Interesting idea but all it'll do is make kiting ships even better than they already are and simply because of that it's a bad idea. Also, you can't just implement a massive mechanic change like that to just HML, that would be highly arbitrary.

All that HML needs to do for more dps is to drop some range; Lose 20% range and get a 10-15% flat dps increase.

Find the fastest bare hull. Find the lowest sig bare hull.
Base stats on heavy missiles should deal 100% damage in both of these cases.

Currently it's possible to mitigate about 30% of their damage on a bare hull.

Heavy missile volley on an appropriately bonused ship goes over 2200 per volley. Increasing explosion velocity for a weapon that is essentially used when kiting (I.e. presenting a scenario where their damage is getting mitigated the most) would be the single most appropriate buff for the ship. Buffing navy missiles of each size catagory to 75% of the base speed of the aggregate average speed of the hull appropriate target is one potential way of rebalancing missiles to be better and more situationally appropriate.

In a little but I'll draw up a quick graph of damages and get back to this thread. I coukd be totally wrong but it is my gut feeling after spending basicly 3 years using missiles in various capacities.

Just as soon as my manual piloting can address the shortfalls of missiles you can compare them to turrets like that.

You're not really that intelligent, are you. Give me one good reason why missiles shouldn't need modules or rigs to apply their damage better, and by "good" I mean a logical one.


Also, it works both ways; no, you can't help your missiles with manual piloting but then neither can your target use manual piloting to avoid them. Have you thought about that one? I bet you haven't.

Still waiting on credible evidence that they are fine, perhaps a usable fit or some charts.

But I don't think so, in spite of the fact that almost the entire Eve community doesn't use them, they are virtually extinct in game you're pretty much sticking your fingers in your ears and saying they're fine because you say so and anyone who disagrees is bad.

So post some real usable fits and data. Until then, good day.

This debate is certainly interesting. I'm going to investigate it further. Obviously as you begin swapping defensive rigs out for application rigs you need to get further away and move faster. It still doesn't remove the facts of fighting in point range as being a really bad idea for any HML user particularly when the target can keep pace with you (pretty easy for every ship except amarr)

This debate is certainly interesting. I'm going to investigate it further. Obviously as you begin swapping defensive rigs out for application rigs you need to get further away and move faster. It still doesn't remove the facts of fighting in point range as being a really bad idea for any HML user particularly when the target can keep pace with you (pretty easy for every ship except amarr)

2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.

Indeed and this works well for PvE - tengus, ravens, golems etc.

It is a disaster in PvP at all typically workable ranges. Test it, you'll soon see that the damage is really, REALLY bad for the benefits conveyed versus the sacrifices made. The fits become hilarious squishy, pressed for fitting and all for less applied damage in any typical scenario than an average gunboat provides. Missile boats also can't dictate range for long, typically have minimal drones so clearing fast tackle is a nightmare. Sure, in a paper world they'll grief it to death eventually - in game, they just get caught and die in a fire. I've never heard a tackler in my life say they're scared of a HML boat, or will need backup quickly.

Unfortunately, people are still so mad about the old drake blobs you tend to attract weird stuff like "lol use a painter" or "lol webs" as if these have no impact on guns when actually they benefit both just fine. You also get other stuff like people caught in 2012 when drakes did have mad tanks, when in fact today the difference between a decent comparable fit drake and a ferox is ~1-2% EHP.

Anyway, if you do manage to find a good fit that isnt outclassed at every typical opportunity by either slapping RLML or a gunboat, please post it - it has literally eluded everyone else to date. This probably sounds a bit sarcastic, it isn't - I'd love to have a reason to fit HML again, other than for snowflake laughs to annoy my corpmates

Good luck in your fitting, I'll keep using guns and drones like everyone else is right now

-some nonsense-Again, for the zillionth time, I'm not saying that HML couldn't use a small dps boost, but it would have to come at the cost of losing some range. As they are their dps is inline with he ranges they can achieve.

For the sake of argument, repeat those "tests" but now with rigor/flare rigs.

