Originally by: Soporo

---

A comparison of the Field Command ships, all races:

Nighthawk/Cald CPU 555 Powergrid 710 <- wth?
Sleipner/Mims CPU 475 Powergrid 1460
Astarte/Gallente CPU 440 Powergrid 1550
Absolution/Amarr CPU 400 Powergrid 1575

Now compare the t2 Battlecruisers:

Drake/Caldari CPU 525 Powergrid 850 <- ...
Myrm/Gall CPU 400 Powergrid 1175
Hurricane/Mim CPU 400 Powergrid 1350
Harby/Amarr CPU 375 Powergrid 1500

---

Originally by: swisher

---

ps. i want mah torps to have splash damage again \o/ !

---

Quote:

---

if anyone brings out the old "missiles are completely different, they don't have tracking, if it's in range they hit" argument, bleh to you.

---

Originally by: Shate Def

---

u can now speedtank missiles (turrets for ages) without needing to reach ridiculous speeds. there has to be some counter to missiles in someway, and it's acutally ok now. u still hit but not for full dmg, exactly like other weapon systems to. stop whining about how it WAS.

---

Originally by: Neth'Rae

---

Military experts are calling this a troll.

---

Originally by: Furb Killer

---

Always handy to compare to the least PG intensive guns. Now compare it if that sleip fits arties.

---

Originally by: Schylok

---

Originally by: Furb Killer

---

Always handy to compare to the least PG intensive guns. Now compare it if that sleip fits arties.

---

Ok, let's do that...make sure to also use the least PG intensive launchers on the NH too...oh wait, it doesn't matter which you use, the NH is still screwed.

---

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

---

Originally by: Schylok

---

Originally by: Furb Killer

---

Always handy to compare to the least PG intensive guns. Now compare it if that sleip fits arties.

---

Ok, let's do that...make sure to also use the least PG intensive launchers on the NH too...oh wait, it doesn't matter which you use, the NH is still screwed.

---

assaults fit pretty well (assault missile launcher - smallest cruiser sized weapon using small missiles)

---

Originally by: swisher

---

this deals a base damage of 528 with hail m.

---

Originally by: echohead

---

If missile launchers were not that good then 80% of all mission runners wouldn't be grinding out missions in missile boats. The way I see it is that missiles are just easier to use, with lower damage. Whats wrong with that?

"if anyone brings out the old "missiles are completely different, they don't have tracking, if it's in range they hit" argument, bleh to you."

Thats not fair to exclude a perfectly viable argument. I use guns and my missile using corpmates do seem to have a way easier time hitting targets than I do.

---

Originally by: Cade Morrigan

---

Edited by: Cade Morrigan on 03/01/2009 18:30:35
@Deva Blackfire
Yeah but would you fit those lasers? Would a Nighthawk pilot fit AMLs? Is it reasonable to expect players to use those low end cruiser weapons on command ships?

---

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

---

Originally by: Cade Morrigan

---

Edited by: Cade Morrigan on 03/01/2009 18:30:35
@Deva Blackfire
Yeah but would you fit those lasers? Would a Nighthawk pilot fit AMLs? Is it reasonable to expect players to use those low end cruiser weapons on command ships?

---

Actually i was using em pre-t2 ammo. With scorch ammo there is no need to.

---

Originally by: Cade Morrigan

---

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

---

Originally by: Cade Morrigan

---

Edited by: Cade Morrigan on 03/01/2009 18:30:35
@Deva Blackfire
Yeah but would you fit those lasers? Would a Nighthawk pilot fit AMLs? Is it reasonable to expect players to use those low end cruiser weapons on command ships?

---

Actually i was using em pre-t2 ammo. With scorch ammo there is no need to.

---

On an Absolution?

---

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

---

Its not AML card. it is straight response to obvious lie. "Doesnt matter what launchers you fit Nh is screwed". And i shown that there are launchers that will fit and leave you witl lots of grid/cpu spare. And AML being useless? Thats different story (they are as useful as quad medium beam lasers for amarr - anyone knows this turret?)

---

Quote:

---

Just an example:

Drake
Without rigs sig. rad 520.22

With Rigs. sig. rad 586.23
Two above with maxed out skills.
With rigs with my own skills 642.79 sig. rad

Lows
X2 Shield Power relay II
X2 Ballistic Control System II

Meds
X3 Large Shield Extender II
X2 Shield reharger II
X1 Invulnerbility Field II
Highs
7X Heavy Missile LaunchersII

Rigs
1X Anti EM screen reinforcer II
2X Core defence Field PurgerII


And thats with the awsesome 306 dps wow caldari really are the best.... NOT

---

Originally by: Rothgar Detris

---

2.No t2 CDFP's- CDFP's also increase SigRadius. This is especially true for t2 variants. 3 x CDFP I actually has much less increase than your 2 x CDFP II's, not to mention sosting a WHOLE lot less.

