't need an ABing frigate target to be dual-webbed (impossible for a frigate) to deal their full damage, which is crappy anyway. Either that, or tell us that you intend to look thoroughly at rockets, standard missiles and their launchers, and their host ships' fittings, so we could actually get SMLs on a Hawk or the new Hookbill, without requiring multiple fitting mods. Just communicate in some fashion, please.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:06:00 - [6] Although rockets could be fixed just by changing a could of DB numbers, the fix for AFs will take a lot more work, as seen by the failure of the AB speed boost. And since any change to AF speed will directly affect rocket balance, it makes sense to do both changes at the same time.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.01.10 20:44:00 - [7] Quote: Fact is that rockets deal full damage to webbed + scrammed (non-ab) ceptors. Yet not all rocket ships can use 2 mids for tackle ya know? This is the issue. It's all very well doing full damage to a webbed, scrambled, non-ABing target... but that's no bloody use when I meet a dual-prop frigate and my rocket platform doesn't have the medslots to actually fit a web. To an unwebbed dual-prop frigate you're talking about ~25% damage, which is pathetic frankly, given the low DPS to start with. A turret ship can control range and transversal to apply its much superior DPS, what can the rocket user do?
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.01.13 14:45:00 - [8] Originally by: Braitai Originally by: Deva Blackfire In case of frigs you need web to get NORMAL level and 2 webs to counter ABing frig. This IS broken. This. It's especially broken on ships that have so few medslots - frigates.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.01.21 17:17:00 - [9] Some thoughts about what a rocket fix would consist of... Currently rockets require web and scrambler support to deal a meaningful % damage. Requiring a scrambler is fine - rocket platforms operate within scrambler range and would want to fit one anyway. The web requirement is an interesting one and deserves some comments. A turret frigate may find its damage mitigated by tracking and optimal issues. A web serves to restrict those issues; however, manual piloting can also serve to minimise that damage mitigation, by closing to optimal or by minimising transversal, as with web-lacking MSE Rifter. With rockets, however, that option is simply not there - absolute speed is the key, and hence a web is essential. Several points follow from this: Unless rocket explosion velocity is massively increased, a web will still be essential on a rocket platform, to apply good DPS, even before considering factors relating to range control. Question - what % damage to an unwebbed ABing frigate would be considered sufficient for the rocket platform to consider not fitting a web? Afterburners are relatively common on frigates, whether alone or part of a dual-prop configuration. Currently, an ABing Ishkur (sig 39 m, speed ~900 m/s) takes 44% damage from a rocket. To deal 75% damage, the rocket would need an explosion velocity of ~300 m/s (after TNP V). Even in this case, I suspect that a web would still be compulsory on a rocket platform, giving, in this case, 33% more applied damage and assisting with range control. It also follows that at any lower level of explosion velocity increase, a web is still essential. My conclusion here is that no realistic change to rocket explosion velocity will change the essential nature of a web on a rocket platform. This has important implications for the slot layouts and range of viable fits of rocket platforms. The Hawk, for example, simply does not have the medslots to support the propulsion mod, scrambler, web, shield booster implied by its off-racial shield boost bonus and the cap booster require to fuel it. However, it is generally accepted that rocket damage even when 100% damage is being dealt is too low. For example, a Malediction with max-skilled rockets does a pathetic 66 DPS maximum, and a rocket-Worm is arguably inferior to an MSE Ishkur. Increasing the explosion velocity alone will not change this - an increase in rocket base damage is required. A final thought relate to the ease of mitigation of rocket damage. An AB can halve the damage taken by an unwebbed frigate. While ABs need to mitigate some rocket damage to avoid being pointless, this halving is far too much for the current low-base-damage rockets. Ways of fixing this are to increase explosion velocity or base damage as mentioned, but decreasing rocket DRF would also reduce this degree of damage mitigation, and could serve as an alternative to changes in explosion velocity, which might otherwise prove a rather blunt tool.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.01.21 23:10:00 - [10] Originally by: Cobalt Sixty Originally by: Gypsio III - and a rocket-Worm is arguably inferior to an MSE Ishkur. While I agree that Rockets need to be looked at by CCP (Mostly because I want an incentive to fly a Vengeance other than "oh well, at least it has three gun turrets, too") is the above example really a fair comparison? I didn't think Faction is meant to match up to or excel against Tech II, rather to present something "different". While "something different" would certainly be nice - the Daredevil and the Dramiel have unique features in massive DPS and web, and super speeeeeeeed - the fact is that the current Worm is very similar to the MSE Ishkur. The Worm has an extra midslot, but worse resists, worse DPS, less PG, larger sig, about the same EHP... and that's about it. Given that similarity, it needs to be "better", otherwise what's the point of the bloody thing? But this is about the Worm really, not rockets as such.

Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.01.22 08:42:00 - [11] Originally by: Braitai Originally by: Gypsio III Currently rockets require web and scrambler support to deal a meaningful % damage. Requiring a scrambler is fine - rocket platforms operate within scrambler range and would want to fit one anyway. Untrue. Crows, Worms and Hawks can shoot rockets from outside web range. In fact with javelins(yes yes - javs suck) all rocket ships can. Not only that but it's irrelevent when fighting anything with an AB, even a duel prop ceptor gets almost as much damage reduction from a t2 AB than from a MWD. The Dramiel, which is currently the fastest ship in the game, doesn't get a MWD sig bloom reduction. In this case a scrambler is almost irrelevant as far as damage applied goes. Given the speed penalty of Javs, the chance of the rocket platform remaining outside web range in a frigate fight is not great, making Jav use difficult. The AB comment - yes, that's obvious, thanks.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.02.11 18:11:00 - [12] Originally by: Major Trant Words Feel free to test it yourself, it's fairly straightforward.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.02.17 15:24:00 - [13] Wait a second. The Dramiel has a launcher slot. Maybe we could sexily rebrand this as a BOOST DRAMIEL thread?
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.03.02 22:07:00 - [14] Hello CCP I just fitted ROCKETS to my Vindicator, but it is still terrible. BOOST VINDICATOR PLEASE!
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.03.26 14:45:00 - [15] "That's Amazing!" Roflket Fact of the Week, #1. The premier rocket gank ship is (probably?) the Kestrel. With max skills, the four Roflket IIs can deal 105 kinetic DPS (94 DPS including reloads). However, this is not enough DPS to break the passive shield recharge on a DC-MSE shield-buffered Dramiel travelling at 2100 m/s on afterburner. That's Amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.04.29 08:12:00 - [16] Originally by: Amberlamps I agree partly... What shocked me to the core the other day was... Sitting on the FFA1 beacon in a Cerberus then all of a sudden an Amarr t2 interceptor starts burning 5kms towards me... I'm some 170km away... I think great I'll fire the missiles at him (T2 Damage HM) by the time my missiles get close he'll be in range and then he'll be toast with that sig radius!!! However... to my surprise I landed a whopping 2.3 damage on him... WHAT THE ****? This is because you're a dribbling moron. You were using "T2 high damage" heavy missiles against a damn interceptor. WTF did you expect to happen, using a weapon designed to attack battlecruisers and battleships against a damn frigate?
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.04.29 17:15:00 - [17] Originally by: Amberlamps So with the reduction to sig radius bonus from t2 interceptor with his mwd + my missile skills. My missiles would easily have a small sig radius compare to that of his ship... He was flying directly towards me at 5kms... Yet I still only landed 2.3 damage? Small? Sigh. Come on. Learn how your weapons system works. Max-skilled Fury Heavy explosion radius = 161.3 m. Crusader signature radius with Inties V = 72 m. The missile has over twice the radius of the Crusader. The only thing that is "small" here is your degree of competence. You are whining that a weapon system designed to be used against battlecruisers isn't very effective against interceptors. What the hell did you expect? If you want your Cerberus to knock interceptors out of the sky with hilarious ease, use the appropriate weapon. That is, AMLs with Navy Bloodclaws. With the right fit you can do it with 4 volleys, with the Doppler effect compressing the volleys to six seconds from first hit to pop. Expecting Fury Heavies to be effective against a bloody interceptor is just ******ed.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.05.05 20:02:00 - [18] DRF is an arbitrary number that controls how intensely the % damage applied decreases when a target is going to fast. A high DRF means that the damage falls like a cliff. Significantly lowering rocket DRF could be part of a solution.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.05.08 14:55:00 - [19] Originally by: Maeve Kell the one thing i learned in eve in all the years is: eft numbers dont tell anything, the damage that hits the target is important er right, okay
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.05.11 08:43:00 - [20] Originally by: Braitai 50% increased damage for lights? Great, so AML Caracals will own frigates EVEN HARDER than they do already. Balancing lights is actually quite difficult because of the fact that they're used in AML launchers as well. That's straightforward enough to do simply by fiddling with AML/SML RoF.

Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.05.11 11:05:00 - [21] Originally by: Braitai true enough I guess but that would mean SML's have a higher ROF than AML's. Fiddling with lights will be problematic. Getting even close to the theoretical damage/range of lights using beams/arty/rails requires t2 ammo that messes with your tracking, so it's not as if other long range weapons are clearly out in front of lights. Oh, I've just noticed that this was in response to Allen's insane OCD MUST MAEK PRITTY PATTURNS OF NUMBERS balancing proposals. I'm fairly ambivalent on SMLs atm, their damage against an ABing target isn't too good but their range is so great that I'm not sure we should expect it to be. If SML changes were to be made, I'd be looking more at the PG/CPU of SMLs themselves, really - they're really a pain to fit. But you could argue that this is just a ship problem (e.g., Hawk).
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.06.01 10:18:00 - [22] Current state of roflkets.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.06.02 07:48:00 - [23] Originally by: Rip Minner Originally by: Gypsio III Current state of roflkets. OMG thats so freaking funny you just made my night thx u It's quite old, I expect most people saw it a long time ago... A BIT LIKE THIS THREAD EH? EH? EH, CCP? DID YOU SEE WHAT I DID THERE?
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.06.06 11:25:00 - [24] Originally by: Krennel Darius Today while looking at all of the fits on all of the rocket boats I have, I noticed that my Kestrel with 4x Rocket Launcher 2's does 147dps EFT, Rage rockets, heh. 147 DPS to the edge of scramble range sounds okay. The problem is that an ABing Rifter can expect to receive as little as 14% of that. With CN rockets, the EFT DPS of 129 is mitigated to 30% by the ABing Rifter, and even when webbed it still takes less than 60% of that 129 DPS. Meanwhile, the Rifter moves into optimal where it has no trouble applying its similar EFT DPS...
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.06.09 07:58:00 - [25] CCP 2009 Entrance Exam. One question, multiple choice. The most popular and powerful T1 combat frigate is the Rifter. It is fast, has a good slot layout, is relatively easy to fit and has some degree of damage type selection. The least popular combat frigates use rockets. They are slow, hard to fit, require multiple webs which they don't have the slot layout to fit and the rockets' damage is feeble. One of these ships is much more powerful than the others. How do you resolve this imbalance? a) The rocket ships are underpowered. Fix these ships. b) Rockets are underpowered. Fix Rockets. c) The Rifter is is underpowered. Boost the Rifter by increasing higher-tier AC falloff, giving projectile ammo purer damage types and by increasing the damage of Fusion. Hint - if you answer "C" you are a moron, and will therefore pass this exam. Welcome to CCP!
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.06.14 15:03:00 - [26] Originally by: Blane Xero Originally by: Zakru Anul OK so who wants too take a bet. 50mil that we can walk in stations and get hammered at a bar before Rockets get fix.. anyone anyone? I'll take you up on that so long as the "...get hammered at a bar..." is part of the deal. Protip: Eve is a T for Teen game. Gimme my 50mill. I don't wanna meet the teens you know.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.06.22 15:28:00 - [27] There was a thread about a rocket, So pathetic that everyone would knock it, The solution was obvious, But CCP was oblivious, And the frustrated players said "fock it".
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.06.23 08:36:00 - [28] There once was a poor little Crow, Whose rockets really did blow, "What should I do?" "My weapons are such poo!" "To the Dramiel shop I must go!"
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.07.09 08:19:00 - [29] Simply record a MSE Dramiel passive-shield-regen-tanking a Kestrel by orbiting on AB.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.07.14 12:42:00 - [30] Originally by: Yanna Karr Seeing it on the test server would be reassuring.

Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.07.15 07:50:00 - [31] Originally by: pmchem Check a DPS graph in EFT (not a DPS fit # - but the graph vs a specific target) of HAM and HML using faction ammo, on a Drake or Cerb versus a variety of non-stationary targets. You'll see what I mean pretty quickly. No, I don't see what you mean. HAMs are designed to be used inside web range. Hence, with your target webbed. If you're using HAMs on a Cerberus, well, more fool you. The situation with roflkets is not comparable because the HAM Drake fit a web easily and its cruiser-size targets are only very rarely ABing.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.07.15 14:30:00 - [32] Originally by: CCP Chronotis This is one of the primary issues surrounding the possible changes and which route we take. The unguided missiles from rockets to HAMs or torpedoes were intended to be much more effective weapons against larger ship classes which is reflected in their stats rather than be equally effective vs the same hulls. However as Tonto points out the relative velocity and sig radius min/max is much less variable as you move up to cruisers and battleships. Ships like HAM drake or HAM sacrilege perform their roles well as do the torp ravens. However rocket crows or vengeance lack the punch these lot serve and that is most likely what we will address. If we still intend to keep this role for the unguided missiles, then a damage increase would be done along with some changes to explosion velocity and radius with perhaps some changes to the light missiles to ensure they are effective anti-frigate missiles for example if we went that route. Now this is a very interesting post. It's correct to say that HAMs and torps are balanced around slightly larger and slower targets than HMs and Cruise. However, in practice, this distinction is not readily apparent because HAMs and torps, being short-range weapons, are generally used against webbed targets where the more important means of mitigation of missile damage, speed, is eliminated as an issue by the webbing. There's nothing wrong with continuing this on the frigates scale, in theory - but there is in its current implementation. Firstly, frigates lack medslots and often find it hard to fit a web. The second you acknowledged - the relative velocity and sig radius min/max is much more variable on the frigate scale, than on the scales of cruisers and battleships. This make webbing much more important on the frigate scale, relative to torps and HAMs, with the tertiary effect that a typical ABing frigate requires dual-webbing - almost impossible for a med-slot poor frigate to perform. In the case of the ABing Dramiel, I think that web-stacking means that infinity webs are insufficient...! Such a reliance on webs is bad, as it makes for predictable fits and tactics on the medslot-limited frigates. Aside from any arguments about raw damage increases, the disparity in damage between a webbed non-ABing target and an unwebbed ABing target must be significantly reduced. This suggests that a significant increase in rocket explosion velocity, decrease in explosion radius and/or decrease in Damage Reduction Factor is necessary.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.07.17 15:06:00 - [33] Torps have the explosion radius to deal full damage to tier 3 BS, so it seems to me that that's what "larger ships" means there.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.07.19 22:39:00 - [34] Originally by: Gecko O'Bac Speaking of missiles in more broader terms, I don't really get why the shorter range missiles are supposed to be used against bigger classes of ships. They're not. They're designed to be most effective against tackled ships of the same class. Which is fine, apart from rockets, because these weapons operate within tackle range. Originally by: Gecko O'Bac Short range missiles on the other hand have worse "tracking" (EV, ER and DRF) and also worse velocity (IIRC) Try tackling your targets. The issue will go away - except with rockets, of course. Originally by: Gecko O'Bac EDIT: Also, T2 missiles suck. Badly. The precision missiles are usually worthless due to minimal difference in "tracking", lower damage and higher DRF. Long range missiles for the short range missile systems give very harsh penalties and very low dps (though they are better than precisions...). The fury/rage versions are not THAT bad, but you need some kind of support (or a limited target choice) to actually gain benefit from using them instead of faction missiles. (It is true though that most T2 ammo would benefit from a balance pass...) Precisions - worthless for Lights, becoming slightly less worthless as you increase in size to Cruise. Jav - not very good. Would be useful if it didn't cause a velocity bonus. Scorch doesn't... Rage/Fury. Absolutely fine.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.07.20 11:48:00 - [35] Originally by: Gecko O'Bac Please take your "know-it-all" tone and stuff it back whence it came from. Not a page ago Chronotis stated exactly what I said: the idea behind the short range missiles was for them to be ideally used against bigger classes of ships. What Chronotis said was rather misleading. While it is true that HAMs and torps possess larger explosion radii then HMs and Cruise, this does not translate in practice to being more effective against larger classes - because ships of the same class are still large enough to receive no damage mitigation via signature. On the battleship scale, there are no sig radius issues when firing torps against tier 3 BS. On the cruiser scale, there are no signature radius issues when firing HAMs against almost all cruisers (Vagabond, Stabber, Logistics etc). Rockets are crazy though. They have a much smaller exploion radius than LMs (20 m vs. 37.5 m), but also about half the exploion velocity. The small explosion radius indicates that they're designed to be used against small frigates and drones (also contrary to what Chronotis said!), while the low explosion velocity suggests that it's expected that those small frigates and drones be multiply webbed - infinitely webbed, in the case of the Dramiel.