EVE Search - Heavy Missiles, lets make them interesting

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Heavy Missiles, lets make them interesting

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1033	Posted - 2015.01.08 17:38:37 - [1] - Quote CCP just needs to make missiles apply damage more in line with other weapons. Since they have no way (outside of rigs) to increase explosion velocity or radius guns of equal sizes will always have a higher application rate. IMO this is what would fix missiles on all levels. Dropping the Alpha on missiles - This is a no brainer if you are going to increase applied damage. Increasing the explosion velocity on missiles - This is the problem all missiles have Increasing the velocity on missiles - So missiles spend less time in space Decreasing the Flight time of missiles - So missiles still only go as far as they do now (with velocity changes included) For the launchers Increase ROF on the launchers - To get back DPS lost from reducing Alpha As it stand missiles on every level bleed too much damage against like sized targets that are moving. This applies to rockets against frigs, all the way up to Capital Launchers against Capitals. HM shows the largest "bleeding" of damage against like sized targets that are moving.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1037	Posted - 2015.01.08 18:38:15 - [2] - Quote Soraellion wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Since they have no way (outside of rigs) to increase explosion velocity or radius guns of equal sizes will always have a higher application rate. That isn't true at all. JUST because there's only 2 variables to affect it also means there's only 2 variables to counter with, it works both ways. Long range weapons will do zero damage to short orbit targets, missiles will still do damage. You simply can not pick out one variable or mechanic and decide missiles are crap or not. There's way too many different mechanics, pros, cons and whatnot going on for that to have any weight in a rational discussion. Here's a vid on that very subject I made earlier today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwkr5s8dVRE Except I can cherry pick that variable because at the present it is the only one that matters in the discussion about why Missiles are lackluster in comparison to Turrets. Webs impact both TP's impact both Both have Rigs Both have Weapon Upgrade options And then Turrets have TE's and TC's to boost their damage application, with Optimal Range or Tracking Speed. Missiles do not have this option, and only serves to further keep them in check against other weapon types. Hell Drones even get Omnis/
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1038	Posted - 2015.01.08 21:10:33 - [3] - Quote Soraellion wrote: Turrets also get TDed, countering TE/TC. Turrets can do 0 damage in many situations because they're very easily countered. Missiles always apply at least some damage. Turrets will have to swap ammo, losing time, when attacking targets at difference ranges. Most turrets use cap. In some cases missiles are worse, in others they are better. For every pro you list there's a con, for every con you list there's a pro. There's MANY ship and weapons types that you simply don't see in large fleet meta, I don't hear you say anything about those. Just because "the masses" in blob fleets don't use a specific weapon doesn't mean they're bad. Missiles work just fine in other forms of PVP just as other weapon systems might suck there. Missiles are non-effort, stupid-proof weapon systems that require no thought, no piloting, no real interaction, no cap, lack anti-missile specific EWAR, aren't damage type limited AND they work decently well. why should they on top of all those pros (which, are countered by a whole bunch of cons, paper dps being one of them) also content for top paper damage? Right but we aren't talking about a hierarchy of them. We are talking about why there is a huge difference between the damage application of missiles compared to other weapons. I saw your video and I thought it was good in explaining the fundamentals, but was very narrow in scope of comparison. First and foremost the lack of comparison with AB use. Nor did you mention the relevance in a PVP context. So here is an addendum I guess. Below is the fits I used and their stats. http://imgur.com/i1eyO2C HML Drake, HML Ferox, AB Caracal. Here is a dps chart without an AB http://i.imgur.com/lC226VU.png Here is a dps chart with an AB http://i.imgur.com/u9Ntkfg.png Here is a DPS chart Webbed and TPd http://i.imgur.com/F9Dd1A5.png Here is a DPS chart no Rigors/Flare no AB http://i.imgur.com/0XyQbxQ.png Here is DPS chart no Rigors/Flare with AB http://i.imgur.com/rYNfJSp.png So common theme Rail Ferox simply pounds the drake in terms of applied DPS against the same target under the same circumstance. From about 12K until 45K the drake can just not compete. Even after 65K where the drake no longer applies any damage the Rail Ferox is still capable of applying more of its DPS more of the time right out to nearly double where the drake stops. Giving it more overall damage application, by a long shot. The only range the drake is significantly better is inside 10K...unless the target is webbed. Your video really sells short the application differences. Heck the typical engagement zone is 10-40km which just so happens to have Ferox territory written all over it against our little caracal friend here. Missiles need less explosion radius and more explosion velocity. Less Alpha Damage, higher rate of fire to keep same DPS Less Flight Time, More Velocity (keep same range) The fact that you absolutely must fit rigors/flares to a drake in order to hit an AB Caracal for more than 200DPS I think really says it all.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1039	Posted - 2015.01.08 22:19:57 - [4] - Quote What do you mean you couldn't decipher my fits, it was the very first link I shared. Since I have no idea what fits you are using in your test I can only assume its the same from the video?. Either way. If you bothered at all to look at any of the links I posted you will see that in every circumstance the Rail Ferox has a wider range of damage application and applies a higher average than the drake. The only time a Drake applies more damage than the Ferox (at any range the drake can hit) is inside 10K. Which is only true if you assume no webs and/or painter. If you assume webs/painter than this falls to inside 5K. From 5K-80K the rail ferox applies more damage and more peak damage 100% of the time and never less damage than the Drake (unless we assume no cap in which case DPS is 0), and only needs 2 ammo types to switch between CN Antimatter, and CN Tungsten to do so. If you took time at all to look at my links you would see this. It is clearly imbalanced in terms of applied damage. Which is why you lower its top end damage (alpha on missiles) reduce its cycle time (ROF on Turrets), and reduce explosion velocity and radius. (Doing the Missile Velocity/Fuel Tank is not an impactor on this and merely serves to reduce missiles on grid resulting in less server load.) Again. The fact that you MUST fit Rigors and Flares to hit above 200DPS on an AB Caracal speaks for itself. Its the Explosion Velocity and Radius that absolutely need to be changed. Also I am not sure what your link is representative of.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1039	Posted - 2015.01.08 22:21:52 - [5] - Quote Soraellion wrote: Actually, I see why your graphs are all mistaken. You applied the drake's painter as a projected effect on the caracal (because if you didn't then you'd see a damage difference show up at 45km, TP optimal). Which then also affects the Ferox applied dps on the Caracal. Actually the painter is turned off as is the web in each case, except for the one I specifically linked in which they are stated as on. (which you can see listed under projected effects on the Caracal)
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1039	Posted - 2015.01.08 22:34:00 - [6] - Quote Soraellion wrote: Yes but if they're used as projected effect then the Ferox also benefits from it, messing up the graph. Still, given that you have a painter and web, why aren't you accounting for them in your graphs? That's like fitting a tracking computer and then not running it. Why would you not compare both ships under equal circumstances? Turrets benefit from TP and Webs too, so why would I only apply them to the drake. And they are accounted for in my graphs, I have one dedicated specifically to Webbed and Painted Caracal. I showed against a caracal with no AB Web Painter off a caracal with an AB Web Painter off a caracal Webbed and Painted Comparing the Ferox and Drake DPS in all three areas. Then I took the Rigors and Flares off, to show the DPS difference again between an AB and non AB caracal. Web and Painted was the same outcome Rigs or no Rigs. Are you just trolling here? Or trying to have a real discussion.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1039	Posted - 2015.01.08 22:48:09 - [7] - Quote Soraellion wrote: The Ferox doesn't have a TP fitted so no. If the web and painter are fitted (to get comparable EHP between the two ships) then you'll have to use them as well. If you choose to not apply them specifically to the drake alone then you need to remove them and add invuls or whatever, which would of course create a discrepancy. What you're doing right now is inherently skewed, not saying you're doing it on purpose but it's very much wrong. The effect of Webs and Painters are being applied to the Caracal through the projected effect function on the fitting window of the caracal. http://imgur.com/jXSCEe8
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1039	Posted - 2015.01.08 22:56:02 - [8] - Quote Soraellion wrote: Yes and because of that the Ferox is also benefitting from a painter, while not having one. Tbh, it's ridiculous you're even defending it. I also like how your web reaches out all the ay to max range, you're distorting facts. Right because there is no way at all to apply webs and tps to a ship that both a drake and ferox can be shooting at. **** lets assume the ferox and drake are attacking the same guy. If the Drake puts webs and painters on...the Ferox gets the advantage too! Oh we are engaging at 40K ok imagine a little merlin is tackling the Caracal using a TP and a Web. Got it? Fantastic. I am not distorting facts. My points are very clear. God damn.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1039	Posted - 2015.01.08 23:19:59 - [9] - Quote Soraellion wrote: If they apply to both you either fit them to both or you remove them from both. So on the Ferox that means less EHP or the loss of the TC or you start adding invuls to the Drake. Either way, we'll have a nice discussion on why it's ok for the Drake to have more EHP than the Ferox while you also think its weapons need to be buffed to be on par :) You have seriously got to be shitting me. I am comparing weapons damage application that is all. I could have literally left all other spots unfilled and just compared against effects that impact application. What is fitted on the ships other than damage application modules is ***** irrelevant. Where the Webs and TPs come from is ***** irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that Rails apply more damage on average from 5K-80K+. In regards to the Drake having more EHP than the Ferox. Of course it should, the Ferox has an engagement range of nearly double the Drake. (115Kish vs 65K). The only part of these fits that matters are the weapons, and the application mods. Everything else can be stripped out, and you will still get the same result. The only reason the drake has webs and painter in its mids is because I was to lazy to fit a fourth ship to apply them to the Caracal.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1039	Posted - 2015.01.08 23:35:14 - [10] - Quote Soraellion wrote: scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: Soraellion wrote: If they apply to both you either fit them to both or you remove them from both. So on the Ferox that means less EHP or the loss of the TC or you start adding invuls to the Drake. Either way, we'll have a nice discussion on why it's ok for the Drake to have more EHP than the Ferox while you also think its weapons need to be buffed to be on par :) Because long range fits typically rely on range as part of their tank? Maybe? Besides, if you're being shot with Heavies you really don't need a lot of tank. Nice distraction from an example that shows your were mistaken about application though. You realise that he's purposely messed up his "proof" right? The ferox applies more dps than it can do because it's being helped by a painter it doesn't have. Ok sorry. Lets ignore the TP and Webs then since no one has them fit anymore because we live in special vacuum land where only I exist against unfitted Caracals representing PVE targets in a one on one environment. So Rails are better from 10K-80K+, instead of 5K - 80K+ My bad guys sorry for misleading you all with 3rd party Webs and TPs, and making HMs look 5K worse than they actually are.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1039	Posted - 2015.01.08 23:53:02 - [11] - Quote scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: Soraellion wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Ok sorry. Lets ignore the TP and Webs then since no one has them fit anymore because we live in special vacuum land where only I exist against unfitted Caracals representing PVE targets in a one on one environment. So Rails are better from 10K-80K+, instead of 5K - 80K+ My bad guys sorry for misleading you all with 3rd party Webs and TPs, and making HMs look 5K worse than they actually are. So you don't only fabricate "proof" (and then defend it) but you also use hyperbole and just lies, showing bias. Kinda disqualifies one from any serious discussion, doesn't it. Pretty much done with that. Troll post is trollerific. Pretty much done with that. Good job on the charts Mario, someone here can put 2 and 2 together without screaming bloody murder about where the plus sign came from and it's unfair. Haha thanks. At least some folks are able to understand what I was trying to convey.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1039	Posted - 2015.01.09 00:54:35 - [12] - Quote Soraellion wrote: Yes, a biased graph. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1039	Posted - 2015.01.09 01:11:02 - [13] - Quote Actually here is my favorite one though, Drakes vs AB Caracal http://imgur.com/PG0ufzt RED Rapid Light fit Drake 6x RLML II with Caldari Navy Scourge 2x Missile Fuel Rig 1x Missile Velocity Rig Green HML fit Drake. 6x HML II Caldari Navy Scourge 2x Rigors 1x Flare RAPID LULZ Ya HMs don't need anything. Trolololo.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1047	Posted - 2015.01.09 17:15:39 - [14] - Quote Spugg Galdon wrote: People don't use Cerb's because Ishtar's are massively overpowered. A HML Cerb fleet would be like the days of olde HML Drake fleets. Only a lot better and faster. Seriously. HML Cerbs en masse would be devastating. They actually outperform Ishtars at ranges >100km and less than 60km when using Mjolnir missiles vs Bouncer II's. Even when the Bouncer II's are in their sweet spot they're only maginally better than the cerbs HM's. The main problem being that missiles have flight times. HM's could use a bit of a velocity buff and a flight time nerf to make them very useful at ranges >50km. I think the only reason people don't use Cerbs is because of drone assist. People don't use Cerbs because Heavy Missiles suck. Period. Its why people use Rail Tengu instead of HML Tengu its why people use Rail Eagle instead of Cerb its why people use Munnin, Zealot. Ishtar is strong. But you know what else beats an HML Cerb. Any ship with a drone damage bonus using 5 Hobgob 2's Vexor, VNI, Ishtar, Myrm, Stratios, Domi, and im sure I missed some. HML are underused because their damage application is just straight up inferior to every other weapons platform in the game.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1048	Posted - 2015.01.09 18:40:34 - [15] - Quote From CCP Basically graphing what weapons and ship types have been most responsible for all damage done in PVP over the past year. http://i.imgur.com/yfeQpc4.jpg Look at all those missile chuckers representing.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1050	Posted - 2015.01.09 19:20:12 - [16] - Quote Soraellion wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: From CCP Basically graphing what weapons and ship types have been most responsible for all damage done in PVP over the past year. http://i.imgur.com/yfeQpc4.jpg Look at all those missile chuckers representing. That graph is misleading. It specifies all the different missiles types but on the other hand piles all the other weapon systems in one group. OF COURSE that is going to show heavy missiles (or any other missile type) are under used. If they would break up "hybrids" into "light blasters, light rails, medium blaster, medium rails" etc etc then that would create a different picture. Or, conversely, pile all the missile types onto one and then see how that works out. Not saying it would suddenly sway it the other way but this is just a silly and misleading representation. Quote: [GÇô]CCP_QuantCCP[S] 6 points 2 hours ago I wondered the same, I grouped by the group name of the typeID and it seems this is how it is in the database. I thought about grouping them manually but CCP_Cognac said no :) blame him From Reddit. But we can work around that. Adding up all the missile damages based on the values of the color coding and lumping them together as Missile Damage shows 1) Drones 2) Hybrids 3) Projectile 4) Laser 5) Missiles. With the vast majority of all missile damage coming from a single source. SB Torps.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1050	Posted - 2015.01.09 19:24:21 - [17] - Quote Soraellion wrote: afkalt wrote: You realise it's split by ship, or are you telling me undersized guns is a thing? It's specifying missiles from rockets all the way to citadels. So while it's perhaps useful to figure how the different missiles types are represented it's misleading (to the average viewer anyway) in total representation. Well its a good thing people who aren't average, and know what they are talking about are capable of deciphering the graph and understand that on every single ship level Missiles are woefully underrepresented...and why are they under represented... Because they are ****. Lone exception of course being the SB.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1050	Posted - 2015.01.09 19:40:54 - [18] - Quote Soraellion wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: But we can work around that. Adding up all the missile damages based on the values of the color coding and lumping them together as Missile Damage shows 1) Drones 2) Hybrids 3) Projectile 4) Laser 5) Missiles. With the vast majority of all missile damage coming from a single source. SB Torps. About the only misleading thing is Drones, because nearly every hull cruiser and up has a drone bay. Sure, that makes sense but given the rather course legend and visualisation it's not really that easy. again, not saying that this would completely change the graph (it wouldn't, missiles are underused in lol blob fleets) but in and of itself it's misleading. Still, just because current blob inbred fleet meta doesn't use missiles doesn't mean they're inherently bad. Yes it does mean they are inherently bad if they weren't than the inbred blob fleets as you call them would be using them more. Like they did a few years back when HML were actually imbalanced vs the rest of the mid range weapons, and the drake was heavily superior in function and cost efficiency vs all other mid sized ships. The fact that there are no fleet doctrines based on, in this case heavy missiles, but missiles in general should sound very large alarms in your head. I mean all you have to do is look at the graphs I provided yesterday and this one, **** this one only reinforces what I said yesterday.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1050	Posted - 2015.01.09 20:04:56 - [19] - Quote Soraellion wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Yes it does mean they are inherently bad if they weren't than the inbred blob fleets as you call them would be using them more.. No, blob fleet doctrines are about counters. Just because something doesn't counter the current top dog doesn't mean it's bad, it's just not the most obvious counter at that moment. sigh I give up. Its like talking to a wall.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1050	Posted - 2015.01.09 20:07:18 - [20] - Quote double post.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1050	Posted - 2015.01.09 20:16:37 - [21] - Quote TheMercenaryKing wrote: I dislike the idea, more damage over time doesn't make sense or sit well with me. I think it would be greatly abused if it did. While it helps snipers, things like the barghest would be super powerful, it seems kiting tengus would be way more powerful than they are. Agreed the idea is not well thought out. Still doesn't change the fact Heavy Missiles are the worst possible mid sized weapon you can use at any range above 10K in pretty much any generatable conflict scenario.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1051	Posted - 2015.01.09 21:36:46 - [22] - Quote Soraellion wrote: Because it has too much range while not having range related performance gaps. This has already been demonstrated as false.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1051	Posted - 2015.01.09 22:24:54 - [23] - Quote Soraellion wrote: No it hasn't, there are no performance gaps based on range and as such it's versatile which is a plus, so it needs a con to make up for it. you want HML to do more dps or apply more damage? Then it needs to have its base range slashed, could be made up for by morphing precision missiles into range ones to help it achieve more range but base 60km without range performance issues is very good. Ok humor me what range performance gaps are you talking about.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1051	Posted - 2015.01.09 23:15:54 - [24] - Quote Just a troll at this point I think.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1051	Posted - 2015.01.09 23:54:01 - [25] - Quote You know looking at the long range end of things. I think all CCP should do is revert the explosion radius change they made (12% I think) That would give the drake about 20 more DPS which would bump its average into the middle of all those Turrets. Against a non AB Target it would gain about 30DPS but as we established a couple pages back with shorter range ammo (0-40K) Turrets dump all over the drake I say revert the Explosion Radius change is about all that needs to be done here.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1052	Posted - 2015.01.10 05:26:13 - [26] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: 12% lower explosion radius would give you what 97m? Somewhere around that ya. Should drop the "damage bleed" to around 30% or so. In line with other missiles, and more in line with other turrets but still about 30-35% behind peak damage. But since Turrets can be TEd that seems about right.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1053	Posted - 2015.01.10 06:40:07 - [27] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: 12% lower explosion radius would give you what 97m? Somewhere around that ya. Should drop the "damage bleed" to around 30% or so. In line with other missiles, and more in line with other turrets but still about 30-35% behind peak damage. But since Turrets can be TDd that seems about right. That's not unreasonable. As long as we're talking about size-appropriate targets naturally. Probably going to be a long post. Damage = D ( MIN A,B,1) A= Sr/Er B=(Ev/V Sr/Er)^(log(DRF) / log(5.5)) ) CN Heavy D 254 EV 121/5 ER 105 DRF 3.2 Caracal with AB SR 150, SPEED 785 Current. (SR.ER)150/105 = 1.42 (EV/V)121.5/785 =.15 (lDRF) .66 A) = 1.42 B) = .3603 D= 91.52 Proposed -12% ER SE/ER 150/92.4 = 1.62 EV/V 121.5/785 = .15 (lDRF)= .66 A) 1.62 B) = .393 D= 254.393 = 99.82 99.82/91.52 = 9% Without AB Caracal(V= 315) this would be: Old = 168.91 New = 184.40 184.4/168.91 = 9% So removing the 12% Explosion Radius increase change you bump up the applied damage of missiles by about 9%. This doesn't increase the peak damage of heavy missiles, but it does increase overall damage output...which we have established is lacking in all ranges above 5K against other LR turrets. Note this does not include Rigors or Flares and is damage applied before resists.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1054	Posted - 2015.01.10 15:37:40 - [28] - Quote scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: elitatwo wrote: Soraellion wrote: Because they aren't better, nor should be. Have you actually been paying attention? There's massive advantages to missiles that have to be balanced somehow. What? Edit: Mario, did those graphs get switched? It looks like the with/without AB is backwards. I could be wrong though Nope those Graphs are in the right order.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1054	Posted - 2015.01.10 15:58:52 - [29] - Quote Soraellion wrote: They're not willing to take EHP and other balancing factors into account simply because it doesn't support their cause. They don't want to talk about how turrets magically have to switch ammo for every target at a different distance (which takes 2/7 seconds, projectiles don't really benefit nor need it, it's why their dps is also a tad lower), they don't want to talk about how missiles don't use cap (nor projectiles, that's why their dps is also a bit lower), or how missiles can select damage types (just like projectiles, that's why their dps is also a bit lower) or massive fitting or... anything really. They just want to talk pure dps, they're not even willing to do a "trade" in a "well yeah, if you'd outright buff HML then you'd create a monster again so we'll try and make it balanced". NO, all they want is for a dumb, moronic proof, non cap using, easy to use, damage type selectable clown car weapon that has no real counter, 60km range that doesn't need to switch ammo to work across its whole range, to be JUST AS GOOD at applying damage as turrets, without ANY of the disadvantages. Because that's logical, balanced and not at all biased. Its not being talked about because it is irrelevant. I can fit all tank no gank whenever I want on any ship I can fit all gank no tank whenever I want on any ship I can have a friend apply Webs/Painters whenever I want with any ship. Since none of those things can be standardized, and are totally at the will of the user, it is irrelevant in a balance discussion about Heavy Missiles and Turrets. Period.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1054	Posted - 2015.01.10 16:01:05 - [30] - Quote scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: elitatwo wrote: Soraellion wrote: Because they aren't better, nor should be. Have you actually been paying attention? There's massive advantages to missiles that have to be balanced somehow. What? Edit: Mario, did those graphs get switched? It looks like the with/without AB is backwards. I could be wrong though Nope those Graphs are in the right order. My mistake, under the weather today and forgot how to Eve for a bit. Meh they just look funny because Long Range Ammo peaks so early in the non AB graph. It doesn't help when the HMs lose their 40+% damage when the AB turns on, then it really funks it up.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1055	Posted - 2015.01.10 17:20:10 - [31] - Quote Soraellion wrote: I see you conveniently decided to not address the rest. Because its not relevant? HMLs reload for Damage Type. Artys reload for Range and Damage Type Beams/Rails reload for Range. Balance! Want to see how unimportant that is. http://imgur.com/U3L9RNH Myrm No reload No ammo No cap use Here are the fits. http://imgur.com/rgW5PWF (Harby, Brutix, Ferox) http://imgur.com/dwI29JP (Cane, Drake, Myrm) All have over 50K EHP All have MWD All have cap stability All have long range Turret ships using IN Standard CN Thorium RF Sabbot Myrm Using Ogre 2 Myrm has best Tank Myrm has most DPS Myrm has least DPS lost to AB Myrm has longest Range. But lets keep talking about how OP the Drake would be adding what amounts to 30 Applied Damage by reverting the explosion velocity change on Heavy Missiles. Give me a break guy.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1055	Posted - 2015.01.10 17:50:40 - [32] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Will you be removing the Drake's non working web and painter, add more EHP instead and then tell us how much more EHP it has compared to the rest? Or is that "not relevant". If you want to be the size of a Capital ship sure. You can do that. Then we can have a thread about how OP Dreads are because they can alpha drakes the size of Carriers.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1055	Posted - 2015.01.10 18:20:06 - [33] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Yes well, you go through aaaalll the effort of making a whole number of fits to show us how bad the drake/missiles are, and then (weirdly) there's one ship fit that has some modules that aren't doing anything, nor aren't used for the whole comparison. And that just, magically, happens to be that Drake... with the missiles. Really. Yes I see your point. That doesn't make much sense if i was comparing the drake to other ships. But im not here to argue for the drake. So I don't really care about that. I am here to get balance for heavy missiles, which even people with a limited understanding know are not in line. Ship balance to me is secondary to having the weapons right. Drakes are not the only ship to use Heavy Missiles don't ya know. Which is why I have done comparisons with TPs with Webs, without them, with AB without AB, with only weapons, with weapons and application modules. What is fitted to those ships in the link above are largely irrelevant for what I am showing. If the drake poses to be out of line down the road (doubtful) then nerf it and not the missiles a dozen other ships use too. I mean I could have chosen a Cyclone, and ended up with the same result. FYI 75K EHP is what the drake should max out around. which is a lot, but irrelevant to missile/turret relations. In Regards to the drake itself I would probably have pulled a midslot in all honesty but thats just me maybe then the navy drake would have stood out more too.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1055	Posted - 2015.01.10 19:36:58 - [34] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: Yes well, you go through aaaalll the effort of making a whole number of fits to show us how bad the drake/missiles are, and then (weirdly) there's one ship fit that has some modules that aren't doing anything, nor aren't used for the whole comparison. And that just, magically, happens to be that Drake... with the missiles. Really. Yes I see your point. That doesn't make much sense if i was comparing the drake to other ships. But im not here to argue for the drake. So I don't really care about that. I am here to get balance for heavy missiles But you're making use of the ferox' trait; range, the Cane's dps, the brutix's dps etc etc. If you're going to use a ship that has a really big advantage over other ships, while not being missile related, then that's going to impact its missile performance and as such affect the comparison. First, I don't care about peak DPS, I am talking about amount of applied DPS. The only ship listed with a DPS application bonus is the Ferox, which is why I also included the Brutix. I don't care if any of the Turrets can do 1000 more DPS than Missiles, I do care that Missiles are losing over 40% of their applied damage, where all the turrets lose 25-30%. That is a big gap. And for the record. Every chart was done with CN Kinetic Missiles which activates the drakes 10%/level kinetic damage bonus. So I am not sure where you are finding a discrepancy with that either. The only outlier in the weapon comparison is the Ferox, which is why the Brutix was used as well.