---

Originally by: Adyriana

---

I may, or may not be right. But I think you forgot one thing, Rate of Fire.

---

Originally by: Typhado3

---

but they use no cap.

---

Originally by: swisher

---

DPS is dps, you are not right. and autocannons have insane fast rate of fire. missiles do not.

---

Originally by: Crackpipe2000

---

I know where you're coming from, brother. Bringing missiles down to not hit everything, anytime and everywhere, at full power, just like turrets, is so wrong. I mean, yeah i dont have tracking and i got range, but people beign able to evade my output is so ****ing wrong! I got used to have no problem at all and now they expect me to live on like this? Maybe ill cut myself and bleed to death.

Makes me cry while i stuff donuts in my mouth...

---

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

---

Originally by: Schylok

---

Originally by: Furb Killer

---

Always handy to compare to the least PG intensive guns. Now compare it if that sleip fits arties.

---

Ok, let's do that...make sure to also use the least PG intensive launchers on the NH too...oh wait, it doesn't matter which you use, the NH is still screwed.

---

assaults fit pretty well (assault missile launcher - smallest cruiser sized weapon using small missiles)

---

Originally by: swisher

---

originally going to be a reply to a "nighthawk sucks thread" made a new topic because it's more about missiles than the nighthawk.
here's my argument.
guns:
2 types, long range and short range
in each of those, you get 3 sizes.
so 6 possible fitting levels of guns for any gunboat.
missiles:
2 types. long and short range
in each of those, ccp laughs and says "here is a t2 version, get used to it"
so you are stuck with either short range + insane grid, or long range, moderatley insane grid, and crap damage.

let's take this time, old chap, to look at the slepnir's standard fit.
normally it's a rack of 220 II's (to fit x-large booster, mwd, and cap booster with room to spare) will take 38% of the powergrid and 19.4% of the cpu with all level 5s.
this deals a base damage of 528 with hail m.
the nighthawk with a full rack of heavy launcher II's and t2 kinetic ammo takes up 64% grid and 36% of the cpu.
notedly more percent than the slepnir and only 406 dps.
with a rack of ham launcher IIs it takes 77% powergrid and 32.4% of the cpu. and deals 476 kinetic dps.

if anyone brings out the old "missiles are completely different, they don't have tracking, if it's in range they hit" argument, bleh to you.
if anything is moving faster than our explosion velocity regardless of transversal, we don't hit for full damage.
if anything is smaller than our explosion radius, regardless of velocity, we don't hit for full damage.
this arguably equals range and tracking nerfs, therefore why do we also get dps nerf?

---

Originally by: Beverly Sparks

---

I do find it kind of silly that if you fly directly into a missile, that the damage is decreased. It should be increased if anything. Missile damage should not be based on absolute speed, it should be based on relative speed to the missile. So If the missile is moving towards you at 2250 m/s and you are moving away from the missile at 1125 m/s then you take 1/2 base damage. If you are stationary you take 1.0 times the damage. And if you are moving towards the missile at 2250m/s you take 1.5 times the base damage. Cap the top at 1.5 and the bottom, at 0.25. Sig radius calculations remains the same.

Something like that. This is only a philosophy. The balance would have to be worked out later.

I think something like this would add a whole new dimension to warfare, and certainly fits well with the Caldari long range sniperage strategies. There would obviously be lots of balance issues. I think it should sort of work that if you are orbiting, that you can speed tank their damage to a point (something like it is now, or maybe even a slight nerf to the missile damage), however to get into that range is going to hurt, and the faster you go, the more it is going to hurt. This allows the Caldari or missile ships generally to use the strategy of retrograding. (Offensive retreating)

Anyway, I would like to see more strategy put into this game, not less. Lets not normalize everything.

---

Originally by: swisher

---

2 types, long range and short range
in each of those, you get 3 sizes.
so 6 possible fitting levels of guns for any gunboat.

---

Originally by: Yakia TovilToba

---

Originally by: swisher

---

2 types, long range and short range
in each of those, you get 3 sizes.
so 6 possible fitting levels of guns for any gunboat.

---

You forgot that for turrets there are multiple types of ammuniton to scale range or damage. And additional to that there are low- and medslot modules for a further adjustment, making the choice of ranges very diverse, in contrast to missiles, where, apart from t2, you only have 1 range for all types of launchers and all missiles, and can't change this with low- or medslot modules.
Also you can increase tracking for turrets with modules, but you can't do that with explosion velocity for missiles.