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.07.21 07:39:00 - [36] Originally by: Gecko O'Bac So what is basically a mean to prevent the target from escaping becomes, for short range missiles ships only (and here lies what I, at least, perceive as something not balanced), a necessary mean for dealing damage. Personally, I have no problem with the extent of this state of affairs for HAMs and torps.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.07.21 18:41:00 - [37] What a fascinating kill record. In 2010, Faffywaffy has solo-killed 4 (four) interceptors using a rocket Crow or Malediction. Of these, one was an untanked SML Crow, another was an untanked SML Malediction, the third was an untanked Stiletto and the fourth was another rocket Crow. Three of these victims also used missiles, one was another rocket-user, none had an afterburner and two of them were tackle-ceptors, designed for tackling rather than DPS. These are not accomplishments of note and tell us nothing about rocket balance.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.07.22 08:06:00 - [38] Originally by: Faffywaffy Originally by: Gypsio III What a fascinating kill record. In 2010, Faffywaffy has solo-killed 4 (four) interceptors using a rocket Crow or Malediction. Also, losing to Garmon in his AB/Scram/Web/Blaster Incursus doesn't count. It was a very close fight and he won because I didn't know it was him at the time and didn't expect it to be fit like that. Er, what exactly were you expecting? Fitting blasters, scrambler and web on an Incursus should not surprise anyone. Nor should the result when you take a rocket ship into its tackle range. As for the kills you linked. There's barely a non-****** fit there. Scrambler Crusaders, injector-salvager Taranis, SML Crows, come on. Only one of those linked had an afterburner or was dual-prop.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.07.22 13:17:00 - [39] Originally by: Faffywaffy Crusaders should be scramble-fit (as should almost all interceptors). There is nothing wrong with an offline salvager in the extra highslot on a taranis (a cap-injector is unusual, but not terrible for specific purposes), and if SML crows are terrible, why are you not crying to boost SMLs? As Yani says, it's a medslot thing. A scrambler-Crusader is vulnerable to any frigate that can dictate range inside web range. Yes, this includes the rocket Crow, but it also includes the Taranis, whether dual-prop or web-fit, and there's no doubt which is superior over Taranis or rocket Crow. A while ago I spent a long time exploring the rocket Crow on the test server. Analysing the results was tricky because of people's surprise at meeting a rocket Crow - often they just charged straight in to get the scramble - but I found that as soon as anything was faster than me inside web range it was Game Over. Aside from any raw damage issue, the problems with rockets are to do with afterburners and the absolute necessity of fitting a web. I think that your experience in interceptors has made you overlook the AB issue. The damage delivered by rockets to targets is much more dependent on target speed than on the HAM or torp scale, to the extent that a MSE-DC Dramiel can almost passive-tank a Kestrel, and that a web is absolutely essential on a rocket platform. The rapidity of falloff of rocket damage with target speed is controlled by the DRF. If we accept that dealing 100% rocket damage gives acceptable DPS - and I'll come back to this in a minute, hah - I will not accept that rocket DPS is acceptable against ABing targets. See pretty piccy that shows how rocket damage falls off against a fast target of sig 36 m. Current rocket DRF is 3.0 - the graph shows the damage falloff for DRFs of 2.0 and 1.5. A reduction in DRF would increase rocket damage against ABing targets, but not change it against a sufficiently tackled target - into which category the typical MWD-only interceptor falls when webbed and scrambled. Secondly, let's look at raw rocket damage. Let's ignore killmails because, quite frankly, killmails prove nothing. let's compare Rocket Crow with rail Taranis, as they have similar engagement envelopes, and both have the important three medslots. 125 mm rail-Taranis with two Warriors = 156 DPS. Rocket Crow = 97 DPS. I know there's the option to get under the rails' tracking, but this only becomes significant below 2 km even at high transversals, and is hardly doable anyway when both ships have three medslots.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.09.13 19:30:00 - [40] That's a pretty stupid post. Originally by: Proxyyyy Besed on the suggestions that are most popular in this thread, you may increase rockets ability to do damage to a Ab'ing frig, but you wont make ships using rockets more viable than they are now. This is a logical contradiction. Quote: Look at the kestrel for a moment; Since no-one is suggesting boosting rockets to the point where they hit, for full damage, everytime. All ships that use rockets will still require a web. If thats the case, then a kestrel will still be no better than a incursus (less so). No. More damage against ABing frigate = more viable. How can this not be?

Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.09.14 00:01:00 - [41] Originally by: Proxyyyy Well i should rephrase; it wont make ships using rockets significantly more viable, than they are now. The Kestrel is still a glass canon and would benifit from a increase in PG and CPU. Am i wrong about this Gypsio III? This is an inane comment. The entire point of PG and CPU is to limit a ship's fitting options and capabilities. What ship would not benefit from more CPU and PG...? Ironically though, a rocket Kestrel does not have major PG and CPU issues, and would not benefit significantly from increases. Instead, it would benefit more from a fourth medslot (not likely to happen!) or fixing rockets' performance against frigates.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.09.14 16:13:00 - [42] I'm having difficulty following your line of argument, Proxy. I think it boils down to "the best way to fix rocket-using ships is to fiddle with their fittings and slot layouts, rather than changing rockets". Is this right?
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.09.15 08:18:00 - [43] Originally by: Proxyyyy No; focusing on issue alone (rockets/ammution), will not lead to any major inprovements. Infact: -Slot arrangement -Cpu -Powergrid These issues are more important than the current arguments for a straight boost to rockets. Those 3 issues would bring significant improvments; more so than the current arguments made for rockets. In general, rocket ships do not have crippling problems with PG and CPU. You've already agreed with this; why are you proposing it again? Rocket ships' fitting problems only really appear when you try to fit SMLs, but that's a different issue. Slots. Do you mean adding slots, or changing slot layouts? Adding slots means scrapping the tier system and a complete rework of half the ships in the game. As much as I hate the tier system, this isn't going to happen. The alternative is to give all rocket ships an extra medslot but remove a highslot or lowslot, so they can fit their extra web. Now this idea has a horrible flaw, and I think Deva or someone has already explained why. The ability to fit an extra web gives a frigate a much greater ability to control range. A rocket frigate with scrambler and two webs doesn't really want to fit rockets at all, it wants to fit ACs or neutrons because they do much more damage, and the range control offered by dual web means that it has a good chance of being able to apply it. So this doesn't fix rockets. Secondly, it opens balance problems because it's such a binary solution - either you give the ship an extra medslot, reducing the target's speed by ~55%, or you don't - there's no halfway house for fine-tuning balance. Thirdly, it doesn't fix one of the main problems with rockets currently - the utter reliance on webs to apply damage, which not only leads to predictable fits and a lack of flexibility, but leads to the crazy situation in which a 60% web gives about four times the damage increase than a BCS II does (~80% more DPS for the web compared to 20%, for rockets hitting a manoeuvring Rifter), while also offering range control and taking almost half the CPU of a BCS! "Bring significant improvements". Yes, a Kestrel with, fixed rockets, four medslots and lots more CPU and PG would be more powerful then one simply with fixed rockets. Too powerful, in fact. So let's just fix rockets. Things that can be changed are raw damage, explosion velocity and Damage Reduction Factor (DRF). Rocket base damage isn't terrible, considering their range - a boost of ~10% may be necessary to stop people fitting ACs instead though. The main problem is with application of damage to ABing target, which can be influenced by increasing explosion velocity or by reducing DRF. I'd favour a DRF reduction here, although and explosion velocity increase may also be necessary because it's currently just so low. A lower DRF means that ABing ships can still get a decent speed tank against rockets, but it's not so effective as now. It will also take us away from the current insane situation of a web having the DPS-increasing effect of an 80% BCS. There's also sufficient scope to fine-tune the new DRF factor to get the desired balance.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.09.15 10:55:00 - [44] Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington The one rocket ship I can think of that really has serious problems on fitting is the Hookbill. Seriously - less CPU than a Hawk with 5 mids? It needs low-cpu metas all over the place just to work and completely rules out using standard missiles. Yeah, I glossed over the Hookbill a bit. Using named DC, webs and scrambler, a rocket dual-web MSE fit will fit, but that's a lot of ISK on named mods, especially those Fleeting webs. But attempting to do anything clever with it in terms of TDs etc fails from CPU, and obviously any sort of usable SML fit with a T2 disruptor is impossible. Yani - good work pointing out the other rocket ships that absolutely don't have the slots to fit a web. When webbing your target gives you a ~80% rocket damage increase, then either the ships that cannot fit a web are broken, or rockets are broken.