These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Kronos] Mordu's Legion

First post First post First post
Author
Erufen Rito
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#1201 - 2014-05-26 21:15:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Erufen Rito
Well, after going and thinking a bit, I realized that these kiting ships have a bit of a disadvantage, at least on paper.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SAq4hTSlkqizmUCR8HuhwLYIUsSpm9voQSPzkb3fKho/edit

Forgive me if the actual numbers on the modules are not correct. By that, I mean I used the info available on the wiki, and as we all know, it could be dated. HOWEVER the formulas (therefore the results) are correct. If any number needs updating, feel free to do so (I think I made it public and editable to all) *it'd be great if you didn't mess it up though, I did spend a bit of time in making this*
Keep in mind, I left out Officer Launchers because they are hardly relevant, and they just further skew the math. NOTHING is being considered on this, except Skills relating to flight time, cycle time, and flight speed. No DAMAGE related skills and/or modules are being considered.

the TL;DR: I belive that, because of the faster travel speed but halved travel time (equal range), you will apply LESS DPS than a normal ship without this bonus. Specially the BS. The bonuses on the ship make it so less ammo is in space due flight time and module cycle differences.

EDIT: I am currently editing formatting and implementing a fix to the situation. I am aware that anything below rockets does not have the correct velocity bouns applied to it. I will update once i'm done. (cant be too hard....)
Table should be up to date, with no further formula errors.

I also implemented what I think could fix this, a 50% ROF increase. You can see the before and after. Of course, this is on a max range scenario.

This is as nice as I get. Best quote ever https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4137165#post4137165

Sheimi Madaveda
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1202 - 2014-05-26 21:40:40 UTC
Erufen Rito wrote:
Well, after going and thinking a bit, I realized that these kiting ships have a bit of a disadvantage, at least on paper.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SAq4hTSlkqizmUCR8HuhwLYIUsSpm9voQSPzkb3fKho/edit

Forgive me if the actual numbers on the modules are not correct. By that, I mean I used the info available on the wiki, and as we all know, it could be dated. HOWEVER the formulas (therefore the results) are correct. If any number needs updating, feel free to do so (I think I made it public and editable to all) *it'd be great if you didn't mess it up though, I did spend a bit of time in making this*
Keep in mind, I left out Officer Launchers because they are hardly relevant, and they just further skew the math. NOTHING is being considered on this, except Skills relating to flight time, cycle time, and flight speed. No DAMAGE related skills and/or modules are being considered.

the TL;DR: I belive that, because of the faster travel speed but halved travel time (equal range), you will apply LESS DPS than a normal ship without this bonus. Specially the BS. The bonuses on the ship make it so less ammo is in space due flight time and module cycle differences.


The speed bonus is 200%, and your spreadsheet has only 100% (or double speed).

Arma Purgatorium - Once for the State, Now for the King Low Sec, PvP, Industrial - Open for Recruiting http://armapurgatorium.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/arpur_recruit1.png 

Erufen Rito
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#1203 - 2014-05-26 21:55:04 UTC
Sheimi Madaveda wrote:
Erufen Rito wrote:
Well, after going and thinking a bit, I realized that these kiting ships have a bit of a disadvantage, at least on paper.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SAq4hTSlkqizmUCR8HuhwLYIUsSpm9voQSPzkb3fKho/edit

Forgive me if the actual numbers on the modules are not correct. By that, I mean I used the info available on the wiki, and as we all know, it could be dated. HOWEVER the formulas (therefore the results) are correct. If any number needs updating, feel free to do so (I think I made it public and editable to all) *it'd be great if you didn't mess it up though, I did spend a bit of time in making this*
Keep in mind, I left out Officer Launchers because they are hardly relevant, and they just further skew the math. NOTHING is being considered on this, except Skills relating to flight time, cycle time, and flight speed. No DAMAGE related skills and/or modules are being considered.

the TL;DR: I belive that, because of the faster travel speed but halved travel time (equal range), you will apply LESS DPS than a normal ship without this bonus. Specially the BS. The bonuses on the ship make it so less ammo is in space due flight time and module cycle differences.


The speed bonus is 200%, and your spreadsheet has only 100% (or double speed).

Yep! Noticed that, working on it. The point still sort of stands so far though.

This is as nice as I get. Best quote ever https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4137165#post4137165

Erufen Rito
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#1204 - 2014-05-27 00:16:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Erufen Rito
Erufen Rito wrote:
Well, after going and thinking a bit, I realized that these kiting ships have a bit of a disadvantage, at least on paper.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SAq4hTSlkqizmUCR8HuhwLYIUsSpm9voQSPzkb3fKho/edit

Forgive me if the actual numbers on the modules are not correct. By that, I mean I used the info available on the wiki, and as we all know, it could be dated. HOWEVER the formulas (therefore the results) are correct. If any number needs updating, feel free to do so (I think I made it public and editable to all) *it'd be great if you didn't mess it up though, I did spend a bit of time in making this*
Keep in mind, I left out Officer Launchers because they are hardly relevant, and they just further skew the math. NOTHING is being considered on this, except Skills relating to flight time, cycle time, and flight speed. No DAMAGE related skills and/or modules are being considered.

the TL;DR: I belive that, because of the faster travel speed but halved travel time (equal range), you will apply LESS DPS than a normal ship without this bonus. Specially the BS. The bonuses on the ship make it so less ammo is in space due flight time and module cycle differences.

EDIT: I am currently editing formatting and implementing a fix to the situation. I am aware that anything below rockets does not have the correct velocity bouns applied to it. I will update once i'm done. (cant be too hard....)
Table should be up to date, with no further formula errors.

I also implemented what I think could fix this, a 50% ROF increase. You can see the before and after. Of course, this is on a max range scenario.

To elaborate:

As per that table, red numbers=good.
With this weapons platform, in order to keep damage projection consistent both, the bonused and unbonused numbers, have to be at 0.0 difference, on the ROF Gap value. This would imply that as your missiles are hitting the target, your next volley is leaving your tubes.

In the cases where the numbers are red, it means that before your missiles hit your target, the next volley is already leaving your tubes. This leads to a consistent DPS application, making it less likely for it to be repped on the "downtimes" you get while the missile chain makes it's way to the target.

In the cases where the numbers are black, it means that after your missiles hit, x many seconds will pass before your next volley is even launched. This leads to a broken up damage chain, and thus lower applied DPS.

Notice how with the Hull Bonuses vs the All V bonuses, the tendency is to be black, by quite a significant margin. This means that your Mordu's ships will have lower applied DPS, when compared to any other missile plataform without these bonuses.
Furthermore the T2 Base+All V is very close to or at 0.0 in almost every case.

This is as nice as I get. Best quote ever https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4137165#post4137165

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1205 - 2014-05-27 00:41:40 UTC
Erufen Rito wrote:
I also implemented what I think could fix this, a 50% ROF increase. You can see the before and after. Of course, this is on a max range scenario.

We absolutely, positively do not want a ROF increase. This will basically f**k up rapid launchers and damage application with multiple targets. So no, definitely not and no damn way.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Erufen Rito
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#1206 - 2014-05-27 00:46:17 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Erufen Rito wrote:
I also implemented what I think could fix this, a 50% ROF increase. You can see the before and after. Of course, this is on a max range scenario.

We absolutely, positively do not want a ROF increase. This will basically f**k up rapid launchers and damage application with multiple targets. So no, definitely not and no damn way.

I don't think it's a problem whatsoever. I mean, the fastest launcher there is AFAIK are rocket launchers, which would cycle once per second with this method.

This is as nice as I get. Best quote ever https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4137165#post4137165

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1207 - 2014-05-27 01:13:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Erufen Rito wrote:
I don't think it's a problem whatsoever. I mean, the fastest launcher there is AFAIK are rocket launchers, which would cycle once per second with this method.

Rate of fire nerfs rapid launchers. Period. If you can't comprehend why this is a bad idea on every level, then you don't understand the first thing about missile mechanics.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
#1208 - 2014-05-27 01:14:07 UTC
Sadly, i see these ships as one more thing to collect dust in a hanger. They're going to be too expensive to be viable for PvP, so why give them a PvP bonus?
Sheimi Madaveda
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1209 - 2014-05-27 01:16:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Sheimi Madaveda
More vollies in space is bad. Faster missile speed is good. You argue that the ship should have a RoF bonus simply to get more vollies into space at a time, which hurts the rapid missile fits, and is completely unrelated to the missile range bonuses in any way besides number of vollies in space (1 volley is good but you want as close to 0 as possible, I.E. turret-like). Having more than one volley at a time opens up the opportunity for wasted vollies, and having faster missiles means your DPS hits targets from range more like a turret than a missile launcher, which is great.

High volley and low RoF is completely reasonable, and in many cases can be stronger than low volley but high RoF, ESPECIALLY against logistics.

A range bonus does not affect DPS in any way besides range, and the only occasion this style of range bonus would be worse than just a velocity bonus would be when you are flying away from someone at high speeds while being very far away from them.

Arma Purgatorium - Once for the State, Now for the King Low Sec, PvP, Industrial - Open for Recruiting http://armapurgatorium.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/arpur_recruit1.png 

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1210 - 2014-05-27 01:51:34 UTC
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
Sadly, i see these ships as one more thing to collect dust in a hanger. They're going to be too expensive to be viable for PvP, so why give them a PvP bonus?