So I've thought a lot about heavy missiles, currently they are really bad and Difficult to use, RLML or Light Missiles are often used instead of them because Heavy Missiles have incredibly bad application and very low DPS (Compared to other medium LR Turrets), Boosting the statistics of Heavy Missiles won't really do much good though because otherwise they threaten to step on Heavy Assault and Cruise Missiles (Esp because of the new RHML lauchers) and the more I thought about it the more I think that with the current set of parameters balancing Heavy Missiles and making them have actual good interesting game-play attached to them is incredibly difficult. When HMLs were everywhere, they were a very dumb low interaction module that had average DPS and good application with very good range, but since there is no tracking/cap use/different optimal/DPS ranges, they were basically 'Press Button' in terms of the thought of use associated with them. And I understand why CCP made them weaker.

I propose to add the following mechanic to Heavy Missiles;
Heavy Missiles gain %bonus damage+Application based on the time they have spent in the air, the longer the flight time, the more powerful Heavy Missiles become.

I think this would be interesting because it allows you to balance heavy missiles with heavy assault missiles better. (HMLs could have equal or even higher potential damage, although this damage would obviously not manifest in the range where HAMs operate, retaining HAMs as the go-to missile system for brawling, where as HMLs could do equilvilant LR Turret DPS at range, if the missiles spend sufficient time in the air, this would make missiles vs LR Turrets interesting too, HMLs don't sacrifice as much fittings/no cap use/tracking is of a 'lesser' concern, but Heavy Missiles are obviously a delayed weapon where as Turrets are instant, so it could create an interesting dynamic where HMLs have better fittings for damage, but suffer from delayed damage.

This also makes Heavy Missiles an interesting weapon to use, and to fight against, getting on top of a Heavy Missile user will reduce his DPS output, which creates interesting decision making in a fight vs a HML user, it could also be interesting for the HML user to swap to different targets based on their range so that he can do higher potential damage to them. There is also high risk for the highest damage, as shooting someone at the edge of your missile range risks your opponent moving away and evading all the damage all together.

This would also make Missile Flight Time Rigs interesting!

So did you feel they were worthwhile trades? Compared to say RLML* or a gunship? I never did.

I actually made a mistake before, there is one ship quite nifty with HML - Navy caracals. Rigor on that starts to be worth it, for me personally (rainbow damage plays a significant part in that as well though).


*Edit: If I'm not mistaken, RLML even do more sustained (i.e. DPS reduced even accounting for all reloads) to moving cruisers than HML, whilst still murdering frigates compared to a non-rigor caracal. They (RLML) don't need the rigor and in fact when compared to a triple application fit HML the difference is ~10%. So 10% more damage to cruisers at a massive tank hit and vastly inferior tackle clearing. Yuck. Range difference isn't really significant either, given how far the RLML go. Numbers may not be quite there, please double check - was in a hurry and not had enough coffee!


I suppose if you're shooting fury at a tackled battlecruiser/ship maybe - but at that point I really am clutching at straws.

A lot of problems for missile boats would just evaporate if they had something like Tracking Computers and Tracking enhancers.

Target painters work on the target but only up to a certain range while tracking comps not only potentially increase your optimal range but also work on all ranges, no matter how far your target is away.

Also, just so I understand this right, because usually I don't fly gun boats, how many rig slots does the avaerage Cruiser or BC gunboat have to dedicate for gun rigs to apply viable damage in PVP?

Well graphed in pyfa the caracal from the earlier example shooting the slasher jumps from 22.5dps to 30.4.

This is with 2 flares and 1 rigor, no drugs or TPs factored. So not even 30% more dps for what is 45% better application through modifiers.

Shooting the stabber base dps 69, plus 2x flare 1 rigor it jumps to 92.2. 33% more dps applied. Again this is 45% more application resulting in 33% more dps. Adding in 2x painters and strong crash you hit 175.5 dps or 38% damage mitigated through the stabber having a 10mn AB II. By comparison the caracal has 718m/s with an AB so you'd want a fairly healthy head start (and probably HG snakes) to keep ahead.

There's lots and lots of variables but the guarantees work out generally to that missiles will apply greatly reduced dps to any target moving over 12% faster than your missile explosion velocity. For reference of the curious, after this break point your dps applied drops faster and faster until it bottoms out at nearly nothing. I think stoicfaux generated a 3d graph of this for the inital RLML remake which showed how missiles function across a broad spectrum of sig and velocities. I might go dig those up.

A lot of problems for missile boats would just evaporate if they had something like Tracking Computers and Tracking enhancers.

Target painters work on the target but only up to a certain range while tracking comps not only potentially increase your optimal range but also work on all ranges, no matter how far your target is away.

Also, just so I understand this right, because usually I don't fly gun boats, how many rig slots does the avaerage Cruiser or BC gunboat have to dedicate for gun rigs to apply viable damage in PVP?

Well one thing I've found so far is it's arguably better to ise RLML on any ship with a damage bonus to them and fit hydraulic thruster rigs to extend the range than use HML on the same vessel.

OTOH RLML don't hold a candle to the volley damage or uptime from an HML ship so there are some fringe scenarios where you might still select HML and I suspect that would be based around your fleet comp or possibly the orthrus. I'm finding it hard to even give HML a role here. Kind of like HACs where the ishtar (rlml) just does everything better.

Exactly. There are definitely some edge cases where theorycraft puts HML as the weapon of choice, in reality those situations are either so unlikey, so rare or it will be so fleeting that actually using them is a mistake. There are odd exceptions but that is my general experience, things like the orthrus cope better because the combination of speed and tackle range buys it more time/room to maneover.

They don't need much help, but they need help. The performance is too poor shooting same sized targets to warrant their use for me personally. Even if RLML didn't exist, I'd still use a different weapon if I had any say in it, they just can't keep up with other medium guns (or sentries at HAC level) at any reasonable engagement.

Well, it's rapid light, only cruisers can really use them well. Gruistas aside. Unbonsued rlml wouldnt see the light of day.

Even if you did though, I wouldnt expect to see HML profilerate into that gap because they dont fill it. They are just sub-standard, I'd usually say this is just my opinion but I cant even remember the last time I was hit by one, or saw one on (either side of) a killmail without trawling zkillboard, so my local area basically. Anyway, point being I don't think it's just me being a special snowflake. Heck if they were worth a damn, they'd be good at killing ishtars because you can [on paper] outrange the main sentry damage - except no-one does it because it's not viable.

I'd like to test them with the application nerf rolled back (but not the damage one).

Can anyone remember what the old stats used to be? I'm gonna do some forum searching for the dev post that did all this.

The four most heavily used medium weapons in the game are all Heavy Missile launcher variants, as well as seven of the top eleven. Whenever we need to change something this powerful it will always be painful because so many players will have done the smart thing and flocked to the best game mechanic. If it feels like CCP nerfs you a lot that's just a sign that you're doing it right and getting good at staying on top of the best trends so pat yourself on the back.

This is before my time. But I believe that missiles actually used to use this mechanic as a way for frigates to "get under the guns". Then CCP switched to the current formula as a way of distinguishing missiles from turrets. If you check missile stats, they still have an agility stat.

TBH, heavies have sucked since the medium weapon rebalance of 2013. They were far far over-nerfed instead of fixing the ships that were abusing them. Now compared to medium long range turrets, they are absolutely worthless.

Don't get me wrong. Rails are actually viable now. But there really was no reason to nerf heavies so much. I think they just need some damage restored to put them back into a viable place.

Stuff comparing turrets and missiles namely the use of tracking computers/enhancers

Caracal cant lock passed 72km, maximising tank is going to be tough with 3 mids down for prop/TP/SeBo and 2 rigs down for what....a couple of hundred dps if you're lucky since the painter is in falloff too :) ?


It's not the ishtar - there is a reason slippery petes do not use missiles.

CCP should give up on it's failed Missile Damage Formula and go back to square 1.


This would be a massive undertaking, but one that's certainly within CCP's powers.

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

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

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/

So for being able to do damage at targets <5kms let's say...it's worth the trade of doing (markedly) less damage from 10km>max range?

