Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Can't say for certain...but probably taking into account that while being at max range, some of the missiles will probably run out of gas before it hits if target is transversing.

You could make that argument...or make the argument that I can get a better shield tank on a proteus *therefore no bonuses to shield tanking* with better tracking or dps *whichever way you went for damage* than I can armor tanking it....then you tell me what the real problem is.

HAMs could need some attention too

While I don't mind the nerf to HMs. I am not so sure that HAMs are balanced enough to take over as a working hard hitting option. To explain this I had to use some math, it was the only way I could give a good enough argument. (Hopefully I haven't done any calculation errors, or errors with the formulas, I have triple checked everything, but mistakes can still happen. edit: i checked these formulas values against a plot of the missile damage equation, it fits perfectly, so this should be correct).

Firstly. HAMs are a cruiser sized weapon platform, assumingly balanced to be used by cruisers to kill cruisers. Cruisers tend to be fairly fast moving ships, the new Caracal will have 225m/s base speed, which becomes 281m/s with all skills at 5. Cruiser weapons must be able to cope with at least moderate target speeds to be effective.


Currently, with all skills at V, HAM T1 and Navy missiles have: Explosion radius = 125m, Explosion velocity = 151.5m/s and Drf 4.5 (values from EFT).

To figure out the targets required velocity to begin speed tanking missiles this formula will be used:
Vstartspeedtanking = max (Ve * (S/E)^( (k-1)/k ), Ve * S/E)
k=ln(drf)/ln(5.5)
Ve = missile explosion velocity
E = missile explosion radius
S = target signature radius
This formula calculates two values and then picks the largest. The first value is where speed becomes more important for damage reduction than the target size. The second value is where the speed is high enough to drop the damage below the max possible damage. For small targets the first value will be highest, for large targets the second value will be highest.

To find the targets speed where the missile damage is down to half, the following formula will be used:
Vhalfdmg = Vstartspeedtanking * 2^(1/k)
And to find the speed where the missile damage is down to one quarter, this one:
Vquarterdmg = Vstartspeedtanking * 4^(1/k)


Against a target of 125m sig radius size (typical cruiser size, turrets use this value too, the target is big enough to take maximum damage if it is moving slow) the values become as follows:
Vstartspeedtanking = 151,5m/s
Vhalfdmg = 332,4m/s
Vquarterdmg = 729,1m/s
I was very surprised by this. 332 m/s is not far from the base speed of a cruiser (without speed modules or AB, MWD speed boosts don't normally help when tanking missiles due to the sig bloom). Just the base speed of a cruiser can almost cut the damage in half. That is just horrible.

Just as a point of reference I will show the values for Heavy Missiles too. Again, the target is 125m big and all skills are at 5, then T1/Navy missile attributes are: Explosion radius = 93.75m, Explosion velocity = 121.5m/s, Drf = 3.2.
Vstartspeedtanking = 162m/s
Vhalfdmg = 447,4m/s
Vquarterdmg = 1235,7m/s
It's easy to see that HMs are better at handling "fast" targets.

Based on these numbers, assuming they are correct, HAMs will have serious issues against the speeds of cruiser sized targets.

edit: wrote down the two last formulas incorrectly, ^k should be ^(1/k), the results were obtained with the correct formuals so no change in any values

It appears you have not read Fozzie's OP or his followup posts thoroughly. Otherwise you would recognize that you are making the very error he was exposing in any comparison of HML drakes with other BCs. Also, there have been mulitple posts addressing the more relevant comparison between HMs and long range medium turrets.

Please recognize that a 130 page thread is likely to have a lot of information and viewpoints in it. It helps everyone if you at least read the OP and comprehend it, and try to read the rest of the thread. I've read every post in this thread over the last few days, and can tell you your post has been stated almost verbatim in many ways already, and it has been refuted many times as well.

My guess is that since they buff cruisers and nerf some BCs, they are closing the gap. They did not like that the cane could fit medium neuts because that could hurt cruisers.

Else, i dont know.....

Maybe because in a close fight 425 ac II and dual medium neuts are crowding out the field in a similar manner to Drakes at pretty much all ranges over 20km.

Also, possibly, because any prior player created thread pointing out Drake over-use and calling for a nerf, would invariably be met not just with vociferous denials of Drake advantages, but also with deflecting calls for a nerf on Hurricanes. Canes were also for many months ranking second or third on the eve-kill usage stats and medium autocannons as well (of course behind the far and away champions of usage, the Drake and HMLs).

Actually, there has not been much discussion of the Cane use itt thread for many pages. Another indication of the extent of Drake affliction and addiction in the game atm. But yes, one who heavily uses the ship subject to the nerf could just as easily be shocked at the extent of the Cane nerf (a nerf directly to the ship) as to the nerf coming to HMs and indirectly to the Drake.

I only found this thread about an hour ago, and I'm at work. So I am very sorry if this offends your finer sensibilities.

Back under your bridge, troll.

You double posted btw. And you, like so many people on these forums, don't know what a troll is. Basically they, like you, use that name calling as a retort for any response they don't like.

But thank you for admitting you have not read the op carefully nor anough of the thread which follows it.

I am entitled to post my opinion in this thread because a CCP dev asked for it. So go about telling people they can't post here. The more folsk that give their opinion the better. If I didn't post simply because someone else already said it, then CCP would not give as much weight to the position as it might otherwise deserve. My comparisons are perfectly relevant. So back under your bridge, troll.

Missiles were already nerf-bats relative to turrets, I don't see how this changes that. Think about a mission for a sec. Raise your hand if you have given an elite NPC frigate a head-shot with T2 large guns? Now raise your hands if you've given a head-shot to to an elite NPC frigate with a cruise missile or torpedo volley?

More hands raised on the guns?

The game mechanics already favor the ability of guns to apply damage better than missiles, so what's really going on here?