Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Anton Chekhov
|
Posted - 2007.06.20 21:12:00 -
[1]
Hello all. I am currently sitting at around 2million SP's, with over 1 million of those concentrated in missiles. I have been using them primarily for PvE, and from the impressions ive been getting on these boards they are well suited for that. However, if i should choose to become involved in Alliance warfare/PvP in .0 are missiles a viable long term option? Being Caldari, with many of my ship bonuses concentrated around missile fire, I am wondering if i should reconsider the race i have chosen. Thanks.
|
Asestorian
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2007.06.20 21:27:00 -
[2]
I have to say that you should train what you want to train. If you like missiles, then I would say stick with them. They have their roles in PvP, though not in very long range combat.
On the other hand you may not really like missiles, or you just want to try out guns or a different race. Again, just do it. Personally I am a fan of the idea that you should try out everything before deciding on what to stick with. You may find you like Amarr or Minmatar ships, and their styles of play over Gallente or Caldari.
0.0 and alliance warfare does have a lot of fleet combat, where you may be better off in a small support ship rather than a battleship if you stick with missiles. However, a torp-Raven is a mean ship to have in a smaller gang.
---
---
|
Darth Ninjabadger
Caldari m3 Corp
|
Posted - 2007.06.20 21:41:00 -
[3]
Personally I really like missiles they suit my play style and with the ability to choose the path of least resistence on a tank eg Kinetic/Thermal/EM/Explosive etc you can make them really count.
The other advantage is that if a missile does 200 points of damage to armor the first time it will do it every time, forever, until you run out of missiles. Gunnery is skill intensive to get better results and therefore missiles will do you well early in your career.
|
Anton Chekhov
|
Posted - 2007.06.20 22:23:00 -
[4]
Thanks for the input. Anything else i should know?
|
Captain Schmungles
Caldari Freelancing Corp Confederation of Independent Corporations
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 01:58:00 -
[5]
The reason why you see so many people touting guns over missiles for PvP is that guns do instant damage and there is no way to shoot one's bullets down. Also, the race of your character does not determine the type of ships that you can fly. I flew Caldari missile boats for months, bought a Raven, absolutely hated it, and switched to Minmatar. If you want to become involved in fleet warfare in 0.0 then the whole missiles vs. guns debate sort of becomes moot, and the extra damage that missiles can do is always welcome in fleet warfare.
|
Anton Chekhov
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 02:17:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Captain Schmungles The reason why you see so many people touting guns over missiles for PvP is that guns do instant damage and there is no way to shoot one's bullets down. Also, the race of your character does not determine the type of ships that you can fly. I flew Caldari missile boats for months, bought a Raven, absolutely hated it, and switched to Minmatar. If you want to become involved in fleet warfare in 0.0 then the whole missiles vs. guns debate sort of becomes moot, and the extra damage that missiles can do is always welcome in fleet warfare.
I enjoy using missiles, i was just trying to get a feel for the "end game situation" that exists in most MMO's. Nothing is more frustrating than getting well established in a game and finding at the end-game you cant fill the role you chose due to imbalanced mechanics.
|
ataupe
Acme Technologies Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 04:14:00 -
[7]
Another point to remember is that the new bombs for 0.0 warfare (just introduced with yesterday's patch) require missile bombardment 5 as a prerequisite, so depending where your missile skill points are, you may be much better positioned to train up to fill that role for a 0.0 fleet than a gunnery expert.
|
Filthy Pierre
Gallente Laughing Fox Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 04:38:00 -
[8]
(Loved "The Cherry Orchard", btw!)
To OP -
There really is no end game in EVE. If CCP do it right, it'll go on forever with the tide of fortune rising and falling just like it does in RL and human history.
As regards weapons and races - one thing you might like to sample could be to train up in all races' cruisers (for those nice race-specific weapon bonuses they carry) and then try a little of this, a little of that and see what you really enjoy. Wouldn't take long to do and it's a lot of fun. I'm doing something like that at the moment and it's great.
Mind you, getting those dam' lasers on Amarr ships to work properly is tricky...but they look soooo cool!
FP
|
Acidictadpole
Caldari Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 10:00:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Captain Schmungles The reason why you see so many people touting guns over missiles for PvP is that guns do instant damage and there is no way to shoot one's bullets down. Also, the race of your character does not determine the type of ships that you can fly. I flew Caldari missile boats for months, bought a Raven, absolutely hated it, and switched to Minmatar. If you want to become involved in fleet warfare in 0.0 then the whole missiles vs. guns debate sort of becomes moot, and the extra damage that missiles can do is always welcome in fleet warfare.