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.09.15 18:01:00 - [45] Quote: A single Stasis Webifier is all thats needed (For most ships that use rockets); those who have flown these ships, would know this (if not, thier dumb) and the double-Stasis Webifier has been overblown. The only reason, i ever came up with the idea of using 2 Stasis Webifier on the, Hookbill (at the time, i couldnt give the hookbill a better tank), was due to my understanding of what makes these ships viable (Not necessarily to improve rocekt damage). Nonsense. Without the second web you can lose anything between 33-50% of your already deeply unremarkable DPS vs. a manoeuvring ABing target. Rockets are currently far too reliant on webs. This is not controversial and I'm surprised to see you take this position. Quote: Being reliant on Stasis Webifier is not a big deal (many ships are, if they want to control range or hit anything). Not to long ago, it was a must to have a, stasis webifier, whenever you undocked your ship (still is, somewhat). That argument is trivial and a waste of time. Everyone in this thread is aware of what a single Stasis Webifier can do for ships using rockets (move on). You've missed the point. Rocket ships are much more dependent on webs than turret ships, which can influence tracking via their own movement. This is harder without a web, but still possible. The cookie dual-prop MSE Dramiel doesn't have a web, after all, nor does MSE Rifter. Not so for rocket ships, apart from the extremely limited case of trying to force your opponent to lose speed in tight turns. Quote: Quote: "Bring significant improvements". Yes, a Kestrel with, fixed rockets, four medslots and lots more CPU and PG would be more powerful then one simply with fixed rockets. Too powerful, in fact. So let's just fix rockets." Who suggested doing that? Certainly not me and certianly not all that; read back up again I suggested "just fixing rockets". Along with everyone else in this thread, mind you. Apart from you, that is, who seem to be more interested in incomprehensible posts and vague, unspecified fiddles to a dozen ships, rather than a simple elegant change. I suggest that you "read back up again". Quote: Having a prepulsion module and some way of stopping someone from warping away (Scrambler/Disruptor), is also a must. Thanks. For. That.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.09.17 19:51:00 - [46] Can Proxy make his posts any less readable? I fear so.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.09.18 22:14:00 - [47] Originally by: yani dumyat I'd like to see a phalanx of thorny gremlins dance the funky foxfire. I wouldn't. I'd rage and throw a javelin at them.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.09.20 18:06:00 - [48] Edited by: Gypsio III on 20/09/2010 18:08:51 Awesome. I think there's some scope for decreasing the rocket Damage Reduction Factor, which would increase damage against ABing targets in a fashion that might be more controllable than an increase in explosion velocity, as well as lessening the "absolutely essential" state of a web to support rocket damage. But there's more than one way to skin a cat.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.09.21 18:03:00 - [49] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida My hope is that they make them into miniature HAMs. Much higher damage output than lights but requiring tackle/TP for maximum efficiency. To do that they have to increase damage by a factor of 3 as well as decrease RoF by about 1.5 (to get around 3.5s RoF or so). After that all that is needed are small tweaks to Exp.velocity/radius to drop damage to light level unless aforementioned tackle/TP are applied. Tripling the damage, that's crazy talk! And such a weapon system would not scale well - it would be hard to use solo, but a frigate gang with sufficient tackle available would be insane to use any other weapon. Sod "mini-HAMs", just give us rockets that aren't crippled by the first afterburner and that aren't so massively reliant on webbing the opponent.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.09.22 22:02:00 - [50] Originally by: OT Smithers It is an oft repeated community concensus that Caldari are a good choice for PvE and a poor choice for PvP. The devs, at least in respect to one of the most glaring problems, apparently AGREE with at least part of that concensus, or they wouldn't be fixing rockets. For your FYI, rockets ≠ missiles.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.