I checked out the beam OmenNI vs the (scourge) HML OspreyNI* and the beam omen is far and away the superior platform - even putting rigor IIx2 and rigor I on the HML ship. Even against frigates. Against HACs its a disaster for HML because of sig reduction and against cruisers it's far better at almost every turn.


*Chosen because both ships have a range bonus and a damage bonus. Two damage mods and application rigs where used on both.

Yeah, your strawman lol Nosprey isn't obvious, at all. Also sig reduction on MWD doesn't affect turret dps of course, right. You're talking about a weapon system that does damage out to 60km base, show me a turret weapon system that works all the way from 0 to 60km without performance gaps.

Because the navy caracal has inbuilt application bonuses and lacks the range. I was looking for a level playing field.

So then, if heavy missiles don't suck, why are my beams crapping all over them? You've certain backtracked fast to 'well the hull must be bad'. Navy Ospreys are great little ships, just like the navy exequror, little used.

The system needs help next to its peers, it has done since they were buffed.

I've STILL not seen a decent fit from the people claiming they are so awesome that is actually workable or desirable in any realistic common scenario. All I hear is THEY ALWAYS HIT!!! 100% of crap all remains crap all.

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.

Edit
Playing with it even more using Caldari Navy Thorium beats the drake at every range above 15K, and thats not even as far as we can go! Tungsten is better than HMs from 25K out to 95K 30KM further than the drake can even engage!

Edit 2
If you add the Caracal into that graph the Drake does 38 more damage against a moving AB Caracal than a Caracal with Rigors/Flare. and the Caracal can only fire 30KM further than the Drake. Its like a 40% reduction in missile damage just by using an AB. Meanwhile the Ferox loses about 30% of potential damage, but still has 25% more DPS than the Drake does on average.

And that is just by using an AB.

Its really not even close, Heavy Missiles need a rework, all missiles do really.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

Damn! You're right! You're so right! In a solo game like Eve, where in the universe would a pilot get the effects of a Target Painter they don't have fitted? Oh, woe is me for choosing the wrong side! /sarcasm
When an equally bonused, slotted and fitted comparison wasn't enough for you, because reasons(?), another example was provided. To which the only fault you have managed to cling to is that the Ferox might have someone providing a Target Painter. Maybe even the Drake, in which case this comparison shows that you would be better off with 2 Feroxs as opposed to a Drake/Ferox combo or 2 Drakes.
Try again.

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.

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.

Yes, a biased graph.

Not going to make a long quote that has to be scrolled past....
Caleb, you obviously put a lot of thought into that idea but I'm not sure how your version of missiles would be much different than the current artillery. My understanding is that you were referring to the MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) and how it fires all at once which, IIRC, is not entirely correct. I believe the MLR systems are selectable, one can be launched or all can be launched, or somewhere in between. I do like the idea of having launchers that fire double, like dual AC's, but having launchers just fire everything and go into reload seems like a poor change to make unless you want to see gank Corax's replace gank Catalysts.

Actually... I'm not sure they would replace artillery gank fits entirely, a well-timed smartbomb would clear a lot of damage off the field since the missiles would still have their ridiculous flight times.

If he is correct, it shouldn't be hard to produce decent charts with proofs.

Trouble here is, doing so /correctly/ reveals the glaring holes in heavy missiles.

For instance no one has contested that they do damage at 0m and you can get under guns HOWEVER the point is that advantage is not worth the loss of effectiveness from 10-max range.

Attempting to argue they are 'fine' whilst being sub par in all common engagement types and ranges is hard to believe.

That is but one example.

Also - for really chuckles, add skirmish links to the mix and...wow.

If he is correct, it shouldn't be hard to produce decent charts with proofs.

Trouble here is, doing so /correctly/ reveals the glaring holes in heavy missiles.

For instance no one has contested that they do damage at 0m and you can get under guns HOWEVER the point is that advantage is not worth the loss of effectiveness from 10-max range.

Attempting to argue they are 'fine' whilst being sub par in all common engagement types and ranges is hard to believe.

That is but one example.

Also - for really chuckles, add skirmish links to the mix and...wow.

Hence why I said 4 pages ago that HML need to stop being treated as a viable solo weapon. They're "not bad" when used to pound the **** out of stuff that's already hard tackled. Functionally you could have a couple of brawlers (or just arazu/rapier combo) disabling the enemy and keeping your dps safe while they work from 50km off and apply very easy dps.

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.

CCP literally teases us with better missile use thanks to the new Mordus line of ships. For a long time I wondered if the reason they gave those ships a missile velocity bonus was to test the waters for a general buff across the board.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

Agreed but I think that's fairly unlikely given the resist nerf, HP nerf and the loss of a launcher. They don't need more range either (IMO). I genuinely don't see it being a danger of a return to 2011

And if I'm wrong my preference is to fix missiles and nerfbat the drake - too many hulls have been left outside in the cold because of it (well today it's because of fear of its legacy).

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.

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.

Because it has too much range while not having range related performance gaps.

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.

Isnt that the line that's over the missile line from 10-lock range?

Yup, sure sucks.

You know you can change ammo, right? That ships dont teleport from 70km to 30km? That the shooter can move?

Just a troll at this point I think.

Agreed. Although, we could just be biased...

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.

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.

I see you've STILL not posted these mythical awesome fits that are better than guns.

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

See, their argument/troll goes like this: Heavies are fine because they're better than turrets, which we would see if all the dps graphs weren't biased, and since they're better they have to be balanced by being ******. But they're still better because, as a long range platform, they might get more EHP (despite using all rigs for application, and lows for damage) and you can get under guns but not missiles so missiles are better because they apply more dps <10km than turrets do with max transversal. Also, no missile platforms have ever been locked into damage type at all.
Makes sense right?

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.

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.

My mistake, under the weather today and forgot how to Eve for a bit.

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.

I see you conveniently decided to not address the rest.

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".

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.

I'm confused as to what this DPS drop is when shooting HM's at BC's. Even with AB's on I'm only getting a very small drop in DPS and that's beyond the single TP's range of 45km which is fitted to the Drake already!

I've been making some graphs of my own. My HML Fleet Drake fits do comparably well vs everything else (except a Myrm because of Sentries). The Arty Hurricane and HML Cyclone are really pathetic compared to the rest of the pack though.

You'd expect that, it's a size class up (cruiser weapon system). Arguably one should be shooting fury at BC.

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?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Now you have a weapon system that lacks moronic range while still retaining it's MASSIVE upsides and now applies decent damage, which can be increased further by a painter with increased performance in both application (explosion velocity is now less of an issue) and range.


It's inherently dangerous to up HML paper dps and then balance/nerf it with application, because fleets can easily overcome that issue with a ton of painters, so instead you don't touch the max_dps but instead buff its application and effectiveness of painters.

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.

I have had enough of reading your incompetent blather. Target Painters are stacking penalized. 1000 of them is no more effective than 500, or 100, or 20, all the way down to about 5. They also have perfectly fine optimal. They don't need a boost in range.

If HML range is moronic, then what do you consider 250mm Spike range, which is about 50% greater than that?

Missiles do not have damage application modules, unlike turrets. Only dps modules, which are themselves subject to the damage application formula. This puts them at a disadvantage. Some dps at long range is better than no dps.

Turrets benefit from TP and webs just as much as missiles. The dps graph in EFT shows turrets and sentry drone dps as an average applied dps based on an RNG that considers range and transversal, whereas missiles have a linear graph that represents only applied dps. So increasing optimal and thus range on turrets increases average dps up until the target is inside optimal range. Increasing tracking speed increases average dps so long as the target already has some sort of transversal to the firing ship. Any semi-skilled pilot know to keep up his transversal vs a turret or sentry drone ship.

Missiles do always apply dps. But that dps is often so low as to be effectively zero. In addition, missile dps is capped at 100% of maximum paper dps. Turrets are not hard-capped in this way. They can hit for more than paper volley damage based on the above mentioned hit quality formula. Turret Damage linkage.

Long Range medium turrets often have significantly better maximum range than heavy missiles on a comparable hull. In addition, turret range is never reduced based on whether or not you are chasing or being chased by a target. Missile range is.