I have to mildly disagree with the statements about how it becomes moot. Most of the time while piloting my raven in pvp I hardly get my cruise missiles to the target before it dies, i may have about 4 volleys in flight too. Thing is that usually you need to accept the fact that you wont be the side deciding range in a fight (there are time you will be, but I usually fit up for the harder situation) and while tracking becomes a little bit of an issue, if standing still a artillery/hybrid ship will do the same damage to someone close as they are far away ( minus falloff reduction etc etc ). While a missile ship will always do the same damage, if your target is 100km away your cruise missiles will take 25-30 seconds to reach the target, against another bs (for easish, let's compare to a tempest) they will have 6 x 300+ damage every 7ish seconds. that's 1800+ damage every 7 seconds, which allows ~7200 (took 28 seconds) damage from that ONE tempest before your first wave of missiles even hit. And from then on you're damage is about on par with the tempest. At that range you will most likely not get a single hit in if you go after primaries (like you should).
At lesser ranges it becomes less of an issue, but the problem is still there.
I think guns are the way to go in fleet warfare, missiles should be in pve and possibly against faster ships.. (a assault launcher caracal with precisions can melt any frigate.)
|
Anton Chekhov
|
Posted - 2007.06.23 05:48:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Acidictadpole
Originally by: Captain Schmungles The reason why you see so many people touting guns over missiles for PvP is that guns do instant damage and there is no way to shoot one's bullets down. Also, the race of your character does not determine the type of ships that you can fly. I flew Caldari missile boats for months, bought a Raven, absolutely hated it, and switched to Minmatar. If you want to become involved in fleet warfare in 0.0 then the whole missiles vs. guns debate sort of becomes moot, and the extra damage that missiles can do is always welcome in fleet warfare.
I have to mildly disagree with the statements about how it becomes moot. Most of the time while piloting my raven in pvp I hardly get my cruise missiles to the target before it dies, i may have about 4 volleys in flight too. Thing is that usually you need to accept the fact that you wont be the side deciding range in a fight (there are time you will be, but I usually fit up for the harder situation) and while tracking becomes a little bit of an issue, if standing still a artillery/hybrid ship will do the same damage to someone close as they are far away ( minus falloff reduction etc etc ). While a missile ship will always do the same damage, if your target is 100km away your cruise missiles will take 25-30 seconds to reach the target, against another bs (for easish, let's compare to a tempest) they will have 6 x 300+ damage every 7ish seconds. that's 1800+ damage every 7 seconds, which allows ~7200 (took 28 seconds) damage from that ONE tempest before your first wave of missiles even hit. And from then on you're damage is about on par with the tempest. At that range you will most likely not get a single hit in if you go after primaries (like you should).
At lesser ranges it becomes less of an issue, but the problem is still there.
I think guns are the way to go in fleet warfare, missiles should be in pve and possibly against faster ships.. (a assault launcher caracal with precisions can melt any frigate.)
Interesting points, but does the fact that missiles cannot miss influence dps significantly? Or do the numbers come out the same basically?
|
|
Hammer Judge
|
Posted - 2007.06.23 07:41:00 -
[11]
You can be a stealth bomber. Probably not too much extra training for you. -
Visit my newbie guide for experienced MMO gamers.
|
Captain Schmungles
Caldari Freelancing Corp Confederation of Independent Corporations
|
Posted - 2007.06.23 15:38:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Anton Chekhov Interesting points, but does the fact that missiles cannot miss influence dps significantly? Or do the numbers come out the same basically?
Well, when calculating dps you always assume perfect accuracy at maximum possible damage for the weapon system you're looking at. So, the numbers serve as a good theoretical model for how the different weapons systems compare to each other, but in reality you'll rarely (if ever) achieve the perfect scenario you use to calculate dps, because your real dps depends on far more variables than those that are included in the theoretical calculation. So, do guns have a higher dps than missiles? Theoretically yes, but in reality sometimes they do, and sometimes they do not.
|
Tunajuice
Convergent Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.06.23 15:48:00 -
[13]
If you want to serious PVP, train one of the three gun types.. all are insanely better than missiles.
|
Umamasyean
|
Posted - 2007.06.24 02:55:00 -
[14]
What about hitting structures? Does that make a difference? It seems like in "dogfights" guns have the advantage. Do missles serve a decent role in "sieges"?
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |