Player Features and Ideas Discussion

No, T2 torps get the most percentage benefit, and precision heavies the least. Heavy precision damage improves by x1.5 from 0-0 to V-V, while T2 torps improve by x1.95.

The confusion might be the percentages in the final paragraph: they are % application of nominal damage. Increasing from 1% to 2% nominal damage is a x2 increase (x1.95 before rounding), while increasing from 26% to 39% nominal is x1.5 increase. So the torps increase more as a ratio. In practice, 2% of torp nominal damage will be a lot smaller than even 26% of precision HM nominal damage. The extreme cases will continue to favour precision HML, but the balance in the middle might shift slightly.

Can we have twin undersized guns (ie, dual 150mm rails, dual 250mm rails) that actually behave like undersized guns as far as tracking and sig radius then?

Yes, we have fitting options on turret boats, but its over rated.

1400mm vs 1200mm arty makes very little difference when engaging smaller targets, its basically a PG thing, that you downgrade DPS and alpha if you don't have the fitting.

RHMLs are not simply going to be (as RLMLs) slightly lower DPS launchers with easier fitting than cruise.

The way the tracking formula works, doubling the sig res of a turret is like halving the tracking.

Its as if the dual 150mm rail has a sig res of 40, and a tracking speed of 0.012

Ie its tracking is 0.0735/0.012 = 6.125 x *worse* than the single mount.

I've already made a thread on this before. 2x ROF would be way too much.

Currently a medium turret does 1.3333x the DPS of a small (though the recent long range medium turret change modified this, are your stats up to date?), and a large does 1.333x the DPS of a medium.

A Heavy Pulse laser does 3/4s the DPS of a dual heavy pulse laser, for example.

If we gave it double the ROF, it would become the highest DPS large laser turret.

Instead, I say we follow the example of the RLMLs, and give them a -20% cycle time (say the firing of one interferes with the other or something if it bothers you that much), for 25% more DPS, which is less than the 33% additional DPS they currently have

Umm Why Don't the RHML don't benefit from the Secondary Bonus on the Raven,Typhoon & there Navy Issue Counterparts ? The Explosion Velocity (Phoon) and Pure Missile Velocity (Raven) Would Just Make them even More Attractive to use and help Kill Smaller Medium Sized, Signature tanked Hulls.

Because the typhoon and to lesse degree the raven woudl simply extinguish cruiser sized hulls from PVP.

The real problem is.. thes emodules makje the typhoon bonus USELES!

because its always better to not use the obnus whiel fielding these modules than use the bonus while fielding cruise missiles and torps.

would the cost factor of using battleships keep them in check
if I did the math correctly, I can manufacture about 400 frigates for the minerals it would take me to manufacture 1 raven

What happens to the numbers when a TP enters the equation? Is a single painter enough to get target sig>HML exp radius thus changing the picture further? Bearing in mind cruise and painters are pretty much always used in tandem

Yes, but the point is if sig radius is already >= to explosion radius, a painter does nothing (unless I forgot something, correct me if I'm forgetting something)

It will be far harder to create that sitation for a cruise compared to a heavy.

What I'm getting at is I'm not sure there's a sufficient gap between these and precision cruises considering what you give up using the smaller missiles. I may be wrong, but the analysis so far feels incomplete without considering a full fit.

Unless there are more changes in the pipe for heavies.

Check out this graph

As you can see, there are many instances where a signature radius larger that explosion radius doesn't apply full damage, and this is exacerbated the faster your target is travelling. For example, a ship moving at 1km/s would have to have a signature radius of >1000m to have full damage applied.

So a target painter will almost always increase your applied damage in situations where you can't web a target down.

I dont understand a few things here .Why would u make raven / typhoon track better for frigates / cruisers Second you are introducing new launchers rather then fixing older ones .Heavy missiles got nerfed on dmg and range ,ok i get it range was omfgwtf ..but the dmg didnt have to get nerfed . In the forum post u said that u wanted to make hams more usable and hm were "getting in the way" ..why didnt u boost the ham's insteed of nerfing heavy missiles . Anyway to the problem in hand ..this creates a gap and puts missiles bs 1 step up and let me tell u why . With a turret bs to apply dps u got to web ..since web is -60% u can`t hit a frigate / destroyer / barelly hit hac / cruiser (if he gets close under guns) but now with a missile bs u will hit and take down everything that is small ..i mean there isnt that diference between ships . U fly a frigate because is small / agyle takes less dmg from bigger ships ..and to see a raven pwning that with ease kinda makes it bad . What u guys should do here is unerf the heavy missiles ..boost hams ..make torpedo's usable again in pvp / pve boost the ROF of rapid launchers because having frigates that shoot at 6-7 seconds isnt cool and make more ships (frigates/destroyers) to use more rapid launchers and actually have the PG / CPU to fit them a little buff and propulsion mode ..oh also ..did i mention about the FOF missiles + destroyer missiles ? They should of been removed from game long time ago ..NO ONE and i mean NO ONE uses defender missiles ..or F.O.F . My sugestion is just leave the raven as it is ..don`t look to add new stuff to the game that is usless ..just fix the broken stuff and it should be ok