Turrets of any size can hit any sized target for full damage.
- Missiles only really hit their own size or higher for full damage and even then the target needs to be slow and be big

Turret T2 weapon systems get additional damage bonuses.
- T2 Missiles get Rate of Fire Bonuses

Turret T2 ammo has attractive options with acceptable drawbacks
- T2 Missile ammo has some bad drawbacks

Missiles have a built in damage mitigation factor that turrets don't.


All that said, missiles are perfectly valid in PvP. Especially with support skills trained up.

In their current state, the consenses seems to be that turrets are the best 'Min/Max' option.

All races use guns, so the gunnery support skills carry over to other races well.

Caldari are the primary benifactors of missile support skills with a few notable exceptions in the Minnie Typhoon and all races stealth bombers.

TL;DR

Missiles are OK for PvP and you can use them.
Turrets remain 'better'

I'm at the very beginning, so the first SP I train are important.

Missiles are OK for PvP and you can use them.
Turrets remain 'better'

This is just not correct. Weapon travel time is more or less irrelevant unless we're talking about sniper ranges. You don't see a lot of missileboats around because there aren't that many missileboats in the game. The Drake, on the other hand, is the second most popular BC (second only to the Hurricane, and far moreso than the Myrm or Harb), the Raven one of the most popular BS...

Why is that?

Turrets of any size can hit any sized target for full damage.
- Missiles only really hit their own size or higher for full damage and even then the target needs to be slow and be big

This is wrong. Turrets have the same problem (IIRC, listed as Signature Resolution).

We'll assume that a target that is stationary within a turret's optimal range. This means a turret should have 100% chance to hit.
Turret damage then boils down to [signature resolution] / [target signature radius]. If the turret's res is larger than the sig radius of the target, the target takes less damage.

Swapping to missiles, same stationary target within the missile's range. This means the target can't outrun the explosion velocity of the missile. Missile damage then boils down to [explosion radius] / [target signature radius]. If the explosion radius is larger than the target's signature radius, then the ship takes less damage.

While I aggree with your statement: please point out where I used time to target as a valid critique of either weapon system.

Missiles have a built in damage mitigation factor that turrets don't.

What is this? Turrets have one too, it's just dependent on transversal velocity as modified by sig radius, as opposed to a flat reduction based on speed/size.

Missiles have a built in attribute called DRF which is used by the missile damage equation to adjust the damage down ( never up ).

If transversal is 0, the scan resolution of the turret as it compares to the target size is 0 too. This means that if the target is in optimal range, X will be less than .1

Is my understanding incorrect?

Find the equivilent of the Damage reduction factor on the Turret systems. The DRF is what limits the missiles to same class full damage.

Lord knows I'm wrong alot, but I was of the understanding that the turret damage modifiers were a result of the tracking equation.

And if the target had 0 transversal full damage would be applied because the targets sig radius only comes into play with the tracking formula for turrets.

ChanceToHit = 0.5 ^ ((((Transversal speed/(Range to target * Turret Tracking))*(Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius))^2) + ((max(0, Range To Target - Turret Optimal Range))/Turret Falloff)^2)

Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(MIN(sig/Er,1) , (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^(log(drf) / log(5.5)) )

Where
sig = ship's signature
vel = ship's velocity
Er = Explosion Radius of missile
Ev = Explosion Velocity of missile
drf = Damage Reduction Factor of missile

good points:

still looks like the 'any sized gun CAN hit any sized target for full damage ( actually potentially for a wrecking shot )' is valid.

and all missiles still have a built in factor that reduces their full damage against all targets, the DRF.

as to which is better in practice? I don't really care.

The Min/Max approach would lead you towards turrets.

The generalist approach leads to missiles.

As stated earlier, either works.

Something to consider:

There is nothing you can do to make your torps hit an AB frigate for full potential damage. You need help with multiple webs and target painters.

With a turret boat, you can pilot to reduce transversal.

Thx for your fast answer! What I'm concerned about is this: I'm at the very beginning, so the first SP I train are important. If I spent time on training missiles skills now will I have the chance to join a PvP corp with them? Or the use of turrets is mandatory?

Hi guys, new podguy here^^
I've started this game as Caldari cause I love the missile idea, but I heard ppl saying missiles are not good in PvP cause of delivery times aganist the turrets immediate damage. Is this a so important disvantage? Do I have to train turrets if I want to play PvP, that is what I'd to go in EVE? Thank you^^

As a 0.0 resident I can tell you that in practice Caldari ships and missiles are not used very often in fleet pvp. For pvp in general either Minmatar or Amarr are the way to go. My alliance currently makes, with the exception of the Vulture for fleet bonus, no use of Caldari ships in any fleet and the only caldari ship that you encounter in 0.0 fleets is the Drake.

This sounds bad to my hears cause 0.0 is where I'd like to go in future

As a 0.0 resident I can tell you that in practice Caldari ships and missiles are not used very often in fleet pvp.

Falcons, look em up if you dont know what they do

The Drake, on the other hand, is the second most popular BC (second only to the Hurricane, and far moreso than the Myrm or Harb)