---

Originally by: Rothgar Detris

---

Quote:

---

Just an example:

Drake
Without rigs sig. rad 520.22

With Rigs. sig. rad 586.23
Two above with maxed out skills.
With rigs with my own skills 642.79 sig. rad

Lows
X2 Shield Power relay II
X2 Ballistic Control System II

Meds
X3 Large Shield Extender II
X2 Shield reharger II
X1 Invulnerbility Field II
Highs
7X Heavy Missile LaunchersII

Rigs
1X Anti EM screen reinforcer II
2X Core defence Field PurgerII


And thats with the awsesome 306 dps wow caldari really are the best.... NOT

---

Bliss, there are three things wrong with this setup:

1.Too Many Shield Extenders- Shield extenders add a LOT to your SigRadius. You should try using only 2.

2.No t2 CDFP's- CDFP's also increase SigRadius. This is especially true for t2 variants. 3 x CDFP I actually has much less increase than your 2 x CDFP II's, not to mention sosting a WHOLE lot less.

3.Not Enough Resists- 1 Invuln Field II, even with the anti-EM rig, is definitely not enough shield defence against anything other than lvl 2 frigs (maybe). You want the highest possible resists, so your regen rate can handle the rest.

My setup (Drake, mission/ratting)

Highs:
7 x Heavy Missile Launcher II (Cal. Navy Scourge)

Mids:
2 x LSE II's
2 x Invul. Field II's
1 x Photon Scatter II
1 x PWNAGE Target Painter

Lows:
DCU II
2 x BCU II
PDS II

Sig Radius: 418m

I specifically aimed this more for DPS than total tank. The high resists (79/87/83/72) means I can concentrate on TPing and destoying targets, and not having to worry about my tank. This has a DPS of about 500, And I haven't maxed out my skills yet (Have 3 mid-lvl HM implants, mid lvl Shiels recharge and Cap rechage). Whole thing is cap stable at 60%.

---

Originally by: Smelts

---

Let's just say CCP brought missiles down to be equivalent to guns.
/*
*/
If it was balanced the single missile should do as much damage as the turret would do when firing on the target from its max range. Aka if missile takes 10 turret-refire cycles then the missile should do 10X the turret damage. That way it is balanced in the DPS. CCP forgot this.
/*
*/
Anyways.. bottom line is the missile's time-to-target coupled with their = to turret damage per shot fuks up their DPS and thus any hope of competing against turrets.

---

Originally by: Xori Ruscuv

---

Edited by: Xori Ruscuv on 05/01/2009 18:45:30
Missile whinge: an ode to suckage

c wut i did der?

Anyway, my alliance mates seem to use missiles just fine. Seems you're failing to figure something out.

---

Originally by: Noisrevbus

---

It's a shame to see this thread derailing.

I think the OP makes an interesting an honest initial point, arguing that instead of looking at the PG of the Nighthawk (and to some degree the Drake), you can look at the abscence of scaling among missile launchers.

Then i'm sure you can extend the discussion with the counter arguments that have been mentioned, such as differences among systems, launcher requirements vs. turrets, reversed logic of long range vs. shortrange and so on. That however do not deduct from the fact that the step from point B to C (with A being the most grid-hungry) is very steep for a missile user. It's so steep that we are discussing a completely different weapon type, used in completely different situations etc.

It comes to point somewhere when you want to fit a gang mod on your BC or CMD (whose primary role it is to fit them). On many ships you might be forced to make certain adjustments and priorities, but on the NH (and the Drake) you will need to swap it's entire orientation and design-ideal - where in many cases not even giving up slots for fitting mods will be a potential option.

So, the missile boats lack grid?

Or the missile launchers lack options?

You can virtually argue either, which is the OP's main point, and an interesting one to that.

Then i'm sure you can come up with counter-arguments and explanations to either example there, but i think you'd be more hard pressed to come up with a fair entirely encompassing argument to void both examples. Saying missiles and turrets are different is only valid as long as you tally the fitting options in as an aknowledged drawback of the system. Saying the ships shouldn't have more grid because they don't need it is only valid as long as you percieve them to adapt to the situation (rather than making a turn to a complete opposite, ie., fitting AML is not an adaption it's a complete change in concept).

---

Originally by: Bashiri

---

No this is just a group of carebears whinning. About how they cant rat fast enough.

Now I do agree with the NH powergride issue and that the drake has more, but guess what drake has no t2 verison it's the ferox remodel. Missiles got a nice buff. As you can see I'm caldari from the start and i cross train into other races.

