These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6361 - 2013-01-09 21:15:23 UTC
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Colt Blackhawk wrote:

Didn´t really see a Drake for ages now. Nowhere. Does anyone still fly it? Are there anywhere drakes left in the galaxy?
Doubt it.


Drake use since the release of Retribution has dropped 4.8%. Usage of the Heavy Missile Launcher II module has dropped 7.8% in the same timeframe. Both well within acceptable ranges for this point and we're continuing to keep an eye on the numbers.



The question really isn't the dropped usage from hmls or Drakes, but rather hmls on drakes.

If you looked at those numbers, what would they be?

I ask this because hmls are still relatively effective when used on caracals, navy caracals, rooks, tengus, etc. etc...

Soo, in my mind this could effectively mean that the drop in hml launchers is directly relative to the drake.

Also, we're only 1 month into the changes, so I feel that these numbers aren't yet settled on what the final numbers. will be.

Once many of these existing drakes have been destroyed I'm afraid they're not going to get replaced.

Also, there are probably plenty of players who are training out of a drake and just haven't reached a capable skill lvl to be able to fly anything else.


Hell, before these changes I was running around telling many players that if they were going to train missiles then there was no point in training past a tengu and past heavy missiles.

Now..... Well, all I can say is that my over 8mil sp in missiles is going waisted because the only missile boat I currently own is actually a cloaky scanner ship that just happens to have launcher hard points...

While CCP has made cruise and torps more effective, they're still not that effective.
In pve I can take out targets approaching using large turrets without the use of any tracking mods.
However, in a cruise or torp boat I need at least 2 target painters to put max effective dps on a BATTLESHIP, and that's with high support skills.

Personally, I'm wondering if missiles just need to be taken back to the drawing board and just redesigned in a way to make them more competitive when compared to turrets in both pvp and pve.


I don't know what to do as far as changing them in this manner, but then again, I'm not the game designer and shouldn't be responsible for figuring it out.



Good points well made, I am of the opinion that sooner or later missiles of all varieties will be phased out. Full stop, no more missiles. This is the second major missile nerf I've had to put up with since joining the community of New Eden. Now I just tell noobs, to 'just train guns'. As for missiles there's no ******* point. Every missile boat I own from frigate to BS underperforms when compared to an equivalent gun toting ship which is sad considering that I have 5 million sp in missiles and roughly the same in gunnery.

Ho Ho there we go.




I was going to type some big, long speech about how missiles are lacking in comparison, but instead I'll just state the just of the speech.

Missiles still require modules for effectiveness even when traversal isn't an issue.
Missiles take time to reach their target.
Missiles are null and void if you're destroyed or you or your target warp away.
Even when pitted against a ship class equal in size to the relevant missiles, modules for effectiveness are still required.
Missiles can be destroyed mid air, thus reducing dps even against a stationary target.(granted, defender missiles suck and aren't used in pvp)

At a certain point, the velocity of your target will negate any missile damage. While this is also the case for turrets when considering tracking, if you took two ships, both travelling at 5000m/s and flying parallel, the turrets can still engage while missiles won't be able to catch the target. (yes, this is a stretch as an example, it's mearly an attempt at removing tracking from the equation while still factoring velocity.)

Another consideration to this is, if tracking is considered such as a fast ship orbitting a stationary ship, turrets can reduce the effects of tracking by using modules, as well as can missiles. HOWEVER, turrets can also use tactical movements to reduce the effects of tracking even more, while missiles cannot.

You get the point... Missiles underperform for many reasons while turrets only need to consider two things. Tracking and range.
killorbekilled TBE
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6362 - 2013-01-09 21:19:53 UTC
you forgot missiles dont require cap, they have a choice of all damage types, they have no fall off or optimal

:)
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6363 - 2013-01-09 21:39:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
killorbekilled TBE wrote:
you forgot missiles dont require cap, they have a choice of all damage types, they have no fall off or optimal



Not requiring cap is a non-factor.

I say this because any ship that I've flown that uses missiles still has cap issues.
For example, I have flown both a nightmare and a Golem.

My Golem uses torps while my nightmare uses Tachyons.
Yet, even though my Golem doesn't require cap for it's torp launchers, it still has the same cap problems that I face on my nightmare, if not more.

The choice of damage types is a non-factor in pvp, which is where the unperforming aspects of missiles becomes a problem.
1) because if I don't know what I'm about to face, swapping ammo types is redundant.
2) many ships have a bonus to one specific damage type
3) often in pvp, players will omni-tank their ships much like sleepers.
4) often times as well in pvp, players will have more resists stacked into their weak spot than in other spots. (for instance, while my nightmare is EM weak, however, when I omni-tank my em is stronger than my thermal resists.
5) Reloading mid fight to TEST a target's resistance towards another damage type is probably more of a waist of dps than it helps.


No, missiles do not have an optimal or falloff, but as a player who has used both turrets and missiles, I can easily say that optimal range has never been a problem.

Edit...
Also, when it comes to optimal/falloff.
The aggressor dictates the range...
So, reguardless of whether you're using missiles or turrets, you're either going to dictate the range of the fight, or have to find a way to counter the aggressor having the upper hand on range dictation.
Krom Thomson
Jumpbridg
#6364 - 2013-01-10 01:21:39 UTC
Lyradex Fane wrote:
This... Is bullshit.
You make it so I can't fit a plate, 5 425's, an a fricking AFTERBURNER onto a hurricane? But you buff the DRAKE AGAIN?
Seriously frustrating.
So clearly, you just want drake blob fleets.

just wondering um were is this so called drake buff? but i do understand were your coming from with the cane they fu'cked it up as bad as they did heavy missiles
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#6365 - 2013-01-10 01:58:58 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Colt Blackhawk wrote:

Didn´t really see a Drake for ages now. Nowhere. Does anyone still fly it? Are there anywhere drakes left in the galaxy?
Doubt it.


Drake use since the release of Retribution has dropped 4.8%. Usage of the Heavy Missile Launcher II module has dropped 7.8% in the same timeframe. Both well within acceptable ranges for this point and we're continuing to keep an eye on the numbers.


Personally, I still fly drakes, but only when I land at a station where I have nothing else. I dont plan on replacing them, and once I lose them all, I wont be flying drakes.

Id also like to know the number for drakes in pvp, since what highsec missioners do is not really something I care about.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#6366 - 2013-01-10 15:51:25 UTC
I would like to know the criteria that CCP is basing it's balancing decisions on. We're all stabbing at the dark with our suggestions because we don't have perfect knowledge. CCP have that and should share it so that we fully informed can comment on their balancing ideas.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Dhuras
The Classy Gentlemans Corporation
Moist.
#6367 - 2013-01-10 18:45:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Dhuras
I remember people were talking about how heavy missiles could hit small targets far too easy, making them OP or whatever, problem is, if you compare the explosion velocity and radius of HM's and HAM's, it now such that HM's can't hit anything smaller than a cruiser for ****.

at base, T1 HMs get
explosion radius: 140
explosion velocity: 81

while t1 HAMs get
explosion radius: 125
explosion velocity: 101

In pvp there is now no reason to ever use HM's. HAMs hit out far enough you can kite with them, do more damage and can hit smaller targets better. HM's have better range sure but there's no point using them over HAMs to kite since you can do that with HAMs fine and sniping is moot since the damage is not instantaneous.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#6368 - 2013-01-11 01:06:24 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
killorbekilled TBE wrote:
you forgot missiles dont require cap, they have a choice of all damage types, they have no fall off or optimal



Not requiring cap is a non-factor.

I say this because any ship that I've flown that uses missiles still has cap issues.
For example, I have flown both a nightmare and a Golem.

My Golem uses torps while my nightmare uses Tachyons.
Yet, even though my Golem doesn't require cap for it's torp launchers, it still has the same cap problems that I face on my nightmare, if not more.

The choice of damage types is a non-factor in pvp, which is where the unperforming aspects of missiles becomes a problem.
1) because if I don't know what I'm about to face, swapping ammo types is redundant.
2) many ships have a bonus to one specific damage type
3) often in pvp, players will omni-tank their ships much like sleepers.
4) often times as well in pvp, players will have more resists stacked into their weak spot than in other spots. (for instance, while my nightmare is EM weak, however, when I omni-tank my em is stronger than my thermal resists.
5) Reloading mid fight to TEST a target's resistance towards another damage type is probably more of a waist of dps than it helps.


No, missiles do not have an optimal or falloff, but as a player who has used both turrets and missiles, I can easily say that optimal range has never been a problem.

