The missile damage formula is pretty good at mitigating damage across ship classes, so I don't know why explosion velocities are so damn low to start with.

-Liang

This thread is full of win, and pathetic creatures, guess thats what makes it win.

Just get over it that your little gallente pwn mobile got a bit more in line with the other dreads. Its still the best if you ask me.

I am inteseristed to see how the Rev changes work out, as it was kinda, meh before, its a good ship but the moros overall awesomeness was dimishing it.

Someone who can fly all dreads signing off. (best thing you can do vs balance changes btw, just get into the new flavour of the patchcycle pwnmobile and laugh about all the forum whiners)

ok .....the citadel explosion velocity removement was needed for a long time ...since phoenix can`t do full dps to a moving titan or carrier .....tbh exp velocity should be boosted a lil bit ..to like 100-120 m / sec

I want you to go and write the following sentence on a chalkboard 50 times.

"Explosion Velocity and Target Velocity do not enjoy a direct, linear relationship when calculating missile damage."

DREADS BEST TO WORST PRE-PATCH

1) Moros
2) Rev
3) Nag
4) Phoenix


DREAD MOST NERFED -> DREAD MOST BUFFED IN PATCH

1) Moros
2) Phoenix
3) Nag
4) Rev


DREADS BEST TO WORST POST-PATCH

1/2) Nag / Moros
3) Rev
4) Phoenix

um... yes, it does.

There are two factors when applying initial missile damage:

1) Explosion Velocity vs Target Velocity

2) Explosion Radius vs Signature Radius

3. Target Signature vs. Explosion Radius

Come on, this is basic stuff.

Fixed your terrible post.

Is this a feedback thread or a "feedback thread"?

um... yes, it does.

There are two factors when applying initial missile damage:

1) Explosion Velocity vs Target Velocity

2) Explosion Radius vs Signature Radius

so has anybody learned that you dont vote goonswarm members for CSM yet?

because they seem incredibly biased towards changes that afect the ships or equipment they use!!!

So stop saying that phoenix doesn't need buffs because it does.

so has anybody learned that you dont vote goonswarm members for CSM yet?

because they seem incredibly biased towards changes that afect the ships or equipment they use!!!

So stop saying that phoenix doesn't need buffs because it does.

Hello once again everyone. We've got a small package of tweaks to capital weapons to announce, intended to help bring us a little bit closer to balance between the different dreadnoughts.

For the most part you all know the major balance problems with the class, the relative dominance of the Moros and the fact that the Phoenix has extreme difficulty applying damage to moving targets, even a moving carrier. These changes apply directly to the capital blasters, autocannons and pulse lasers, as well as to the siege modules themselves.

These changes are not expected to bring the class into perfect balance, but it should be a step in the right direction and be something we can build upon as we go forward.

X-L Blasters: -15% tracking, -10km optimal, +10km falloff

X-L Autocannons: -10% tracking

X-L Pulses: +6.666% optimal

Citadel missiles: Remove the explosion velocity penalty from siege modules

Let us know what you think!

Because the Moros going slightly into falloff (assuming no TEs or TCs, of course) to shoot a POS ruins it. Yeah, right.

It will still have the highest applied DPS by a large margin, with the Nag catching up somewhere around the 60km mark (i.e way past where anyone cares), and the others never competing.

Best basic DPS from weapons, double DPS bonus, better cap endurance than the Rev, best tank, easier fitting than the Rev...

No, the Moros is going to remain clearly the best Dread. The only question is whether the Nag steps up past the Rev (I think it will, because it'll be easier to fit well, for similar results).

Except in the formula, (Explosion Velocity)/(Target Velocity) is multiplied by (Sig radius/Explosion radius) and then the whole mess is raised to ln(drf)/(ln5.5), so it's not actually necessary for the missile explosion velocity to be higher than the target's velocity as long as (sig radius/explosion radius) is big enough.

By that notion, it's somehow expected to have a bloomed sig radius at all times... that's not the case especially when taking other ships into account, for example T3s, AFs, and any other ship with no MWD or armor tanked.

Well, it depends on your point of view. In general, ships already have sig radii considerably greater than the explosion radii of same-size missiles, so there is a built-in bloom effect. Compare the 1500 m radius of citadel torps with the ~3000 m sig of a capital, or the 94 m and 105 m radii of medium missiles with a Proteus's sig of 168 m or so.

Alright, I've built graphs of damage application for new XL guns, which I'd like to present here:

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1305/guns.PNG

The lower graph is for large guns, for reference.
They are built for more or less realistic fittings, with 2xTE for autocannons and 2xTC for lasers and blasters.

As you can see from those graphs:
1. Blasters and autocannons have exactly the same range performance. It never happened for subcapital guns and I still dont understand why it is made that way for new XL guns. I think it's a way to homogenization, and it's boring.

2. All three weapons have exactly the same effective range. It means lasers sux, just plain and simple. Blasters and projectiles can compete in different categories, for example: blasters win in DPS and tracking, but ACs win in cap-less functioning and selectable damage. But lasers loose it all - mediocre DPS, poor tracking, eat cap, and cannot switch damage type. Fozzie, do you call it a good balance?

EDIT: The following graph includes skills and short range ammo effects:
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1305/guns2.PNG
In fact, lasers sux even more.

Alright, I've built graphs of damage application for new XL guns, which I'd like to present here:

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1305/guns.PNG

The lower graph is for large guns, for reference.
They are built for more or less realistic fittings, with 2xTE for autocannons and 2xTC for lasers and blasters.

As you can see from those graphs:
1. Blasters and autocannons have exactly the same range performance. It never happened for subcapital guns and I still dont understand why it is made that way for new XL guns. I think it's a way to homogenization, and it's boring.

2. All three weapons have exactly the same effective range. It means lasers sux, just plain and simple. Blasters and projectiles can compete in different categories, for example: blasters win in DPS and tracking, but ACs win in cap-less functioning and selectable damage. But lasers loose it all - mediocre DPS, poor tracking, eat cap, and cannot switch damage type. Fozzie, do you call it a good balance?

EDIT: The following graph includes skills and short range ammo effects:
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1305/guns2.PNG
In fact, lasers sux even more.

Because the Moros going slightly into falloff (assuming no TEs or TCs, of course) to shoot a POS ruins it. Yeah, right.

It will still have the highest applied DPS by a large margin, with the Nag catching up somewhere around the 60km mark (i.e way past where anyone cares), and the others never competing.

Best basic DPS from weapons, double DPS bonus, better cap endurance than the Rev, best tank, easier fitting than the Rev...

No, the Moros is going to remain clearly the best Dread. The only question is whether the Nag steps up past the Rev (I think it will, because it'll be easier to fit well, for similar results).