These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kmelx
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1401 - 2012-09-19 15:17:53 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Regarding TD's.

Simply add 2 attributes to the Tracking Disruptor. Then add 2 more scrpits to boost the new attributes. Simple to tweak and simple to use and fair for everyone.


Terrible idea, it would still be a must have and an I win module, there is no delay to changing scripts so you'd change them on the fly with little to no lag and derive a massive combat benefit.

You need a gun disruptor and a missile disruptor, as separate modules to prevent making a single all powerful must have module.
Kesthely
Mestana
#1402 - 2012-09-19 15:19:52 UTC
Yes with the 20 % damage 25% range nerf the HML launcher will have aproximatly the same dps at long ranges. However unlike all other long range weapon systems HML does not get the option to load Short range High damage ammo (unless the Rage missiles are changed that drasticly) and even if there changed to short range high damage, they still won't compare to eg Javelin ammo, wich gets a TRACKING bonus as well (as the Rage will get a explosion velocity and radius penalty)

Comparing HML to long range weapons ONLY with the long range ammo loaded makes no sense

At short range the Guns based long distance weapons greatly outperforms the HML launcher, and with the relative low speed of pure missile ship (Most of them are caldari or amarr) a gun based ship can dictate the range in most cases.

If you truely want to change the HML launcher to be comparible to a gun, make the (TII) ammo comparable as well Rage could be short range with the same damage mitigation as the current short range TII gun ammo compared to tracking, and the Precision could be the long range ammo then. The normal missiles could then get the medium range as eg the standard crystals and even then i think the dps should be slightly higher then a guns to calculate in travel time. (1 or 2 dps per launcher above average should be adequate)
Aiifa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1403 - 2012-09-19 15:21:57 UTC
nerf hms by reducing velocity and rof, keep the delayed high alpha

forcing the drake to use kinetic damage was one of the only characteristics about it that made interesting counters like the long-maligned t2 gallente ships with high native kinetic resist viable in a dynamic way. Removing such damage specificity homogenises the game.

making artillery easy to fit homogenises weapons: yet again we're approaching a situation in which each class size has a long range and a short range weapons system, each range coming in four different skins

I hope these changes are reworked totally before being pushed. They're in the right direction, but they're not quite right. The answer to difficult to fly and flimsy ships isn't to throw more slots and fitting at them. It's to balance everything around them. Including gameplay.

I've already whined about this here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=692924#post692924
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#1404 - 2012-09-19 15:24:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniel Plain
baltec1 wrote:
Kitty Bear wrote:


Tech 2 guns loaded with only 1 type of Tech 2 ammo
compared to
Tech 2 launcher loaded with FACTION ammo


cherry picked data for desired outcome ??


That data is for long range. If you can get that kind of range and damage using faction ammo in the turrets then be my guest and post the results.


have you thought about the fact that your numbers are only valid if the target is large enough and slow enough? because at 50+km, tracking hardly matters at all whereas explosion velocity and radius can still nerf your applied damage significantly. also, while the various turrets still do a portion of dps in falloff, missile damage is cut to 0.

and also: it has been stated quite often that the long range versions of medium weapons are lacking. do we now need to make heavies suck just because beams suck?

I should buy an Ishtar.
Cpt Gobla
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1405 - 2012-09-19 15:25:24 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Aliventi wrote:


For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?


Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:

250mm Railgun II with FACTION AMMO!:
DPS: 14
Alpha: 66
Optimal: 58 km
Falloff: 15 km
Cap/sec: -0.8
PG: 187.2
CPU: 31.5

Heavy Beam Laser II with FACTION AMMO!:
DPS: 15
Alpha: 65
Optimal: 48 km
Falloff: 10 km
Cap/sec: -3.2
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 27.8

720mm Artillery II with FACTION AMMO:
DPS: 12
Alpha: 174
Optimal: 48 km
Falloff: 22 km
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 24

Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge:
DPS: 23 (previously 29)
Alpha: 189 (previously 237)
Range: 63 km (previously 84)
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 94.5
CPU: 41.3

This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.





Tech 2 guns loaded with only 1 type of Tech 2 ammo
compared to
Tech 2 launcher loaded with FACTION ammo


cherry picked data for desired outcome ??


Updated with FACTION ammo.

You're right. It does indeed look like the results where cherry picked.

Nerf HM range by another 10% and damage by another 25%?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1406 - 2012-09-19 15:26:04 UTC
Kesthely wrote:
Yes with the 20 % damage 25% range nerf the HML launcher will have aproximatly the same dps at long ranges. However unlike all other long range weapon systems HML does not get the option to load Short range High damage ammo (unless the Rage missiles are changed that drasticly) and even if there changed to short range high damage, they still won't compare to eg Javelin ammo, wich gets a TRACKING bonus as well (as the Rage will get a explosion velocity and radius penalty)

Comparing HML to long range weapons ONLY with the long range ammo loaded makes no sense

At short range the Guns based long distance weapons greatly outperforms the HML launcher, and with the relative low speed of pure missile ship (Most of them are caldari or amarr) a gun based ship can dictate the range in most cases.

If you truely want to change the HML launcher to be comparible to a gun, make the (TII) ammo comparable as well Rage could be short range with the same damage mitigation as the current short range TII gun ammo compared to tracking, and the Precision could be the long range ammo then. The normal missiles could then get the medium range as eg the standard crystals and even then i think the dps should be slightly higher then a guns to calculate in travel time. (1 or 2 dps per launcher above average should be adequate)


The guns get better the closer you get. Missiles shine as they keep their DPS all the way out to max range. If you dont want to tangle with javlin then dont get into its range and use your unique advantage at long range.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#1407 - 2012-09-19 15:28:20 UTC
Cpt Gobla wrote:
Kitty Bear wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Aliventi wrote:


For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?


Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:

250mm Railgun II with FACTION AMMO!:
DPS: 14
Alpha: 66
Optimal: 58 km
Falloff: 15 km
Cap/sec: -0.8
PG: 187.2
CPU: 31.5

Heavy Beam Laser II with FACTION AMMO!:
DPS: 15
Alpha: 65
Optimal: 48 km
Falloff: 10 km
Cap/sec: -3.2
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 27.8

720mm Artillery II with FACTION AMMO:
DPS: 12
Alpha: 174
Optimal: 48 km
Falloff: 22 km
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 24

Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge:
DPS: 23 (previously 29)
Alpha: 189 (previously 237)
Range: 63 km (previously 84)
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 94.5
CPU: 41.3

This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.





Tech 2 guns loaded with only 1 type of Tech 2 ammo
compared to
Tech 2 launcher loaded with FACTION ammo


cherry picked data for desired outcome ??


Updated with FACTION ammo.

You're right. It does indeed look like the results where cherry picked.

Nerf HM range by another 10% and damage by another 25%?

so if you are willing to be dishonest and cherrypick stats, why don't you compare HMLs to civilian guns?

I should buy an Ishtar.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1408 - 2012-09-19 15:29:42 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:


have you thought about the fact that your numbers are only valid if the target is large enough and slow enough? because at 50+km, tracking hardly matters at all whereas explosion velocity and radius can still nerf your applied damage significantly. also, while the various turrets still do a portion of dps in falloff, missile damage is cut to 0.

and also: it has been stated quite often that the long range versions of medium weapons are lacking. do we now need to make heavies suck just because beams suck?


Heavies do not suffer from small targets as much as you are trying to make out here. Frigates die easily enough, cruisers have few if any issues and BC is more or less perfect hits every time.
Cpt Gobla
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1409 - 2012-09-19 15:32:54 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
so if you are willing to be dishonest and cherrypick stats, why don't you compare HMLs to civilian guns?


How am I cherrypicking stats?

Would you rather compare to shorter ranged faction ammo? With ranges under 20km and outclassed by short-range turrets in about every single aspect?

Also fine by me, I guess that'd mean changing Heavy Missiles so that they're worse than Javelin Assault Missiles in every single way.
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
#1410 - 2012-09-19 15:32:58 UTC  |  Edited by: DJ P0N-3
All right, here's a very rough comparison of HMLs to their short range and long range contenders. Everything is influenced by ship stats, I haven't run the numbers of how it stacks up vs. new HML stats, but I used Scourge Fury instead of CN Scourge! I also looked at how HAM boats compare to pulses/blasters/ACs right now.

Harbinger: 7x heavy pulse laser II, 3x heat sink II, 2x TE II, conflagration, all 5s
DPS: 671
Range: 9.75km optimal+8.19km falloff

Hurricane: 6x 425mm AC II, 2x HAM II, 3x gyrostabilizer II, 2x TE II, hail and scourge rage, all 5s
DPS: 769
Range: 1.5km optimal + 14.8km falloff/~17km HAM range (will be subject to modification by TEs after patch).

Brutix: 7x heavy neutron blaster II, 3x magnetic field stabilizer II, 1x TE II, void, all 5s
DPS: 822
Range: 3.88km optimal + 4.06km falloff

Drake: 7x HAM II, 3x BCS II, scourge rage, all 5s
DPS: 578
Range: ~17km

Add in that HAMs require some amount of chasing down one's target and pouncing on them with webs and target painters for DPS resembling what it says on paper, and it looks an awful lot like HAMs need a little love.

The fact that one can compare HMLs at all to pulse lasers/ACs/blasters speaks for itself, really:

Harbinger: 7x focused medium pulse laser II, 2x heat sink II, conflagration, all 5s
DPS: 516
Range: 6.75km optimal + 3.75km falloff

Hurricane 1: (N.B. before the PG nerf, one could fit a 1600mm plate with 425s and HAMs, but this will no longer be the case without fitting mods, so I will look at 220s instead) 6x 220mm AC IIs, 2x HAM IIs, 2x gyrostabilizer IIs, hail/scourge fury, all 5s
DPS: 663
Range: 1.35km optimal + 8.25km falloff

Alternately, one could eschew using the missile slots and fit 6 425mm ACs:
Hurricane 2: 6x 425mm AC IIs, 2x gyrostabilizer IIs, hail, all 5s
DPS: 613
Range: 1.5km optimal + 9km falloff

Brutix: 7x heavy ion blaster II, 2x magnetic field stabilizer II, void, all 5s
DPS: 685
Range: 2.81km optimal + 2.5km falloff

Drake: 7x heavy missile launcher II, 2x BCS II, scourge fury, all 5s
DPS: 411
Range: ~73 km

You can also compare the HAM Drake to this lineup, where on paper it looks like it should belong, but...well...HAMs.

For long-range comparison, this is how the Drake stacks up against some exaggerated sniper fits.

Harbinger: 7x heavy beam laser II, 3x heat sink II, 2x TE II, 1x TC II (optimal range), all 5s
GLEAM:
Alpha: 1395
DPS: 323
Range: 10.6km optimal + 19.2km falloff
AURORA:
Alpha: 797
DPS: 184
Range: 76.2km optimal + 19.2km falloff.

(N.B. while you can currently squeeze HML IIs onto a snipercane, the PG nerf will make this a lot harder, so I'll set aside this possibility for now. Further, after the nerf, a full rack of 720mms will require some fitting implants. I'll look at 720mms and 650mms.)

Hurricane 1: 6x 720mm artillery II, 3x gyrostabilizer, 2x TE II, 1x TC II (optimal range), all 5s
QUAKE:
Alpha: 4015
DPS: 486
Range: 10.6km optimal + 42km falloff
TREMOR:
Alpha: 2294
DPS: 278
Range: 76.2km optimal + 42km falloff.

Hurricane 2: 6x 650mm artillery II, 3x gyrostabilizer, 2x TE II, 1x TC II (optimal range), all 5s
QUAKE:
Alpha: 2327
DPS: 442
Range: 8.52km optimal + 42km falloff
TREMOR:
Alpha: 1330
DPS: 253
Range: 61.3km optimal + 42km falloff

Brutix: 7x 250mm railgun II, 3x magnetic field stabilizer II, 1x TE II, 1x TC II (optimal range), all 5s
JAVELIN:
Alpha: 1777
DPS: 506
Range: 11.7km optimal + 24.6km falloff
SPIKE:
Alpha: 1016 alpha
DPS: 289
Range: 84.2km optimal+ 24.6km falloff.

Drake: 7x heavy missile launcher II, 3x BCS II, scourge fury, all 5s
Alpha: 2919
DPS: 462
Range: ~73 km

Someone else can dump all the raw numbers into a spreadsheet and spreadsheet warrior. I just used pyfa.

edit: I tried to make it more readable without making it a mile long. Fingers crossed.
Kesthely
Mestana
#1411 - 2012-09-19 15:33:54 UTC
Quote:

250mm Railgun II with FACTION AMMO!:
DPS: 14
Alpha: 66
Optimal: 58 km
Falloff: 15 km
Cap/sec: -0.8
PG: 187.2
CPU: 31.5

Heavy Beam Laser II with FACTION AMMO!:
DPS: 15
Alpha: 65
Optimal: 48 km
Falloff: 10 km
Cap/sec: -3.2
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 27.8

720mm Artillery II with FACTION AMMO:
DPS: 12
Alpha: 174
Optimal: 48 km
Falloff: 22 km
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 24

Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge:
DPS: 23 (previously 29)
Alpha: 189 (previously 237)
Range: 63 km (previously 84)
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 94.5
CPU: 41.3


The Heavy missile DPS is not correct here You forget its 10 second flight time so its dps DAMAGE PER SECOND needs to be divided by its travel time. By your dps counter, the heavy missile should get its damage upgraded by 600%

Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge:
DPS: 2.3 (previously 2.9)
Alpha: 189 (previously 237)
Range: 63 km (previously 84)
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 94.5
CPU: 41.3
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1412 - 2012-09-19 15:34:04 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Kitty Bear wrote:


Tech 2 guns loaded with only 1 type of Tech 2 ammo
compared to
Tech 2 launcher loaded with FACTION ammo


cherry picked data for desired outcome ??


That data is for long range. If you can get that kind of range and damage using faction ammo in the turrets then be my guest and post the results.


have you thought about the fact that your numbers are only valid if the target is large enough and slow enough? because at 50+km, tracking hardly matters at all whereas explosion velocity and radius can still nerf your applied damage significantly. also, while the various turrets still do a portion of dps in falloff, missile damage is cut to 0.

and also: it has been stated quite often that the long range versions of medium weapons are lacking. do we now need to make heavies suck just because beams suck?



Have you figured out that heavies do close if not full damage to any frigate with a MWD not an intercpetor or assualt?

Cruiser and BCs almost universally get walloped, and its as true at 0km as it at 85.

The comparisons are completely valid, HMLs are STILL the premier MEDIUM long range system after these changes, they just no longer step all over the toes of the Battleship weapons.


Personally, I'm going to train Torps and Cruises now because I have a hunch a torp phoon just became a WHOLE new game.
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#1413 - 2012-09-19 15:34:23 UTC
DJ P0N-3 wrote:
All right, here's a very rough comparison of HMLs to their short range and long range contenders. Everything is influenced by ship stats, I haven't run the numbers of how it stacks up vs. new HML stats, but I used Scourge Fury instead of CN Scourge! I also looked at how HAM boats compare to pulses/blasters/ACs right now.

Harbinger: 7x heavy pulse laser II, 3x heat sink II, 2x TE II, conflagration, all 5s: 671 DPS, 9.75km optimal+8.19km falloff
Hurricane: 6x 425mm AC II, 2x HAM II, 3x gyrostabilizer II, 2x TE II, hail and scourge rage, all 5s: 769 DPS, 1.5km optimal + 14.8km falloff/~17km HAM range (will be subject to modification by TEs after patch).
Brutix: 7x heavy neutron blaster II, 3x magnetic field stabilizer II, 1x TE II, void, all 5s: 822 DPS, 3.88km optimal + 4.06km falloff
Drake: 7x HAM II, 3x BCS II, scourge rage, all 5s: 578 DPS, ~17km HAM range.

Add in that HAMs require some amount of chasing down one's target and pouncing on them with webs and target painters for DPS resembling what it says on paper, and it looks an awful lot like HAMs need a little love.

The fact that one can compare HMLs at all to pulse lasers/ACs/blasters speaks for itself, really:

Harbinger: 7x focused medium pulse laser II, 2x heat sink II, conflagration, all 5s: 516 DPS, 6.75km + 3.75km falloff
Hurricane 1: (N.B. before the PG nerf, one could fit a 1600mm plate with 425s and HAMs, but this will no longer be the case without fitting mods, so I will look at 220s instead) 6x 220mm AC IIs, 2x HAM IIs, 2x gyrostabilizer IIs, hail/scourge fury, all 5s: 663 DPS, 1.35km + 8.25km falloff
Alternately, one could eschew using the missile slots and fit 6 425mm ACs:
Hurricane 2: 6x 425mm AC IIs, 2x gyrostabilizer IIs, hail, all 5s: 613 DPS, 1.5km + 9km falloff
Brutix: 7x heavy ion blaster II, 2x magnetic field stabilizer II, void, all 5s: 685 DPS, 2.81km + 2.5km falloff
Drake: 7x heavy missile launcher II, 2x BCS II, scourge fury, all 5s: 411 DPS, ~73 km range.

You can also compare the HAM Drake to this lineup, where on paper it looks like it should belong, but...well...HAMs.

For long-range comparison, this is how the Drake stacks up against some exaggerated sniper fits.

Harbinger: 7x heavy beam laser II, 3x heat sink II, 2x TE II, 1x TC II (optimal range), all 5s: GLEAM: 1395 alpha, 323 DPS, 10.6km + 19.2km falloff; AURORA: 797 alpha, 184 DPS, 76.2km + 19.2km falloff.
(N.B. while you can currently squeeze HML IIs onto a snipercane, the PG nerf will make this a lot harder, so I'll set aside this possibility for now. Further, after the nerf, a full rack of 720mms will require some fitting implants. I'll look at 720mms and 650mms.)
Hurricane 1: 6x 720mm artillery II, 3x gyrostabilizer, 2x TE II, 1x TC II (optimal range), all 5s: QUAKE: 4015 alpha, 486 DPS, 10.6km + 42km falloff; TREMOR: 2294 alpha, 278 DPS, 76.2km + 42km falloff.
Hurricane 2: 6x 650mm artillery II, 3x gyrostabilizer, 2x TE II, 1x TC II (optimal range), all 5s: QUAKE: 2327 alpha, 442 DPS, 8.52km + 42km falloff; TREMOR: 1330 alpha, 253 DPS, 61.3km + 42km falloff
Brutix: 7x 250mm railgun II, 3x magnetic field stabilizer II, 1x TE II, 1x TC II (optimal range), all 5s: JAVELIN: 1777 alpha, 506 DPS, 11.7km + 24.6km falloff; SPIKE: 1016 alpha, 289 DPS, 84.2km + 24.6km falloff.
Drake: 7x heavy missile launcher II, 3x BCS II, scourge fury, all 5s: 2919 alpha, 462 DPS, ~73 km range.

Someone else can dump all the raw numbers into a spreadsheet and spreadsheet warrior. I just used pyfa.



For the love of God.
If you are going to presents lots of numbers then at least use *some* formatting.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1414 - 2012-09-19 15:35:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Onictus
Kesthely wrote:
Quote:

250mm Railgun II with FACTION AMMO!:
DPS: 14
Alpha: 66
Optimal: 58 km
Falloff: 15 km
Cap/sec: -0.8
PG: 187.2
CPU: 31.5

Heavy Beam Laser II with FACTION AMMO!:
DPS: 15
Alpha: 65
Optimal: 48 km
Falloff: 10 km
Cap/sec: -3.2
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 27.8

720mm Artillery II with FACTION AMMO:
DPS: 12
Alpha: 174
Optimal: 48 km
Falloff: 22 km
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 24

Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge:
DPS: 23 (previously 29)
Alpha: 189 (previously 237)
Range: 63 km (previously 84)
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 94.5
CPU: 41.3


The Heavy missile DPS is not correct here You forget its 10 second flight time so its dps DAMAGE PER SECOND needs to be divided by its travel time. By your dps counter, the heavy missile should get its damage upgraded by 600%

Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge:
DPS: 2.3 (previously 2.9)
Alpha: 189 (previously 237)
Range: 63 km (previously 84)
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 94.5
CPU: 41.3



Incorrect

DPS is DPS if DPS starts at 1 or dps starts at T10 its still the same DPS.

its also a double edge sword you can have a bunch of volleys in space and warp away the missiles still hit, turrets can't so its exactly equal.
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
#1415 - 2012-09-19 15:36:29 UTC
I tried, the forums were terribad at formatting, so I just gave up. Sorry.
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
#1416 - 2012-09-19 15:36:53 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
splitting off a separate set of missile disruptor modules that use the same skill and get the same ship bonuses as tracking disruptors (in the same way that ECM ships have different racial jammers).


I actually really like this idea. I'm always a fan of adding more modules to the game, and this seems like a pretty good way to balance forwards instead of backwards. Maybe make separate missile tracking computers and missile tracking enhancers instead of just attaching them to the existing ones as well?

I'm always a fan of what could be termed 'balancing forwards' wherein, you constantly add modules to the game that shift the balance, then, when its clear which modules are the most powerful, you add modules to counter those modules, then when then next cycle comes around, you add more modules to balance the modules you introduced, and keep adding things in until you get back around to where some of the oldest stuff, that may have been rather useless for a while, becomes useful against something that was just added. When you get to that point, you create this sort of MTG scenario wherein you really cannot tell what is 'best' since there's a counter to everything and you just have to gamble that your opponent doesn't have that specific counter fitted.

Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
fy'nite Saraki
Nomad Industries
#1417 - 2012-09-19 15:37:01 UTC
i remeber torp nerf bck in rmr. everyone moved to cruise insteadShocked
Cpt Gobla
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1418 - 2012-09-19 15:37:23 UTC
Kesthely wrote:
The Heavy missile DPS is not correct here You forget its 10 second flight time so its dps DAMAGE PER SECOND needs to be divided by its travel time. By your dps counter, the heavy missile should get its damage upgraded by 600%

Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge:
DPS: 2.3 (previously 2.9)
Alpha: 189 (previously 237)
Range: 63 km (previously 84)
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 94.5
CPU: 41.3


Sweety, why don't you leave Mathematics to those who've finished primary school?

I'm sure there's a wonderful cartoon on television right now that'd be much more interesting.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#1419 - 2012-09-19 15:38:58 UTC
Cpt Gobla wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
so if you are willing to be dishonest and cherrypick stats, why don't you compare HMLs to civilian guns?


How am I cherrypicking stats?

Would you rather compare to shorter ranged faction ammo? With ranges under 20km and outclassed by short-range turrets in about every single aspect?

i would rather compare the type of ammo that is ACTUALLY USED in the respective situation. which is not close range faction ammo.
Quote:

Also fine by me, I guess that'd mean changing Heavy Missiles so that they're worse than Javelin Assault Missiles in every single way.

you are probably one of the guys who goes and keys your neighbors new car just because yours is old and ugly. here's a groundbreaking idea: how about we make the underpowered weapon systems viable instead?

I should buy an Ishtar.
Marian Devers
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
#1420 - 2012-09-19 15:39:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Marian Devers
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:

250mm Railgun II with Spike:
DPS: 20
Alpha: 92
Optimal: 65 km
Falloff: 15 km
Cap/sec: -1.1
PG: 187.2
CPU: 31.5

Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:
DPS: 21
Alpha: 91
Optimal: 54 km
Falloff: 10 km
Cap/sec: -3.8
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 27.8

720mm Artillery II with Tremor:
DPS: 17
Alpha: 242
Optimal: 54 km
Falloff: 22 km
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 24

Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge:
DPS: 23 (previously 29)
Alpha: 189 (previously 237)
Range: 63 km (previously 84)
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 94.5
CPU: 41.3

This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.


EFT warriors assemble. As you know, missiles need to reach their target. Likewise, target is rarely stationary. Let's examine effective HML range when a target is moving.

Weapon 'Effective' Range (optimal+1x falloff)

Aurora: 64km
Tremor: 76km
Railgun: 80km
HML: 84km

Range to target: y km
Missile speed: 5625m/s

Time for missiles to cover distance to target: ( y km)/(5625m/s)
Flight time left: 15s - (Time for missiles to cover distance to target)

Missile leftover range: 5625m/s * (Flight time left)
Speed of Enemy Ship required to escape missile range: (Missile leftover range) / 15s

e.g. Tremor (75km). Assume target is @75km. Missile speed is 5625m/s. It will take missiles 13.3 seconds to cover 75km, which leaves 1.7 seconds of their flight time. In 1.7 seconds missiles can still cover (1.7*5625 = 9.562km). Hence, if enemy ship is moving @ speed of > 718m/s (= 9562m/1.7s) not towards the target, missiles will miss. However, as you know missiles will frequently "overshoot" their target and turn around. Quite possibly that @ ranges > 70km, you can be moving at any direction at the required speed to mitigate ALL missile damage. Also this does not take into account missile acceleration.

Speed which will mitigate all missile damage completely @ various ranges:

60km - 1625m/s
65km - 1291m/s
70km - 958m/s
75km - 625m/s

So yeah... that 84km range is basically 70-75km at best.

Well what do you know... Artillery and Railgun are actually better in this respect.