To be honest, he has a point. You turret guys always argue guns can miss. You never mention they also get wrecking hits for triple damage. It is fair to take that in to consideration when discussing sustained dps.

Marcus I don't cherry pick specific ammo types, whilst ignoring the others to give my numbers credence

I compared all 4 T1 heavy missiles to all 8 T1 projectile rounds
all I added is what most 'turret posters' deliberately avoid posting
"the effects of a critical hit in the dps figures"

and as I have already stated .. it then turns the turret dps figures into a 'damage range value' as opposed to the static figure generally quoted for them, where due to the lack of critical hits missiles can be accurately represented with a static dps figure


it's not rocket science ffs ... it's basic math

I've already put down the math for a Drake shooting at a 5km/s Malediction, You should consider yourself lucky if you're hitting 50 dps.

I hate when people don't understand statistics and yet try to argue about turrets...
Please, if you don't understand how turret dps work, don't talk about it. You don't need to be ridiculous.

Large and slow ships don't exist in missiles users' world.

1) take a dictionnary and look at "statisticaly" definition.
2) expend "dps" to full words.
3) link 1 and 2 and think about what you've said.


Now, what missiles user don't understand is that missiles are a reliable weapon system : they never have good stats (except for range) but they never have garbage stats (like turrets can have) for the job they are meant to do.

That mean that for any possible scenario, there is turret better than missiles ; but for any scenario, there is a turret worse than missiles.

That is the price for reliability. If you are good enough that you'll never have to deal with turrets drawback, don't bother with missiles, they are not for you. Missiles are useless to "good enough" people. That is by design. You can't have a balanced missile system better than all turrets in a given situation (except at highest ranges). Missiles things are range and reliability, deal with it.

Oh and I like how missiles users just *have to* shoot *only* at the fastest and nimblest targets in the game whereas this target would just fly strait right into the turret ship and then sit down in its optimal range for him to perfectly apply its dps.

Large and slow ships don't exist in missiles users' world.

Here's a chart that shows damage of all heavy missiles at max skills, with a painter, shooting a completely standard Malediction (33 sig and 435m/s base stats) at all speeds between 0ms - 435 m/s: LINK
That's a maximum of 8 dps per launcher, with all skills at V and a painter ...

For a Maller, we get anything between 22 and 19dps, depending on the missile. With 6 launchers that is an absolute maximum of 132 applied dps , on an untanked Maller, just cruising around. You're right, completely working fine that.

No amount of BCUs, hull bonuses or other mods can compensate for the fact the applied damage of heavy missiles is just way too low to be a viable weapons platform.

Is there a similar browser based calculator for guns? I would love to pair up and compare some guns and missiles in comparable categories.

Now, what missiles user don't understand is that missiles are a reliable weapon system

Not to be a smart ass either, but if you have to ask these questions you have not read much into this thread.
Essentially the gripe is: That as you are stating perceived characteristics of missiles, these are created by hearsay and believable since you (clearly) don't use HM or missiles in general.
Read things over missiles suffer damage reduction against stationary targets, at larger ranges they do FAR less damage then turrets since they increase hit chance by kiting. Wth, just read things over it has all been said. (not trying to be short appreciate you trying to jump in, just read a bit).

Hrett, to use your over simplified example;
For rockets and light missiles sure, lets agree on those numbers. Now when it comes to heavy missiles, you're more looking at (lets say those distances are 0km-10km-20km):
Blasters 10-5-0
Rails 0-5-10
HML 2-2-2

If you're shooting anything smaller than a stationary cruiser, you're looking at
0.5 - 0.5 - 0.5

until the target accidently activates the afterburner...

Please, stop the fairytales now. Missiles do have their issues (not as dramatic as some might say), and if you fail to notice that, you should probably shoot yourself for beeing an idiot.

im not just talking statistics, im talking probabilities as well.
ive tried to keep it nice and simple, so that people with limited understanding such as yourself can follow what im trying to put across, but I just cant display it in a 1+1=2 format.



the dps figures given by [rab see] are based on a turret based weapon hitting for standard 1x damage
because that is how the 3rd party tools display the raw data.
those tools do NOT factor in misses or critical hits, or any of the other hit variables used in eve's damage calculation
so when you triple the theoretical maximum volley damage, you also triple the maximum theoretical dps

as were all quoting theoretical numbers from a 3rd party calculator (eft/pyfa/evehq)
it's equally justifiable to give those theoretical numbers thier maximum values as well
hence I quoted a number range 0, x

im sorry if those possible damage ranges discount your argument regarding the weakness of turrets when compared to missiles
but critical hits change turret performance values significantly.

I'll make a spreadsheet with missile damage to average cruisers and frigates to show actual numbers and not finely picked ones.

My point so far has been that the current formula for missiles just seems to not work. Missiles essentially don't add to the game it removes mechanics for constant average dps which happens to be quite anemic. What do you do apply an average percentage of dps of?? Good players with gunnery? The gunnery stats? Average gunnery player damage?? You will always pingpong between useless dps and an average high enough that it makes everyone cry OP.

Also Hrett, a gang of anything is the worst way to start any kind of example. Unless you measured the average time to die against an equal amount of thorax lately. Arguing balance based on your opinion becomes a very empty sound if that is all you wish to base it off, especially with Avio being as courteous and factual as possible, and he is not the first prophet of missile use.

You're biased and you'll most likely lie and cheat so why bother?

You'll do 30% more damage with HAM to a cruiser with LSE2+3shield rigs than the same cruiser without tank. And that bonus is only 15% with armor tank, but I think you'll get it back with prop mod.

I wasn't using the gang example to say HMLs are fine, I was using it to show their ranges.

Avio has yet to produce any missile drawbacks that don't have an equal in turrets, other than their damage is lower. That is as it should be. Having the best effective range by far and equal damage to other systems is broken. That is not an opinion.

But I will step out now and y'all can continue. Good luck.

Because numbers don't lie, but I don't expect you to understand what honesty or curiosity mean.

So far what I find is enlightening : do you know that tank and rigs make a HUGE difference in missiles damage application ? You'll do 30% more damage with HAM to a cruiser with LSE2+3shield rigs than the same cruiser without tank. And that bonus is only 15% with armor tank, but I think you'll get it back with prop mod.

You emphasize missile range constantly! Any idea how preposterous that sounds? Everyone and their uncle know that at a certain range past long point you are only talking blob vs blob. Stop emphasizing things that are MEANINGLESS. I know this and I barely know 2 things about pvp, living in low sec has been a long time back. Missile ships have too many bonuses focussing on range while they have no place there with their delayed damage. They truly seem to be calibrated for PvE only, and the only argument people seem to be able to hold is that small launchers compete since they don't suffer from eternal travel time.

You keep stressing variables for gunnery with incredible implication this is somehow BAD!! It is neutral and favors good piloting while punishing poor piloting.The ONLY thing you have to say because you can't sketch a realistic picture of an engagement without looking like a fool. It is this extreme reliance and reward for flying behavior that makes gunnery preferable. And especially in a match up of medium sized hulls one missiles the other gunnery you luck out with gunnery since you have nothing to dodge and stick to your engagement to be optimal or fail! With missiles there is no such option. And to top it off when it comes to medium/large missiles vs medium and small hulls; you have been given a link to damage values and they don't compete at all..