These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Heavy Missiles, lets make them interesting

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mario Putzo
#141 - 2015-01-09 23:15:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Just a troll at this point I think.

But what the hell.

http://i.imgur.com/ht1PruT.png WITH AB
http://i.imgur.com/8J45o92.png WITHOUT AB

HML RED
BEAMS GREEN
RAILS BLUE (FEROX)
RAILS TEAL (BRUTIX)
ARTY YELLOW

Drake is using 3x Fitting slots for damage application.
Cane is using 3x Fitting slots for damage application.
Others using 2x Fitting Slots for damage application.



One of these things is not like the others.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#142 - 2015-01-09 23:16:43 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Just a troll at this point I think.


Agreed. Although, we could just be biased... Roll
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#143 - 2015-01-09 23:27:02 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Just a troll at this point I think.


Agreed. Although, we could just be biased... Roll


We, along with everyone else sane in eve are ALL WRONG!

ALL OF US!!!


Or uh....not.

Lol
Mario Putzo
#144 - 2015-01-09 23:54:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
You know looking at the long range end of things. I think all CCP should do is revert the explosion radius change they made (12% I think) That would give the drake about 20 more DPS which would bump its average into the middle of all those Turrets. Against a non AB Target it would gain about 30DPS but as we established a couple pages back with shorter range ammo (0-40K) Turrets dump all over the HMs

I say revert the Explosion Radius change is about all that needs to be done here.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#145 - 2015-01-10 05:11:07 UTC
I when I originally ran the numbers I noticed a trend. Light missiles lose 30% dps to a moving target, heavy missiles lose 44% and cruises lose nothing. Following that trend heavies ahould have been losing only 15% right? In my mind there's no other way to look at it. When you lose more applied damage than both the smaller weapon system and the larger despite being outranged by at least double in the latter case to be brought back in line to being inbetween the two is the logical request.

Like what raw missile stats would that require for heavy missiles anyway? 50% more explosion velocity? It's only to 150 after all not the gross 220+ of light missiles.

12% lower explosion radius would give you what 97m?
Mario Putzo
#146 - 2015-01-10 05:26:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Caleb Seremshur wrote:

12% lower explosion radius would give you what 97m?


Somewhere around that ya. Should drop the "damage bleed" to around 30% or so. In line with other missiles, and more in line with other turrets but still about 30-35% behind peak damage. But since Turrets can be TDd that seems about right.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#147 - 2015-01-10 05:49:40 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:

12% lower explosion radius would give you what 97m?


Somewhere around that ya. Should drop the "damage bleed" to around 30% or so. In line with other missiles, and more in line with other turrets but still about 30-35% behind peak damage. But since Turrets can be TDd that seems about right.


That's not unreasonable. As long as we're talking about size-appropriate targets naturally.
Paynus Maiassus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#148 - 2015-01-10 05:56:46 UTC
Heavy missiles used to be interesting. It was called Drakes Online. They had to make them uninteresting.
Mario Putzo
#149 - 2015-01-10 06:40:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:

12% lower explosion radius would give you what 97m?


Somewhere around that ya. Should drop the "damage bleed" to around 30% or so. In line with other missiles, and more in line with other turrets but still about 30-35% behind peak damage. But since Turrets can be TDd that seems about right.


That's not unreasonable. As long as we're talking about size-appropriate targets naturally.


Probably going to be a long post.


Damage = D *( MIN A,B,1)
A= Sr/Er
B=(Ev/V * Sr/Er)^(log(DRF) / log(5.5)) )

CN Heavy
D 213.125 EV 121.5 ER 105 DRF 3.2

Caracal with AB SR 150, SPEED 785

Current.
(SR.ER)150/105 = 1.42
(EV/V)121.5/785 =.15
(lDRF) .66
A) = 1.42
B) = .3603

D= 76.78


Proposed
-12% ER

SE/ER 150/92.4 = 1.62
EV/V 121.5/785 = .15
(lDRF)= .66
A) 1.62
B) = .393
D=83.75

83.75/76.78 = 9%

Without AB Caracal(V= 315) this would be:

Old = 141.84
New = 154.72

154.72/141.84 = 9%

So removing the 12% Explosion Radius increase change you bump up the applied damage of missiles by about 9%. This doesn't increase the peak damage of heavy missiles, but it does increase overall damage output...which we have established is lacking in all ranges above 10K against other LR weapons.

*Note this does not include Rigors or Flares and is damage applied before resists.

EDIT
But I did forget to take the BCUs off, Damage Numbers updated.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#150 - 2015-01-10 07:35:01 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Just a troll at this point I think.

But what the hell.

http://i.imgur.com/ht1PruT.png WITH AB
http://i.imgur.com/8J45o92.png WITHOUT AB

HML RED
BEAMS GREEN
RAILS BLUE (FEROX)
RAILS TEAL (BRUTIX)
ARTY YELLOW

Drake is using 3x Fitting slots for damage application.
Cane is using 3x Fitting slots for damage application.
Others using 2x Fitting Slots for damage application.



One of these things is not like the others.




What are the eHP's of these ships?

The fact that you have to fit an AB instead of an MWD or MJD is a massive drawback on the defending ship. They then completely lose their ability to dictate range.

I notice that the Drake does not have a TP fitted (or you would see a distinct drop at 45km).

If anything. All this graph proves to me is that Arty completely sucks.
Soraellion
#151 - 2015-01-10 08:45:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Soraellion
They're not willing to take EHP and other balancing factors into account simply because it doesn't support their cause.

They don't want to talk about how turrets magically have to switch ammo for every target at a different distance (which takes 2/7 seconds, projectiles don't really benefit nor need it, it's why their dps is also a tad lower), they don't want to talk about how missiles don't use cap (nor projectiles, that's why their dps is also a bit lower), or how missiles can select damage types (just like projectiles, that's why their dps is also a bit lower) or massive fitting or... anything really.


They just want to talk pure dps, they're not even willing to do a "trade" in a "well yeah, if you'd outright buff HML then you'd create a monster again so we'll try and make it balanced". NO, all they want is for a dumb, moronic proof, non cap using, easy to use, damage type selectable clown car weapon that has no real counter, 60km range that doesn't need to switch ammo to work across its whole range, to be JUST AS GOOD at applying damage as turrets, without ANY of the disadvantages.


Because that's logical, balanced and not at all biased.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#152 - 2015-01-10 09:22:55 UTC
Tell me more about the selectable damage on a drake (lol unbonused missiles), or that missile using ships have flat out weaker cap to balance it, or that wth three fitting rigs the tank is no longer "all that".

I've not seen any fits from the people saying they are ok. NOT. ONE. SINGLE. FIT.

If you're so worried about the drake, stick a cyclone in there instead, or are you going to tell me active tanking i a thing in fleet battles now?.

It's like Fozzie said, you balance the weapon THEN the ships. All I hear from the "HML are fine" guys is "Because of Drake".


Post some fits, or I'm sorry I'm with Mario that you're flat out trolling in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Soraellion
#153 - 2015-01-10 09:27:37 UTC
I see you completely ignored the idea I posted earlier, why would that be?
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#154 - 2015-01-10 09:39:43 UTC
Because it makes them even worse than today, makes HAMs a superior choice in all nearly cases. There would be even LESS reason to use them and that's saying something.

Furthermore:
I see you've STILL not posted these mythical awesome fits that are better than guns.
I see you've still not been able to address the lack of footprint from missiles in CCPS charts beyond "adding them up is hard"

Post some credible fits otherwise, I'm done.
Soraellion
#155 - 2015-01-10 10:00:43 UTC
afkalt wrote:
I see you've STILL not posted these mythical awesome fits that are better than guns.


Because they aren't better, nor should be. Have you actually been paying attention? There's massive advantages to missiles that have to be balanced somehow.
Aiyshimin
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#156 - 2015-01-10 10:25:31 UTC
Missiles by definition aren't interesting, they are by far the stupidest weapon in game, requiring no attention or player skills at all.

As such they are really difficult to balance. If they would do as much damage as real weapons, everyone would use them (which is was the case for years).

They also cause massive lag.

Therefore it would be best to replace them with a fourth turret type instead of trying to make the impossible work.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#157 - 2015-01-10 14:23:59 UTC
Soraellion wrote:
Because they aren't better, nor should be. Have you actually been paying attention? There's massive advantages to missiles that have to be balanced somehow.


What?

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#158 - 2015-01-10 14:54:54 UTC  |  Edited by: scorchlikeshiswhiskey
elitatwo wrote:
Soraellion wrote:
Because they aren't better, nor should be. Have you actually been paying attention? There's massive advantages to missiles that have to be balanced somehow.


What?

See, their argument/troll goes like this: Heavies are fine because they're better than turrets, which we would see if all the dps graphs weren't biased, and since they're better they have to be balanced by being ******. But they're still better because, as a long range platform, they might get more EHP (despite using all rigs for application, and lows for damage) and you can get under guns but not missiles so missiles are better because they apply more dps <10km than turrets do with max transversal. Also, no missile platforms have ever been locked into damage type at all.
Makes sense right?

Edit: Mario, did those graphs get switched? It looks like the with/without AB is backwards. I could be wrong though
Mario Putzo
#159 - 2015-01-10 15:37:40 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
elitatwo wrote:
Soraellion wrote:
Because they aren't better, nor should be. Have you actually been paying attention? There's massive advantages to missiles that have to be balanced somehow.


What?

Edit: Mario, did those graphs get switched? It looks like the with/without AB is backwards. I could be wrong though


Nope those Graphs are in the right order.
Soraellion
#160 - 2015-01-10 15:51:52 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
elitatwo wrote:
Soraellion wrote:
Because they aren't better, nor should be. Have you actually been paying attention? There's massive advantages to missiles that have to be balanced somehow.


What?

See, their argument/troll goes like this: Heavies are fine because they're better than turrets, which we would see if all the dps graphs weren't biased, and since they're better they have to be balanced by being ******. But they're still better because, as a long range platform, they might get more EHP (despite using all rigs for application, and lows for damage) and you can get under guns but not missiles so missiles are better because they apply more dps <10km than turrets do with max transversal. Also, no missile platforms have ever been locked into damage type at all.
Makes sense right?

Edit: Mario, did those graphs get switched? It looks like the with/without AB is backwards. I could be wrong though


Switching to non-bonused damage type is better than having to hit against T2/T3 resists.