Turrets can apply maximum theoretical dps simply by dictating range and transversal (piloting skill). Missiles cannot. They require additional EWAR and/or rigs to achieve maximum paper dps, which is on average lower than that of turrets. This is a huge advantage for turrets.

By the same token, turrets can also be placed into bad situations compared to missiles. But unlike missiles, they have means to compensate via piloting, whereas again the missile ship has to use modules or rigs. Whether or not these modules (webs/painters) are on the firing ship is irrelevant. They will benefit from it. So will turrets.

Turrets can swap ammo to whichever range-category works best. Heavy missile ammo is limited to crappy T1, slightly better faction (longest range), utter shite Fury, and still shite Precision. Proof below.

Evidence:
Both the Ferox and the Drake get a bonus from Caldari BC. But different bonuses. So I went into EFT and set all 5s modified with Caldari BC at 0. So no bonuses to range or dps other than the 3x damage modules in the lows.

Ferox using Spike gets 313 dps at 65+15km. Drake using Caldari Navy Scourge gets 256dps at 62.9km. Advantage Ferox in both categories.

At this point I have to point out the the Drake's damage bonus (not currently being used) is only to kinetic Heavies and HAMs. So even with the bonus, it is limited to only one kind of ammo. In 3/4s of situations, it will be gimped due to shooting right into the most heavily resisted damage type in the game. So unless you're shooting at Minmatar T2 ships or have Caldari BC 5, anything else will usually be better.

Now lets look at a more realistic combat situation. That rabbit Caracal? It will be spiraling out as fast as it can because it doesn't want to get close to a CBC. So a more appropriate situation would be MWD overheated and on, with a 45 degree outward spiral from the shooter. This reduces the Drake's effective HM range to 43km, and gets it out of range of the Ferox while maintaining significant transversal.

The result is that the Ferox will do more dps than the Drake at all ranges >30km using Spike, and it will continue to do so all the way out to its locking range.

If the Caracal were to fly straight away from them, it would receive 306 dps from the Ferox and reduce the Drake range to about 37km.

At <30km the Ferox can swap to CN Antimatter and do a ****-tonne more damage (468dps at 19km), completely obliterating the Caracal. And probably the Drake for that matter.

But hey! Remember my comments about heavy missile ammos above? Lets swap to Scourge Fury Heavies on the Drake. Oh, boy. I went fropm 369 to 433 paper dps in exchange for a loss of 15km in range and much poorer application stats. Now looking at the graph, the Drake's applied dps went from 153dps to 83dps. That's right, a reduction of 46% of applied dps to an MWDing shield cruiser. WTF, CCP?!

For ***** and giggles, I checked with Precision ammo. 169dps out to 31.4km. So the Drake does more dps to an MWDing Caracal using Precision ammo than Fury or faction.

So, no, Heavy Missiles are not well balanced. They are completely pants-on-head-********. I'm ok with Fury heavies having poorer application stats. But they need to actually do something. Not reduce damage to a bloated target like an MWDing cruiser. Faction heavies need to apply more dps than frickin Precision heavies to a like-sized MWDing target.

Hilarious pompous drivel.

- yes, "a ton" should be read literally as "1000".

- 250mm with spike can't hit for ****, using That beloved "10mn AB Caracal" setup A ferox hits for less that 100 dps at max transversal, dropping like a stone when you start to close in a bit.

- rigs, you just don't want to fit them. Not much difference between losing extender rigs compared to an invul or two.

- bringing sentries into this conversation is almost a straw man

- yes, wrecking shots are really important and also relevant

-anyone who starts to mention spike as a "look!" clearly never used it

Spike ammo is fine. Just because it might have an out of line and unreasonably application does not that mean it's not balanced. If a target were webbed, or painted, Spike would do more damage, plus there's application rigs; since it's better in certain situations, so that balances it out. /sarcasm

Do you actually write this muck or do you just have a lot of luck with smashing your face on the keyboard? Or where you perhaps intentionally mimicking the "pro OP" arguments?