Most nullsec fleets are now dominated by sentry drones and use neither guns nor turrets.

Anyways on topic, Missiles will always hit their target but damage may be reduced by the size and speed of the target and DPS is horrid but the Alpha is decent. Turrets may miss but the DPS is great. My advice, try both and see what you like to use better.

One big thing that many folks overlook about missiles is that, unlike turrets, your own motion doesn't contribute to how much (or how little) damage they do. The reason that Crows and Maledictions are such good ships right now isn't that they have a high damage output, it's that they have a reasonable damage output over a long range while being able to maintain high-speed evasive maneuvers while suffering little damage delay or reduction. Any turret 'ceptor trying to kite at range like they do would get low damage output at that range (long range ammo) and see that damage output fluctuate a lot based on their own maneuvers. But not the missile 'ceptors.

Having said that, when you go much beyond long-point range, the utility of missiles starts decreasing greatly because of the delayed damage.

Frigate-class missiles are fine. If anything, light missiles may be a tad OP because of the balance of range and damage you can get out of them. HAMs and Torps are okay as short-range systems because the damage delay isn't all that serious. (Kiting HAM cruisers can be a real pain actually.) Heavies and Cruises are, I think, in a bad place right now because their absurd range doesn't overcome their lackluster damage output and the long delay in said damage output. And capital missiles are just horrible, which is the main reason why the Phoenix is so horrible.

So, yes, missiles are still viable compared to turrets, just not all of them and not all of the time.

the projectile turrets also dont eat that much capacitor at all.

I'm surprised no one mentioned signature radius or transversal velocity, or are these equal factors in guns and missiles?

While playing the game and discussing with my corp about speccing up for a full combat char.... I heard the interesting snippet that some consider missiles to be poor choice for PvP while others argue that they are viable and there is just this dogma lingering about the fact that missiles are just bad for PvP.

This had me raise an interesting question indeed: Which is better for PvP? Gun turrets (Lasers, Hybrids and Projectiles) or Missiles? As I have never PvP'ed in EVE Online before, I myself is unsure whatever guns or missiles are better. Seeing that frigates have been rebalanced and new line of destroyers focusing on missiles have been released.... I wonder if missiles are viable in PvP or not?

What are your thoughts?

'Delayed damage' only applies to the first volley with missiles.

In my experience, missiles aren't being used much largely because of the current N+1 and bring all the logi meta that's prevalent. Sustained DPS means squat in a fight with enough logi, and all that matters is alpha. As missiles apply their damage on a delay, they're a poor choice for this kind of fight.

In a fight where sustained DPS can be a factor, the missiles are on par with the other weapon systems.

Is it true that most incursion fleets will not accept missle ships due to the delayed damage?
I was training missiles, but have switched to guns due to the feeling that missles are a dead end when it comes to fleets...

I would say for a brand new character, it might be a better idea to go into turrets simply because turret support skills will effect 3 different groups of weaponry that all races use. Missiles however have fewer ships that would benefit from training support skills. Other then that, they are all better or worse depending on the situation, like everything.

Missiles will always hit their target