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1072	Posted - 2015.01.12 16:11:20 - [35] - Quote Spugg Galdon wrote: I've just been doing a hell of a lot of comparison of BC's fitted for long range and seeing how well they can apply their damage to an AB'ing armour tanked rupture. My conclusion in the end is that the only buff required for missiles is an optimal range buff for TP's to 60km. How would that suit you? Changing TPs won't change anything since they are essentially the same out to like 75K (i think 85-90% potency). HMs need help in the engagement range. Not at the end of the fringe of the engagement range. 10-45K Turrets crush Missiles in Applied DPS with or without an AB 5-50K if that same target is webbed or painted (with or without an AB) From 50-65K Missiles "win" if target has no AB, with AB all turrets win. 65K+ All Turrets "win" because missiles can't go that far (unless bonused for range ie. Cerberus) Average Damage bleed for Turrets.(assuming changing Ammo for ranges) Beams ~25% Rails ~30% Arties ~25% Missiles ~44% The only way to move missiles closer to being in line is by targeting a tweak to them directly. The Explosion Radius reduction would have that number go from ~44% to 35% change, this would put most turrets still 10% ahead of Missiles in terms of applied DPS over all ranges, except 0-10K and 50-65K where missiles should be the top dog in applied Damage (although not specifically the top in peak DPS). I noticed you mentioned Arties above, and having spent the last few days pouring over numbers and variables. I think Arties are good where they are VS other Turrets, they have a much higher Alpha strike. That being said Missiles do rub up on them somewhat in Alpha situations. Which I don't think is right. Id like to see the following change myself as well. Reduce base missile damage by 10% Increase ROF on launchers by 10%. Essentially with CN Scourge + T2 Launcher 155 > 139.5 12 > 10.8 155/12 = 12.91 DPS 139.5/10.8 = 12.91 DPS. Thus the peak DPS of HMs still does not change, but it also pushes Arties into a position of dominance as an Alpha strike platform, They would be about 15% more powerful than HM's and about 25% more powerful than Turrets while maintaining their damage application balance with other turrets, and still be about 10% better than HMs.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1072	Posted - 2015.01.12 16:47:21 - [36] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Changing TPs won't change anything since they are essentially the same out to like 75K (i think 85-90% potency). Just to be sure. Painters don't "kinda work" in falloff as turrets do, they either work or they don't and in falloff the chance to apply simply lowers. As such increasing their optimal is actually very useful. Yes I should have said potential not potency. my bad. And yes increasing their optimal would be useful, but not specifically for HMs, and as such it seems out of the scope of discussion on how to make HMs more attractive alternatives to Turrets as a mid sized weapon system.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1072	Posted - 2015.01.12 18:27:58 - [37] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Well yes and no. Turrets have lows, mids and rigs to affect damage application and while painters surely help it's not the "preferred" method. Missiles only have rigs and painters, so buffing painters to reach out enough to accommodate for missiles ranges at least gives missile ships choices and could create a meta in and of itself. Ya, just bring a Huggin guys missiles are all right. Its not a problem with the fact turrets have higher peak DPS to begin with, higher application to begin with, and more options to increase that application across ranges further than missiles can reach. "Just use TP guys" He said before remembering that with TPs the range missiles are actually the best decreases (inside 10K down to inside 5K) Please stop living in a vacuum this is not a solo game. I can have a frigate apply TP and webs while I sit at 60K, and still get the benefits from them. So TP is an irrelevant change in this regard as it still does not change the fact that missiles are significantly behind turrets in terms of applied damage. The difference between Turrets and Heavy Missiles applied damage is around 30% (~30% vs 44%). Using 1 TC vs 2x Rigor 1x Flare. Its not TPs, its not the ships, its not Turrets, its not Turret Application mods, its not the lack of application mods for missiles. Its heavy missiles. They don't even scale within the missile hierarchy Light Missile and Cruise Missiles all have superior application values compared to heavy missiles as well. -12% Explosion Radius puts missiles with Rigors down to ~35% which closes the application gap to 15%, about half of what it is now. Which increases HMs engagement range from 10K to about 20K on the front end, and from 50K down to 45K on the back end. Essentially how it looks now anything 0-10K HMs will be better than LR Turrets anything 10K-50K LR Turrets will be better than HMs anything 50-65K HMs will be better unless AB Cruiser and Below. anything 65K+ Turrets will be better. Essentially how it would look after application change. anything 0-20K HMs will be better than LR Turrets anything 20-45K LR Turrets will be better than HMs anything 45K - 65K HMs will be better, unless AB Cruiser and Below. anything 65K+ Turrets will be better.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1072	Posted - 2015.01.12 18:49:29 - [38] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: Quote: Its not a problem with the fact turrets have higher peak DPS to begin with, higher application to begin with, and more options to increase that application across ranges further than missiles can reach. there is a reason for that, missiles almost never fail to apply damage within their range, whereas turret damage can be fully mitigated. as long as missiles fail proof, they should just be flat out bad. Um what? Ive shown missiles fail to apply 30% more of their damage across their entire damage spectrum than turrets. Which is more than Turret based ships lose against a ship travelling with the worst possible trajectory for tracking. In regards to them not being mitigated. Firewalls exist in game solely for the purpose of mitigating missile damage. So you are mistaken about that.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1073	Posted - 2015.01.12 19:58:11 - [39] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Just a troll at this point I think. But what the hell. http://i.imgur.com/ht1PruT.png WITH AB http://i.imgur.com/8J45o92.png WITHOUT AB HML RED BEAMS GREEN RAILS BLUE (FEROX) RAILS TEAL (BRUTIX) ARTY YELLOW Drake is using 3x Fitting slots for damage application. Cane is using 3x Fitting slots for damage application. Others using 2x Fitting Slots for damage application. One of these things is not like the others. So HMLs outdamage all turrets at all ranges on a target without AB, but only outdamage all turrets out to 20km with AB? Those graphs are using long range ammo. As was being discussed at that point in time. In every other range Turrets are better, except inside 10K. (5K with Web or TP)
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1075	Posted - 2015.01.13 02:15:26 - [40] - Quote Drake will still be inferior to other BC in terms of Applied Damage and total DPS, just not as inferior. Tengu will still be better used with Rails, unless of course you have a situation where you use cap for tank (ie PVE, no change from today) LRT out range missiles without T2 Ammo, so it has nothing to do with T2 Ammo. Drop in base range would just ensure Turret dominance at all ranges above 10KM Change to precision ammo is not overly needed if CCP changes all HM's explosion Radius by 12% Formula for Missile Damage is fine, the only problem is HM's explosion radius is too big. Ship balance should never impact module balance. More than 2 Ships use HMs, again the Drake and Tengu have nothing to do with balance between HMs and Turrets. Drake and Tengu changes belong in another thread, start one and I will post my ideas to fix the drake there (T3s are all kinds of ****** though). Would be nice if any of you naysayers who can't seem to separate ship Balance from module balance could provide some math or graphs to support your position. I mean I took the effort to explain in detail where I believe the problem is and exactly what would be different with the changes.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1075	Posted - 2015.01.13 02:25:58 - [41] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Drake will still be inferior to other BC in terms of Applied Damage and total DPS, just not as inferior. Tengu will still be better used with Rails, unless of course you have a situation where you use cap for tank (ie PVE, no change from today) LRT out range missiles without T2 Ammo, so it has nothing to do with T2 Ammo. Drop in base range would just ensure Turret dominance at all ranges above 10KM Change to precision ammo is not overly needed if CCP changes all HM's explosion Radius by 12% Formula for Missile Damage is fine, the only problem is HM's explosion radius is too big. Ship balance should never impact module balance. More than 2 Ships use HMs, again the Drake and Tengu have nothing to do with balance between HMs and Turrets. Drake and Tengu changes belong in another thread, start one and I will post my ideas to fix the drake there (T3s are all kinds of ****** though). Would be nice if any of you naysayers who can't seem to separate ship Balance from module balance could provide some math or graphs to support your position. I mean I took the effort to explain in detail where I believe the problem is and exactly what would be different with the changes. Almost all HML ships are under performing with nothing to make up for it, apart from Drake and Tengu. If you increase application and base dps drake won't be inferior anymore dps wise (and more importantly, nor would other HML ships) but it would create a problem in regards to the Drake's dps vs ehp which would be out of whack. so in order to allow the Drake (and thus all other HML ships) to get better missiles you have to nerf Drake HP so it'll be balanced. Can't have one without the other. Right because a drake losing 35% of 300DPS is so much more OP than a Harby losing 25% of 400DPS. LOL. Come on guy.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1075	Posted - 2015.01.13 02:52:32 - [42] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: "if you nerf Drake HP a bit you can buff HML application and base dps", that's literally what I stated. If you want to discuss ship balance please open a thread on the balance between ships. In this thread we are discussing the relationship between Heavy Missiles and Turrets.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1080	Posted - 2015.01.13 21:17:18 - [43] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: p.s.: your obsession with fits is hilarious, especially so as tons of fits have been posted already but always changing the conditions to suit one's agenda. Also because making a fleet fit is so fcking easy it shouldn't even be questioned. Yes HML apply less dps because they're a non-effort, non-cap using, non-ewar countered, damage type selectable weapon system. Yes they should get a buff but no the Drake isn't allowed to gain from it, nor the Tengu. Certainly you aren't referring to the stuff I have linked, everything except the one link where I provided the ship fits was partial fittings only using LRT+ 1 TC or HML + 2 Rigor 1 Flare. Because I am comparing the weapons not the ships you see because limiting the ability of 10 ships being competitive because 2 might be OP (highly doubtful) after the change, is pants on head ********. Like I said if you want to discuss the balance of the drake and/or Tengu, I will gladly do so in another thread. In this thread we are talking about the very clear imbalance between LRTs and HMs. I will be reporting any further off topic posts about ship balance moving forward. This is a discussion about HMs compared to LRTs.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1082	Posted - 2015.01.14 00:51:33 - [44] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: Tusker Crazinski wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: Then we'll go back in circles about how missiles don't use cap, can select damage type, can't be countered by angular, don't require any manual input and are too easy to fit and because of all that shouldn't work even close to on par to turrets. perhaps that should be the thing the fix instead of tweaking damage output and application/projection values, just say'n. Well missiles would most likely be a mix of kinetic and explosive damage. If they were hypothetically to get damage locked completely then that would be the two I'd give them. Which gives you only drones and projectiles as the selectable damage weapons and missiles could be modified in other more useful ways. Don't even start with drones. Ive mostly ignored them for the sake of everyones sanity in this thread. Don't even check what a bonused drone boat can do with light drones compared to a HM ship. It will probably make you cry....it made me cry. Actually you cry now too. http://imgur.com/ia8gJdV Blue Heavy Red Medium Green Light and if you can see it down there in the bottom corner Teal HMs.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1083	Posted - 2015.01.14 01:52:27 - [45] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: Tusker Crazinski wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: Then we'll go back in circles about how missiles don't use cap, can select damage type, can't be countered by angular, don't require any manual input and are too easy to fit and because of all that shouldn't work even close to on par to turrets. perhaps that should be the thing the fix instead of tweaking damage output and application/projection values, just say'n. Well missiles would most likely be a mix of kinetic and explosive damage. If they were hypothetically to get damage locked completely then that would be the two I'd give them. Which gives you only drones and projectiles as the selectable damage weapons and missiles could be modified in other more useful ways. Don't even start with drones. Ive mostly ignored them for the sake of everyones sanity in this thread. Don't even check what a bonused drone boat can do with light drones compared to a HM ship. It will probably make you cry....it made me cry. Actually you cry now too. http://imgur.com/ia8gJdV Blue Heavy Red Medium Green Light and if you can see it down there in the bottom corner Teal HMs. Now it's obvious you're just grasping at straws. Under no logical circumstances would anyone think of sending mediums or heavies that far out, at all... ever. Also, since EFT can't emulate drone behaviour it'll just assume max damage so the whole drone graph is nonsense to begin with. Numbers is numbers man, sorry they don't agree with your but Missiles are OP! position, but thats the way things go. Also these drones ALL move faster than 2K m/s, and all have perfect tracking in their optimals. So vOv.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1084	Posted - 2015.01.14 02:06:26 - [46] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: No it's posted as a clear "woe is me, look at how bad missiles have it, LOOK AT IT!!!1!!1!oneoneleven". So we can just stop this whole **** thread because it leads to nothing, especially not because folks refuse to be realistic and just try to whine so loud hoping someone will fall for it. Speaking of whining. You start that Drake thread yet?
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1087	Posted - 2015.01.14 02:53:45 - [47] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: The more you try the itrollu.jpg the more obvious it becomes for everyone about how you're not to be taken serious in anything at all. So please, keep at it. And with that, I'll leave this thread alone because the only thing that happens here is circle jerking using flawed logic and (not so) hidden agendas. Good luck with that. Want to hear another funny one. A rail Falcon will out damage the new Rook inside of engagement range. HMs baby! But thats ok right, because the Rook has 4K more EHP than the Falcon. I mean it can do more DPS from 90-95K because the Falcon can't shoot that far so Balance right. Rook is losing its edge with the removal of 25% launcher ROF, and getting a 7.5% Damage Bonus to Kin (37.5%). Funny story about that is the rook actually loses damage. 193 DPS.75 = 144.75 144.751.375 = 199.03 (Kinetic only) But hey can't forget those drones right! 99DPS for 5 lights. 298 Paper DPS mmmm mmmm But unfortunately unlike our friend the Drake, Rook only gets 2 Rigs, for application modules. So you losing out on 10% more application. Which means you get to do a lovely DPS of 199*.52+99 = 202DPS sustained Kinetic Only out to 60K though, then it is a nice 103DPS out to 95K Our friend the 3 Turret Falcon and its 2 drones ~240 from 10K- 30K ~200 from 30K-60K ~120 from 60K-90K where it falls off to nothing. But hey, its cool Rook has more EHP and Range...unless there is something im forgetting. Oh right, the cloaking device that lets my falcon get right into CNAM Optimal 100% of the time. But im sure you have numbers to support your claims to.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1087	Posted - 2015.01.14 03:43:09 - [48] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: The more you try the itrollu.jpg the more obvious it becomes for everyone about how you're not to be taken serious in anything at all. So please, keep at it. And with that, I'll leave this thread alone because the only thing that happens here is circle jerking using flawed logic and (not so) hidden agendas. Good luck with that. Im sure you have numbers to support your claims tho. (Deleted a bunch of ** because honestly its not worth the effort seriously replying to you.) I think the problem with the rook is it still only gets good ECM use inside of 30km, which incidentally is where it would be better to use a falcon as well. eh they both can get out to 45K, so its not a biggy, neither is the damage difference to be terribly honest. I do like the Rapier though. 10% bonus to missile damage + Web Range + TP effect....finally a good ***** missile ship.

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.