Ships & Modules

I know nothing about the under lying machanics of this game but what i do know is that if a shoot anything smaller than a stationary cruiser with HMs or HAMs i do effectively 0 damage.

And now that RLMLs are too painful to use, i have ZERO options below cruises good job CCP.

I disagree on your distances - it should be more like 0-20-60. At least 60kish is how far away my rail thorax was killed by a gang of HML caracal's last night - and I was not stationary.

The point is - they are cruiser sized weapons. They should not hit moving things smaller than a cruiser very hard. Turrets dont if there is any transversal. That is what RLMLs are for (and RLMLs are still good for killing frigates and burst DPS on larger targets, IMHO).

Being a rail user since 2007 or so, I can sympathize with gimped weapon systems. But I dont think HMLs are gimped - they (and RLMLs) just arent as all powerful as they used to be. They both used to be "good in every situation." Now they both have trade-offs (just like other weapon systems). That seems balanced to me.

Just my opinion.

You definitely don't understand turrets hit formula...

Here is how it works : Dependind on ennemy relative transversal velocity and distance from you, the formula gives you a hit chance, a number between 0,01 and 1, let's call it H.

Then the computer draw a random number between 0 and 1. Let's call it X.

If X < 0,01, it's a critical hit. And if X < H, it's a hit.

Here, you computed to know if you hit the target. THEN you compute the damage.

Damage is simple : multiply your base damage by 0,5+X.

What does that mean ?

1) If you had 100% chances to hit (a stationary target in optimal range), a hit do between 51% and 150% damage OR critical hit with 300% damage.

2) If your chances to hit were 50% (tracking = transversal XOR distance = optimal + falloff), a hit will do between 51% and 100% base damage OR critical hit for 300% damage.

3) If your chances to hit were 25%, a hit will do between 51% and 75% base damage OR critical hit for 300% damage.

But this is for ONE hit. That is NOT what your dps will be.

So what does statistical means ? That means that you CANNOT compute turret dps based on one hit. For turret dps to have any meaning, you need a statisticaly relevant set of data. 100 draws are not not enough yet, but we'll start to see what happen.

So, in case 1, we have 100% hit chances, so all 100 bullets will hit. Each will do between 51 and 150% damage but one which will do 300%. In this case, the dps will be 103% * base damage / rof.

In case 2, now that become interesting : half the shot will miss and of the 50 hitting shots, 1 will be a critical, and all the 49 others will do between 51 and 100% base damage. Hence, your dps will be 40% * base damage / rof.

Why ? Because you won't have any hit with X above 0,5 so no hit will do more than 100% base damage to compensate those doing less than base damage. And that is for the hits, because you still have half your shot which completely missed the target.

Case 3, to be sure you understand : now only 25 shot on the 100 you fired will hit, and the damage of each hit will do between 50 and 75% base damage with one doing 300%. Here your dps should fall to around 20% base damage/rof.

Most if not all softwares showing dps already take this into account.

So, you see ? Saying that you should consider critical hit is stupid, because they already are considered when you talk about dps, as are the miss. The sad truth is that turret dps fall drasticaly when hit chances fall too much because of these miss, and one shot here and there won't change the outcome if a frigate managed to settle the orbit around you.

The dps figures for turrets show the average damage per second you will do with turrets when you factor in all the miss, bad, good and critical hits.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

I'll make a spreadsheet with missile damage to average cruisers and frigates to show actual numbers and not finely picked ones.

Missiles lack an equivalent to tracking enhancing modules for low-slots. Missiles have mids and rigs, nothing else. This is the inherit problem in my opinion - especially if you consider that you can fit mitigation for missile-damage in lowslots. Turrets have the advantage of having tracking enhancers - missiles don't.

As I said in another post - I think missiles do infact need damage application-modules for low-slots. This way, one could have the choice of more application vs more damage/Rof - which seems to be a fair trade, given that application vs tank is allready covered on midslots.

To the guy who says missiles are reliable damage:

They don't. Missile damage is more stable, yes. Reliable is different though. This would only be true if there would be a damage-reduction cap for ExVel, and as we all know, there is none (which would be bad anyway).

More people throwing statements around without any factual proof. At least I went through the trouble of documenting all my claims and statements. Just yelling missiles this and turrets that is a little daft if you can't produce numbers to back up your statements.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

"Missiles are ideal in fleet" ... you do realize of course that it takes time for a missile to land and by then the target will be gone already? I don't know what you're shooting at but even the people who barely know anything about this topic have brought this up more than once. But of course you know better, which is why everyone flies missile boats in fleets these days and not Maelstroms or Domis.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

Yeah absolutely no argument there 100% agreed. They didn't need to take on the weapon-system and they could've dealt with it in hull bonuses. That is my point too. I mean at the time caracals couldn't even properly fit their appropriate sized missile launchers. Afterwards there was no point.

But in the EvE I played HML weren't competitive outside of very select arenas, and in its context weren't OP it was all about the null sec drama. Lord knows you can't have a dominant missile platform in EvE. In low sec if you saw a drake you left it alone, takes too long to kill and the loot pinnate always has raisins in it no good stuff (not to mention the likeliness of biting deep into a bait-line). However whiney kiddies that wanted to be able to kill a drake and yelled "no fair" even-though the Drake they hated so much could only kill them! If... They attacked the shield wall in a red frenzy, instead of just casually flying off. I really miss the drake for what it offered EvE though, a platform that by it's sheer tank added a form of sovereignty/presence due to the threat of added hostiles, although the real problem could've been long term effects of their presence in structure sieges especially in low zex. Maybe there is room for that concept again now that we have actual warp speed differences and swarms of interceptors. Ohh well theory-crafting. P.S. I didn't like flying a drake, it was like pushing a whale back into the ocean. Boring as hell.

Edit: I think the missile mechanism needs a long looking into, Im not saying make everything the same but reducing the influence of signature radius would be a very important step for now.

CNI with two Rigors II and CN Scourge missiles (every other launcher OH) can do 41DPS to OH ab Executioner and 346DPS to OH mwd Cerberus. In web range that would be 93DPS to frigate and 544DPS (full damage) to HAC. Replace web with meta IV TP and you get almost perfect damage application to cruiser and very poor to frigate (only 55DPS). CNI has 28k EHP buffer tank, flown with maxed skills and +5 damage/precision implants.

EDIT: Fitted in this way it has missile exp. radius (a bit less velocity) very similar to Scourge Fury light missiles: 53/190 against 49/225. Somewhat extreme fit though and Imo very expensive for what it's worth.

The osprey isn't that unique there are similar ships in every faction, but they commonly have a higher sig but also substantially faster. Check Omen thorax examples. Stabber is the best one to accidentally use for that comparison.

I whole heartedly agree.

I agree, too, that target size shouldn't be a factor against missiles. I mean, if a frig is flying around and gets a rocket hit, it would be a 'fair' damage, but getting caugh in the explosion of a cruise missile should just shred it, in the same way getting hit by a large, long range turret vaporizes it. It's just not fair I can single shot a far away frig that is either stationary or flying towards me with a large turret or a sentry drone but not with a large missile. It's no sense, it just got hit by a missile almost its size, with enough damage to rival a turret or a drone, in a full frontal collision, and yet it's just a scratch.

The 'speed factor' against missiles is fair: turrets and drones have a problem against fast moving targets and so should missiles, even though they always hit (given right sized missiles), so that speed tanking is a valid choice. But size... that's just too many disadvantages. If a BS gets hit by a citadel missile, it should get instantly commited to dust, not get away with a 'hey, I'm too small for you'. Damn it, you can kill an insect with a nuke!

I honestly think that part of the missile mechanics should be looked at, and get rid of.

EDIT: re-reading my post, I realized some people could say 'Hey! If missiles always hit, then a missile BS would be instant death sentence for a group of frigs!' The answer is: what about the speed factor? Would you remain at zero transversal against a turret or sentry drone BS? No, wouldn't you? The same for missiles: if you are in that frig at full speed and those cruise missiles get you, you'll only get a scratch, but if you remain slow, you'll be wiped out. Wouldn't that be very similar to turrets or sentry drones?