People already use other pirate vessels for PvP, and should the drops work as intended these should likely fall into the same price range. Granted there will be the usual initial inflated prices, but after that, since the other pirate vessels see PvP use, why wouldn't these?
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1211 - 2014-05-27 01:55:27 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Erufen Rito wrote:
I don't think it's a problem whatsoever. I mean, the fastest launcher there is AFAIK are rocket launchers, which would cycle once per second with this method.

Rate of fire nerfs rapid launchers. Period. If you can't comprehend why this is a bad idea on every level, then you don't understand the first thing about missile mechanics.



Because rapids are ****, and RoF realy has little to do with it.

That reload time.....that has something to do with it.
Erufen Rito
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#1212 - 2014-05-27 02:24:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Erufen Rito
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Erufen Rito wrote:
I don't think it's a problem whatsoever. I mean, the fastest launcher there is AFAIK are rocket launchers, which would cycle once per second with this method.

Rate of fire nerfs rapid launchers. Period. If you can't comprehend why this is a bad idea on every level, then you don't understand the first thing about missile mechanics.

Or, maybe, it actually doesn't. Maaaaybe, just MAAAAYBE you are fundamentally wrong. But what do I know, you have all the right badges of wisdom, or something.

Sheimi Madaveda wrote:
More vollies in space is bad. Faster missile speed is good. You argue that the ship should have a RoF bonus simply to get more vollies into space at a time, which hurts the rapid missile fits, and is completely unrelated to the missile range bonuses in any way besides number of vollies in space (1 volley is best). Having more than one volley at a time opens up the opportunity for wasted vollies, and having faster missiles means your DPS hits targets from range more like a turret than a missile launcher, which is great.

High volley and low RoF is completely reasonable, and in many cases can be stronger than low volley but high RoF, ESPECIALLY against logistics.

A range bonus does not affect DPS in any way besides range, and the only occasion this style of range bonus would be worse than just a velocity bonus would be when you are flying away from someone at high speeds while being very far away from them.

You probably didn't read my post. I said that the closer to 0.0 the difference between missile hit and missile leaving launcher is, the better. In easier terms, it means 1 volley in space is best.

Currently, engaging at max range is stupid. You want to find the sweet spot between your missile travel time and your launcher cycle. The easiest way to do this is a simple equation. Find out your cycle time, and multiply it by the missile speed. You've found yourself your "optimal" range.

This is as nice as I get. Best quote ever https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4137165#post4137165

Joe Boirele
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1213 - 2014-05-27 02:27:16 UTC
Erufen Rito wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Erufen Rito wrote:
I don't think it's a problem whatsoever. I mean, the fastest launcher there is AFAIK are rocket launchers, which would cycle once per second with this method.

Rate of fire nerfs rapid launchers. Period. If you can't comprehend why this is a bad idea on every level, then you don't understand the first thing about missile mechanics.

Or, maybe, it actually doesn't. Maaaaybe, just MAAAAYBE you are fundamentally wrong. But what do I know, you have all the right badges of wisdom, or something.


The faster your launchers fire, the faster you have to reload. The goal of any sane rapid launcher fit is to squeeze every bit of damage out of the clip of missiles you have in the launcher, because reloading with rapids in combat is a good way to end up on a lossmail.

Enemies are just friends who stab you in the front.

"We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight!"

Erufen Rito
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#1214 - 2014-05-27 02:32:57 UTC
Joe Boirele wrote:
Erufen Rito wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Erufen Rito wrote:
I don't think it's a problem whatsoever. I mean, the fastest launcher there is AFAIK are rocket launchers, which would cycle once per second with this method.

Rate of fire nerfs rapid launchers. Period. If you can't comprehend why this is a bad idea on every level, then you don't understand the first thing about missile mechanics.

Or, maybe, it actually doesn't. Maaaaybe, just MAAAAYBE you are fundamentally wrong. But what do I know, you have all the right badges of wisdom, or something.


The faster your launchers fire, the faster you have to reload. The goal of any sane rapid launcher fit is to squeeze every bit of damage out of the clip of missiles you have in the launcher, because reloading with rapids in combat is a good way to end up on a lossmail.

Except the problem is not the ROF, but the reload time.

This is as nice as I get. Best quote ever https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4137165#post4137165

Sheimi Madaveda
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1215 - 2014-05-27 02:42:47 UTC
Oh, I read the post, but after realizing that technically 0 vollies in space is the best (I.E. turrets) the best number you want is not 0 but the exact RoF of the missile launcher because it means the missile would hit instantly.

I should edit my post to say "as close to 0 as possible is best" or something like that.

Arma Purgatorium - Once for the State, Now for the King Low Sec, PvP, Industrial - Open for Recruiting http://armapurgatorium.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/arpur_recruit1.png 

Joe Boirele
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1216 - 2014-05-27 03:05:23 UTC
Erufen Rito wrote:
Joe Boirele wrote:
Erufen Rito wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Erufen Rito wrote:
I don't think it's a problem whatsoever. I mean, the fastest launcher there is AFAIK are rocket launchers, which would cycle once per second with this method.

Rate of fire nerfs rapid launchers. Period. If you can't comprehend why this is a bad idea on every level, then you don't understand the first thing about missile mechanics.

Or, maybe, it actually doesn't. Maaaaybe, just MAAAAYBE you are fundamentally wrong. But what do I know, you have all the right badges of wisdom, or something.


The faster your launchers fire, the faster you have to reload. The goal of any sane rapid launcher fit is to squeeze every bit of damage out of the clip of missiles you have in the launcher, because reloading with rapids in combat is a good way to end up on a lossmail.

Except the problem is not the ROF, but the reload time.


I fail to see your point. Nothing will change the reload time, unless one of the devs decides that rapid launchers need change (they do), and decides to reduce reload time. And ROF certainty doesn't help reload time.

Enemies are just friends who stab you in the front.

"We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight!"

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1217 - 2014-05-27 03:24:51 UTC
Erufen Rito wrote:
Except the problem is not the ROF, but the reload time.
So long as you have the long reload you want as much damage between reloads as possible. ROF bonuses give 0 more damage between reloads, hence why they have no real benefit to rapid launchers.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1218 - 2014-05-27 04:38:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Erufen Rito wrote:
Or, maybe, it actually doesn't. Maaaaybe, just MAAAAYBE you are fundamentally wrong. But what do I know, you have all the right badges of wisdom, or something.

According to your 'wisdom', the Raven and Raven Navy Issue should deal the same dps. In fact, according to you - a ROF bonus is better than raw damage - so the Raven should probably perform better than the Raven Navy Issue. Let's look at the reality (T2 launchers, Faction ammo, 4x T2 BCU, V skills - no implants):

• Raven ... 837 dps (paper), 491 dps (actual)
• Raven Navy Issue ... 837 dps (paper), 547 dps (actual) - 11.4% higher

Wait... wtf? What's going on here is that rapid launchers already have an insane ROF - but a 35-second reload. So by increasing the ROF you're actually bringing the sustained dps down. And with a higher ROF, the incidence of wasted volleys increases. Unlike turrets, overheating doesn't increase damage - it increases ROF - so overheating further exacerbates the problem even further.

This is why the best (current) missile ship is the Typhoon Fleet Issue (6 launchers @ 37.5% damage = 8.25 effective), followed by the Raven Navy Issue, the Scorpion Navy Issue, Raven and Typhoon. Feel free to work the numbers out for yourself, but given the choice of a ROF bonus or damage bonus - the answer is obvious.

Erufen Rito wrote:
Except the problem is not the ROF, but the reload time.

We begged and pleaded for months and finally got it reduced by 5 seconds with a small bump in ammunition capacity. Subsequent calls for some additional adjustments have gone unanswered...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1219 - 2014-05-27 04:59:03 UTC
So can anyone offer any insight into the massive size of the Barghest? (1757m long axis) Just to put this in perspective...

• Rokh is 1025m
• Vindicator is 1083m
• Typhoon is 1144m
• Obelisk freighter is 1162m
• Orca is 1451m
• Machariel is 1452m
• Nestor is 1467m
• Maelstrom is 1484m
• Hyperion is 1509m
• Apocalypse is 1550m
• Fenir is 1926m
• Nidhoggur carrier is 2188m

Well, it comes in black.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#1220 - 2014-05-27 05:13:59 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
So can anyone offer any insight into the massive size of the Barghest? (1757m long axis) Just to put this in perspective...

• Rokh is 1025m
• Vindicator is 1083m
• Typhoon is 1144m
• Obelisk freighter is 1162m
• Orca is 1451m
• Machariel is 1452m
• Nestor is 1467m
• Maelstrom is 1484m
• Hyperion is 1509m
• Apocalypse is 1550m
• Fenir is 1926m
• Nidhoggur carrier is 2188m

Well, it comes in black.


Nobody cares!

I on the other hand care a lot. My missiles and torpedos would be all perfect as they are if some, who's name I won't tell, will make that nonsence he created go away.

That part is very easy, mark the lines in the code and press 'DEL'. All missile problems solved.

The Barghest is now zee best missle battleship in EVE.

Zee End

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever