These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Is sub-40 minutes for Golem in AE reasonable?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
The Bigpuns
United Standings Improvement Agency
#21 - 2015-10-07 09:22:30 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
rage torps and no application issues, you sure about that?

Essentially these were my thoughts.
Consider dropping at least one of the TP''s and possibly all of them for the Missile Guidance Computers with precision scripts.
Lose a little on the sig radius side of the equation and then gain it all back and then some on the explosion velocity and explosion radius side with no penalty to range. Other benefits to them is they are not affected by range as the TP's are and you can change out the precision script in one or more of them for range scripts to help with those ships that are just beyond your max range when / if needed. Beauty is they are cheap and easy to swap, if they work for you great if not then pull them and sell them. My son likes the way these work in combination with his torp fit Golem so I thought I would mention it.

I know it is not popular with many but a cruise fit with rigors might be a better option for your style of mission running. Based on the experience my son and I have had over the last few years his torp fit is clearly better on the BS as long as they are in range. The BC seem to be a toss up. Anything cruiser and down my cruise fit is superior in every way.

As for the speed considering that you are killing AND salvaging there is probably not much left to gain. The magic 25 minutes would in my assessment be doing them as a true blitz which essentially means ignoring all of the salvage and kill / loot only the things required to complete the mission.


This isn't right (the bit about mgc's being better than tp's). On any other ship, yes, but not a golem. What people seem to miss, is that any excess from the sig radius/explosion radius side of the missile application equation carries over to the velocity side, but not the other way round. With the higher radius bonus from tp's on a golem, you will generally see best results from 3 tp's before changing to precision scripted mgc's, as long as you fight within ~60km, which most of the time you probably will be anyway with a marauder, and definitely if using torps.

I'm surprised Anize hasn't been on to tell us we're all wrong for not using polarised weapons...
Anize Oramara
WarpTooZero
#22 - 2015-10-07 09:50:53 UTC
The Bigpuns wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
rage torps and no application issues, you sure about that?

Essentially these were my thoughts.
Consider dropping at least one of the TP''s and possibly all of them for the Missile Guidance Computers with precision scripts.
Lose a little on the sig radius side of the equation and then gain it all back and then some on the explosion velocity and explosion radius side with no penalty to range. Other benefits to them is they are not affected by range as the TP's are and you can change out the precision script in one or more of them for range scripts to help with those ships that are just beyond your max range when / if needed. Beauty is they are cheap and easy to swap, if they work for you great if not then pull them and sell them. My son likes the way these work in combination with his torp fit Golem so I thought I would mention it.

I know it is not popular with many but a cruise fit with rigors might be a better option for your style of mission running. Based on the experience my son and I have had over the last few years his torp fit is clearly better on the BS as long as they are in range. The BC seem to be a toss up. Anything cruiser and down my cruise fit is superior in every way.

As for the speed considering that you are killing AND salvaging there is probably not much left to gain. The magic 25 minutes would in my assessment be doing them as a true blitz which essentially means ignoring all of the salvage and kill / loot only the things required to complete the mission.


This isn't right (the bit about mgc's being better than tp's). On any other ship, yes, but not a golem. What people seem to miss, is that any excess from the sig radius/explosion radius side of the missile application equation carries over to the velocity side, but not the other way round. With the higher radius bonus from tp's on a golem, you will generally see best results from 3 tp's before changing to precision scripted mgc's, as long as you fight within ~60km, which most of the time you probably will be anyway with a marauder, and definitely if using torps.

I'm surprised Anize hasn't been on to tell us we're all wrong for not using polarised weapons...

Roll
You keep getting it wrong, it's not that you should always use polarized on marauders, it's that IF you WANT to use polarized weapons, Marauders are the best platform to use them ON.

That said, the Golem is the weakest of the marauder platforms when it comes to using polarized because of the many shortcomings that are inherent to torpedoes. Heck, all they would need is like, 25% extra base range. Is that too much to ask Sad

A guide (Google Doc) to Hi-Sec blitzing and breaking the 200mill ISK/H barrier v1.2.3
Bastion Arzi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2015-10-07 11:55:01 UTC
try mwd if possible
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#24 - 2015-10-08 03:20:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Donnachadh
The Bigpuns wrote:
[This isn't right (the bit about mgc's being better than tp's). On any other ship, yes, but not a golem. What people seem to miss, is that any excess from the sig radius/explosion radius side of the missile application equation carries over to the velocity side, but not the other way round. With the higher radius bonus from tp's on a golem, you will generally see best results from 3 tp's before changing to precision scripted mgc's, as long as you fight within ~60km, which most of the time you probably will be anyway with a marauder, and definitely if using torps.

Nothing in the missile damage formula carries over to any other part of the formula. The missile damage formula is a series of equations that are solved independent of each other, the results are then compared and the most advantageous result is applied while the others are discarded.

The most important part of the missile damage formula changes with the speed of the target.
The smaller and faster your target is the more important explosion velocity becomes and by time you are into destroyer / frigate class target speeds the explosion velocity boost from the MGC is far more critical than the radius side of the equation from the TP's. On small fast targets they can and often do outrun a majority of the explosion from a TP fit Golem because the explosion is to small in radius and to slow relative to the sig radius and speed or the target. While the slightly larger radius from the MGC would lead one to believe that you would apply less damage the fact is that the increased explosion velocity actually allows you to have better application by keeping your target within the explosion radius for a longer period of time. And yes I know that time is all theoretical and does not actually exist anywhere but the math formula, but then that is the only place that matters.

On the other side with large slow targets there is essentially no change in damage application between MGC and TP equipped ships so the fact that there is no potential for range related issues makes the MGC a better option.

Yes I know this all seems heretical based on the Golem's bonus to TP's and I did not believe either until I started running the simulations after they were released and then spent 2 weeks running the MGC and comparing my notes to those of the TP fit for the same mission.

As I stated earlier all I am doing is making a suggestion and asking you rto try it. If it works for you great, if not then what have you really lost?
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#25 - 2015-10-08 04:33:32 UTC
errm it is a min term, so it is the least advantageous part that applied http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Missile_Damage

with BS missiles and painters it is much easier to change the sig radius part of the formula than the speed part. and since the third term multiples the sig radius comparison by the velocity part, it makes sense to get the biggest improvement possible. Also there is now a stacking penalty so what the best improvement is may have changed. it is one thing to calculate some min/max stuff, but to constrain that to what is possible to fit in game

I just did a quick and dirty, spreadsheet and a 2x mgc golem would apply 44.89% of its damage, fortunately its target painters have a bonus which bring it up to 100% application. Looks like it would apply fully with 2 TP and 2 MGC. Vs a BC it looks like it does 75% damage, but with 9k (base) volleys that should be enough to volley a bc. cruiser is ~40% which seems less useful, although navy torps look to apply well there.

Great now I want to make a more robust spreadsheet, I've gotten away with not doing the missile math for so long :<

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#26 - 2015-10-08 14:35:01 UTC
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
errm it is a min term, so it is the least advantageous part that applied http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Missile_Damage

with BS missiles and painters it is much easier to change the sig radius part of the formula than the speed part. and since the third term multiples the sig radius comparison by the velocity part, it makes sense to get the biggest improvement possible. Also there is now a stacking penalty so what the best improvement is may have changed. it is one thing to calculate some min/max stuff, but to constrain that to what is possible to fit in game

I just did a quick and dirty, spreadsheet and a 2x mgc golem would apply 44.89% of its damage, fortunately its target painters have a bonus which bring it up to 100% application. Looks like it would apply fully with 2 TP and 2 MGC. Vs a BC it looks like it does 75% damage, but with 9k (base) volleys that should be enough to volley a bc. cruiser is ~40% which seems less useful, although navy torps look to apply well there.

Great now I want to make a more robust spreadsheet, I've gotten away with not doing the missile math for so long :<

Thank you for pointing out that I used an incorrect word, yes you are correct the least damage amount is used, since it may lead to confusions with those reading your post I will not alter mine.

Please do make up a more robust spread sheet I am interested to see what your results will be since I wrote small program to run the simulations I did not use a spread sheet. In theory and since they are math formula we should get equal results but who knows.

Thank you for the reminder but I did factor the stacking penalties into the sim. Well actually I used an all skills 5 pilot and averages of the relevant information from EvE HQ and PYFA to get the numbers for the sim. Call me lazy or accept that I want to eliminate as much potential for error on my side as possible so this just seemed like the best path to follow.

On samll fast targets even within optimal range of your TP you will rarely get 100% damage application.
Even using precision T2 cruise missiles and 2 faction painters your explosion radius is usually about the same size or larger than the adjusted sig radius of the target. Setting that aside the damage reduction factor in the equation virtually eliminates any possible chance for 100% application of your available damage.

Many players I have spoken to over the MGC seem to forget that with the precision scripts they not only boost explosion velocity but also decrease explosion radius. When dealing with explosion radius versus sig radius it simply does not matter which one you change it is only the relative difference between them that matters.

In my simulations I used 2 Republic Fleet TP or 2 Tech 2 precision scripted MGC.
On the sig radius versus explosion radius side the MGC came up about 40% short of the advantages gained using the TP.
However on the explosion velocity versus target velocity side the MGC had an advantage of about 45%.
This indicated that against small fast targets the MGC have a theoretical advantage. In practice in game it is very difficult to determine this since abolute scientific methods of testing are not possible. However based on the circumstantial evidence of all the missions I have run and charted since the MGC were released I have found this theoretical advantage to hold true in game.

On an interesting side note. My son and I run missions a lot just as a way of spending time doing something together since we live in different locations and rarely get to acually sit down to visit. After watching the results of my precision scripted MGC fit Golem in missions compared to his TP fit Golem the low sec corp he is in now uses the MGC in place of target painters in all of their fleet missile doctrine ships. Not proof of anything by any means but I just found this out last night and thought it was interesting enough to enter into this debate.

I simply cannot stress this enough so I am likely to keep posting it.
Try it or not, it is your choice.
Use them or not it is your choice.
This is a game we play for fun so do what you want and tell hell with what me or anyone else says.
The Larold
This is an anagram of itself.
#27 - 2015-10-08 17:09:25 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:

On an interesting side note. My son and I run missions a lot just as a way of spending time doing something together since we live in different locations and rarely get to acually sit down to visit. After watching the results of my precision scripted MGC fit Golem in missions compared to his TP fit Golem the low sec corp he is in now uses the MGC in place of target painters in all of their fleet missile doctrine ships. Not proof of anything by any means but I just found this out last night and thought it was interesting enough to enter into this debate.


Kudoz to you for finding a way to bond with your son remotely; that is awesome.

I am a (relatively) new father of two myself. My 4yo loves watching me play "the spaceship game", and I am proud to say he's reading at a 3rd-grade level. (I know that sounds exaggerated; it's not.) He loves reading damage amounts as they go out / come in. He likes having me zoom in on the NPC's that I'm shooting at. In fact, one of my favorite additions that CCP recently made was the ability to watch the full length of the explosion of a ship before finally auto-zooming back out. He LOVES the EM explosions.

Anyways, totally off-topic, but your posts really caught my eye and wanted to say that, indeed, it looks like games will be one of the ways my son and I bond over the years. Hope you get more in-person time with him in the future!

- A fellow dad

P.S. It's adorable to watch my 3yo daughter run into my office and ask if the "pretty space bird is going to fly home to his nest". Priceless.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#28 - 2015-10-09 02:07:10 UTC
The Larold wrote:
- A fellow dad

P.S. It's adorable to watch my 3yo daughter run into my office and ask if the "pretty space bird is going to fly home to his nest". Priceless.

Staying off topic on things that matter.
Thank you for the kind words. We do get to see each other once a month at our other favorite father son pastime, paintball.

Enjoy your time with your children before you know it they will be grown and living on their own.
The Bigpuns
United Standings Improvement Agency
#29 - 2015-10-09 07:43:28 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
The Bigpuns wrote:
[This isn't right (the bit about mgc's being better than tp's). On any other ship, yes, but not a golem. What people seem to miss, is that any excess from the sig radius/explosion radius side of the missile application equation carries over to the velocity side, but not the other way round. With the higher radius bonus from tp's on a golem, you will generally see best results from 3 tp's before changing to precision scripted mgc's, as long as you fight within ~60km, which most of the time you probably will be anyway with a marauder, and definitely if using torps.

Nothing in the missile damage formula carries over to any other part of the formula. The missile damage formula is a series of equations that are solved independent of each other, the results are then compared and the most advantageous result is applied while the others are discarded.

The most important part of the missile damage formula changes with the speed of the target.
The smaller and faster your target is the more important explosion velocity becomes and by time you are into destroyer / frigate class target speeds the explosion velocity boost from the MGC is far more critical than the radius side of the equation from the TP's. On small fast targets they can and often do outrun a majority of the explosion from a TP fit Golem because the explosion is to small in radius and to slow relative to the sig radius and speed or the target. While the slightly larger radius from the MGC would lead one to believe that you would apply less damage the fact is that the increased explosion velocity actually allows you to have better application by keeping your target within the explosion radius for a longer period of time. And yes I know that time is all theoretical and does not actually exist anywhere but the math formula, but then that is the only place that matters.

On the other side with large slow targets there is essentially no change in damage application between MGC and TP equipped ships so the fact that there is no potential for range related issues makes the MGC a better option.

Yes I know this all seems heretical based on the Golem's bonus to TP's and I did not believe either until I started running the simulations after they were released and then spent 2 weeks running the MGC and comparing my notes to those of the TP fit for the same mission.

As I stated earlier all I am doing is making a suggestion and asking you rto try it. If it works for you great, if not then what have you really lost?


Seems I need evidence. Oh look, here it is:

http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Missiles_101

Specifically, this bit:

"You might think that the explosion velocity indicated on your missile is the point at which damage starts to drop off as the target moves faster than that velocity, unfortunately it's not that simple. The point at which your damage does start to drop off is also related to the missile's explosion radius, and also the signature radius of the target.
You can see a graph on page 13 of the slideshow of how damage drops off with velocity. Below a certain velocity your missile will do 100% damage, above it damage will drop off quickly at first but then the decrease will slow down. The easiest way to move that damage drop off point to a faster velocity is to increase your target's size with target painters, which will increase your damage done (up to 100%, that is). Alternatively you could just decrease your target's velocity with stasis webifiers".

ie. the bigger you can make the signature radius of the target (eg with a well bonused tp) the less effect the targets velocity will have on application.

I actually read a different article previously which I cant find right now, but it basically said that once the explosion radius is smaller than the targets signature radius, any excess factor is applied to the velocity side of the damage application formula.

Apologies if my previous statement had been a bit unclear, but this is basically what I meant.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#30 - 2015-10-09 13:54:40 UTC
The Bigpuns wrote:
Seems I need evidence. Oh look, here it is:

http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Missiles_101

Specifically, this bit:

"You might think that the explosion velocity indicated on your missile is the point at which damage starts to drop off as the target moves faster than that velocity, unfortunately it's not that simple. The point at which your damage does start to drop off is also related to the missile's explosion radius, and also the signature radius of the target.
You can see a graph on page 13 of the slideshow of how damage drops off with velocity. Below a certain velocity your missile will do 100% damage, above it damage will drop off quickly at first but then the decrease will slow down. The easiest way to move that damage drop off point to a faster velocity is to increase your target's size with target painters, which will increase your damage done (up to 100%, that is). Alternatively you could just decrease your target's velocity with stasis webifiers".

ie. the bigger you can make the signature radius of the target (eg with a well bonused tp) the less effect the targets velocity will have on application.

I actually read a different article previously which I cant find right now, but it basically said that once the explosion radius is smaller than the targets signature radius, any excess factor is applied to the velocity side of the damage application formula.

Apologies if my previous statement had been a bit unclear, but this is basically what I meant.

Nice link, somewhat outdated with respect to this discussion as they do not even mention the MGC but it and several others as well as long held personal beliefs sent me looking for a damage calculator online that accounted for the MGC. None exist to this point, at least none that I can find so that is why I wrote my own. And to be honest when I did I went into it thinking that it would simply prove your contention that TP are still better and that was the surprise of the whole thing. So grab a spread sheet or your programming tool of choice and set it up and run the numbers yourself and post your results here. If you can prove me wrong with your numbers I will be glad to admit my error.
The Bigpuns
United Standings Improvement Agency
#31 - 2015-10-09 20:07:38 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
The Bigpuns wrote:
Seems I need evidence. Oh look, here it is:

http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Missiles_101

Specifically, this bit:

"You might think that the explosion velocity indicated on your missile is the point at which damage starts to drop off as the target moves faster than that velocity, unfortunately it's not that simple. The point at which your damage does start to drop off is also related to the missile's explosion radius, and also the signature radius of the target.
You can see a graph on page 13 of the slideshow of how damage drops off with velocity. Below a certain velocity your missile will do 100% damage, above it damage will drop off quickly at first but then the decrease will slow down. The easiest way to move that damage drop off point to a faster velocity is to increase your target's size with target painters, which will increase your damage done (up to 100%, that is). Alternatively you could just decrease your target's velocity with stasis webifiers".

ie. the bigger you can make the signature radius of the target (eg with a well bonused tp) the less effect the targets velocity will have on application.

I actually read a different article previously which I cant find right now, but it basically said that once the explosion radius is smaller than the targets signature radius, any excess factor is applied to the velocity side of the damage application formula.

Apologies if my previous statement had been a bit unclear, but this is basically what I meant.

Nice link, somewhat outdated with respect to this discussion as they do not even mention the MGC but it and several others as well as long held personal beliefs sent me looking for a damage calculator online that accounted for the MGC. None exist to this point, at least none that I can find so that is why I wrote my own. And to be honest when I did I went into it thinking that it would simply prove your contention that TP are still better and that was the surprise of the whole thing. So grab a spread sheet or your programming tool of choice and set it up and run the numbers yourself and post your results here. If you can prove me wrong with your numbers I will be glad to admit my error.


Doesn't need to be about the benefits of mgc, but the comparative advantages of radius vs velocity in the formula. As such, the link is still relevant.
Previous page12