Why not nerf t2 missiles if t2 ammo for guns was nerf 2 years ago? Now if your a pvper guess what nano was nerf and missiles went alittle faster. So now you can hit the little guys. Why complain about missiles now? Caldari was never about solo pvp read into the faction more.

P.S HAMS/torps = dps = change your fit = better way of using.Short range guns = damage = CLOSE RANGE = more damage.

---

Originally by: Smelts

---

Missiles now do about the same damage as guns do in a volley (aka 2 missiles vs 2 guns of same size), hence, the same DPS on paper. However, the time it takes for a missile to fly from max range to the target obliterates the DPS of the missile and makes the turret user vastly superior.

If it was balanced the single missile should do as much damage as the turret would do when firing on the target from its max range. Aka if missile takes 10 turret-refire cycles then the missile should do 10X the turret damage. That way it is balanced in the DPS. CCP forgot this.

---

Originally by: Gorefacer

---

Originally by: Smelts

---

Missiles now do about the same damage as guns do in a volley (aka 2 missiles vs 2 guns of same size), hence, the same DPS on paper. However, the time it takes for a missile to fly from max range to the target obliterates the DPS of the missile and makes the turret user vastly superior.

If it was balanced the single missile should do as much damage as the turret would do when firing on the target from its max range. Aka if missile takes 10 turret-refire cycles then the missile should do 10X the turret damage. That way it is balanced in the DPS. CCP forgot this.

---

First off volley damage equivalence is related to DPS figure comparisons but not the whole story. What your looking for is DPS not volley damage in your post.

Let's assume that equivalent sizes weapons between turrents and launchers have equal ROF and per weapon DPS. If both have 500 DPS on paper and you adjust missiles DPS upwards 10x because it takes missiles 10x turret refires to reach target at it's max range, that same missile system will then do 5000 DPS to close range targets without much downside versus it's counterpart. Even at the max range any target that is still around will take MASSIVE damage after the missiles start to hit.

You'd see capital ships and SOV objectives obliterated by relatively small gangs of missile using ships. It would lead to the most imbalanced change ever released in EVE to date.

The error in your assessment stems from confusing DPS delay with reduction. A missile doing 10x the damage of a bullet at max range per our theoretical scenario will match turret DPS only for the first missile volley hit. After that point each missile volley will hit along with each turret refire and yet do 10x the damage each time.

Also, while possible to smartbomb missiles in some circumstances, you very rarely see it happen. Missile HP boost and the addition of launcher grouping also helps this now. It's not really an issue in any of my experiences.

---

Originally by: Noisrevbus

---

So, the missile boats lack grid?

Or the missile launchers lack options?

---

Originally by: BiggestT

---

Originally by: Gorefacer

---

Originally by: Smelts

---

Missiles now do about the same damage as guns do in a volley (aka 2 missiles vs 2 guns of same size), hence, the same DPS on paper. However, the time it takes for a missile to fly from max range to the target obliterates the DPS of the missile and makes the turret user vastly superior.

If it was balanced the single missile should do as much damage as the turret would do when firing on the target from its max range. Aka if missile takes 10 turret-refire cycles then the missile should do 10X the turret damage. That way it is balanced in the DPS. CCP forgot this.

---

First off volley damage equivalence is related to DPS figure comparisons but not the whole story. What your looking for is DPS not volley damage in your post.

Let's assume that equivalent sizes weapons between turrents and launchers have equal ROF and per weapon DPS. If both have 500 DPS on paper and you adjust missiles DPS upwards 10x because it takes missiles 10x turret refires to reach target at it's max range, that same missile system will then do 5000 DPS to close range targets without much downside versus it's counterpart. Even at the max range any target that is still around will take MASSIVE damage after the missiles start to hit.

You'd see capital ships and SOV objectives obliterated by relatively small gangs of missile using ships. It would lead to the most imbalanced change ever released in EVE to date.

The error in your assessment stems from confusing DPS delay with reduction. A missile doing 10x the damage of a bullet at max range per our theoretical scenario will match turret DPS only for the first missile volley hit. After that point each missile volley will hit along with each turret refire and yet do 10x the damage each time.

Also, while possible to smartbomb missiles in some circumstances, you very rarely see it happen. Missile HP boost and the addition of launcher grouping also helps this now. It's not really an issue in any of my experiences.

---

Aye, what gore said. Hes a bit odd, and smells funny but overall hes accurate.

Note that missile volley damage is quite high, pretty close to arties iirc.

---

Originally by: Delichon

---

The question still stays - Why would you want Missiles and Turrets to have similar actual DPS?

---