Edit...
Also, when it comes to optimal/falloff.
The aggressor dictates the range...
So, reguardless of whether you're using missiles or turrets, you're either going to dictate the range of the fight, or have to find a way to counter the aggressor having the upper hand on range dictation.


this is quite the fail post.

cap cost is a huge factor for turrets. u cant cap out missile launchers with neuts

1, 3 + 4) choice of damage is also huge in pvp. when u come up against certain enemies u can swap damage type to suit their weakest resist or second weakest. As oppose to a laser turret against an armour loki or Hybrids against Gallente T2 which can do F*all. and selectable damage types are also very useful for PvE. Missiles even have more versatile damage types than projectiles.

2) much fewer now, and it has been implied more caldari ships will be replacing the kinetic dam boost for a RoF bonus.

5) selecting damage type is a gamble made with ur knowledge and experience. unless u have logi, swapping mid fight will likely be worse than powering through with an IMPERFECT (but not useless) damage type.

How has range never been an problem? why are u even talking about why range needs to be dictated in the fight in the first place if range is never a problem? I don't know what u mean by aggressor, but range is dictated by speed and otherwise outmaneuvering ur opponent . if i attack ur Drake with my Mega, how on earth will i dictate range? (btw, scrams and webs are a way to manipulate speed)

What were u on when u wrote this post?

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6369 - 2013-01-11 04:43:42 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:


this is quite the fail post.

cap cost is a huge factor for turrets. u cant cap out missile launchers with neuts


Yes, launchers can still fire without cap, however, without cap most boats that can fit missiles will drop like flies, unless you're considering launchers on armor tanks or passive shield tanks..

Quote:
1, 3 + 4) choice of damage is also huge in pvp. when u come up against certain enemies u can swap damage type to suit their weakest resist or second weakest. As oppose to a laser turret against an armour loki or Hybrids against Gallente T2 which can do F*all. and selectable damage types are also very useful for PvE. Missiles even have more versatile damage types than projectiles.


Damage selection is awesome in pve. However, pve is a non-factor. The relevance of comparison is directed solely at pvp.
Now, in pvp have damage selection is a good thing. However, once the fight begins swapping damage types mid fight is often times less helpful and more harmful.

Quote:
2) much fewer now, and it has been implied more caldari ships will be replacing the kinetic dam boost for a RoF bonus.

Yes, however, for missile boats rof buffs means less damage per volley and more waisted volleys which equals isk.
Reduced volley damage will hurt us more than a rof buff will help us.
Also, in CCP's great wisdom they decided to make the new destroyers have damage specific bonuses, so it's obvious they're not getting away from this design.

Quote:
5) selecting damage type is a gamble made with ur knowledge and experience. unless u have logi, swapping mid fight will likely be worse than powering through with an IMPERFECT (but not useless) damage type.


At least we agree that swapping damage types mid fight is more likely to hurt than help.
I would probably prefer to have two damage types mixed into one missile than to be stuck with a single damage type that is underperforming, yet swapping damage types will hurt just as much if not more

Quote:
How has range never been an problem? why are u even talking about why range needs to be dictated in the fight in the first place if range is never a problem? I don't know what u mean by aggressor, but range is dictated by speed and otherwise outmaneuvering ur opponent . if i attack ur Drake with my Mega, how on earth will i dictate range? (btw, scrams and webs are a way to manipulate speed)

What were u on when u wrote this post?


The agressor is the person who initiates the fight.. In other words, they warp in on you.
When a missile boat warps in on a turret boat they rely heavily on knowledge of the ship they're attacking. The must know that ship's tracking capabilities and optimal ranges. This can be difficult since they don't know how the ship is fitted.
A turret boat need now worry so much about this information. They simply warp in at what is there optimal range.
Obviously there's the matter of whether your ship can take on the intended target or not, but this same consideration must be made for missiles.

Sure, not many people are going to take on a target to which they're unsure whether they'll win or not, but my considerations in these posting are equally pitted ships.
Assuming the two ships are equally matched, than there are many factors that give the turret boat a distinct advantage and very few factors that would give the missile boat an advantage.
Most of the factors that would help the missile pilot are specifically oriented towards pilot skill.
The turret pilot has the general advantages of turrets over missiles, as well as factoring pilot skill.
Even without skill, the turrets are given an advantage from the start.

Like I've stated before, I have flown both a Golem and a Nightmare. Without factoring anything but weapon systems, the Nightmare has outperformed the Golem 10 fold. Sure, the Nightmare has other advantages such as stronger sensors, but again, I'm only comparing the weapon systems.
The Nightmare can perfectly hit targets in missions as long as they're on the approach and/or have low traversal.
In the case of the Golem I needed to have at least 2 target painters with both cruise and torps in order for the missiles to perform well even against other battleships.
To add to this, I had every support skill for missiles to lvl 5.
In my Nightmare I'm using navy guns and have very few support skills to lvl 5, yet it outperforms.

Now, the tengu was the best missile boat for lvl 4 missions and pvp by far.
That said, the hmls on a tengu still underperform when compared to turrets.

HOWEVER, I will agree that the tengu, as well as other SCs, are OP.
The point of my statement is mearly to state that even the best missile boat doesn't compare to turret boats until you factor in the rest of its capabilities such as dps, tank, and the ability to fit a 100mn AB.
However, I'm sure all SCs will be nerfed when CCP gets there. The tengu will be balanced down to the capabilities of other SCs which will likely hurt the tengu quite severly.
Odds are once this happens we're probably more likely to see Ham and turret tengus than hml tengus.


I've blabbed on too long now, but the point is missiles don't compare to turrets. Which is why, even with my over 8mil sp in missiles, I have cross trained into Amarr with lasers, and don't even own anymore missile boats.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#6370 - 2013-01-11 11:05:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Nagarythe Tinurandir
Joe Risalo wrote:


Yes, launchers can still fire without cap, however, without cap most boats that can fit missiles will drop like flies, unless you're considering launchers on armor tanks or passive shield tanks..



you mean like every other actively tanked ship in eve? (yes, even with turrets..)
and who could think of a passive tanked missle boat anyway.... never heard of those.

Joe Risalo wrote:


The agressor is the person who initiates the fight.. In other words, they warp in on you.
When a missile boat warps in on a turret boat they rely heavily on knowledge of the ship they're attacking. The must know that ship's tracking capabilities and optimal ranges. This can be difficult since they don't know how the ship is fitted.
A turret boat need now worry so much about this information.



i underlined the section where you took the wrong turn. as i understood your statement, you need to consider the tracking and the range of the enemy out of defensive reasons (?) as to not get hit and so forth. why exactly does this not concern turret ships? they do not want to get hit either. in addition they have to mind their own tracking and range. i don't see the big advantage of turrets here.

Joe Risalo wrote:


They simply warp in at what is there optimal range.
Obviously there's the matter of whether your ship can take on the intended target or not, but this same consideration must be made for missiles.



sounds to me like the only turret ships you encountered so far in your active tanked drake/Golem (why would you use a golem for pvp?) are sniper tier3 bc/ battleships.



Joe Risalo wrote:

Sure, not many people are going to take on a target to which they're unsure whether they'll win or not, but my considerations in these posting are equally pitted ships.
Assuming the two ships are equally matched, than there are many factors that give the turret boat a distinct advantage and very few factors that would give the missile boat an advantage.
Most of the factors that would help the missile pilot are specifically oriented towards pilot skill.
The turret pilot has the general advantages of turrets over missiles, as well as factoring pilot skill.
Even without skill, the turrets are given an advantage from the start.



i dare you to list all those advantages and disadvatages.
let's start right now from the top of my head:

advantages turrets: - generally more dps compared to missiles
- the concept of falloff
disadvantages: - the issue of tracking
- the concept of falloff
- dmg can be avoided completly by outrunning the tracking speed

advantages missiles: - no tracking to be minded
- no chance of missing a target -> as long as in range, some dmg is always applied, even to small targets
disadvantages: - generally less dps compared to turrets
- no blapping of smaller targets at range
- it is possible to destroy missiles

so far both systems have a strong and a weak side.

Joe Risalo wrote:

Like I've stated before, I have flown both a Golem and a Nightmare. Without factoring anything but weapon systems, the Nightmare has outperformed the Golem 10 fold. Sure, the Nightmare has other advantages such as stronger sensors, but again, I'm only comparing the weapon systems.
The Nightmare can perfectly hit targets in missions as long as they're on the approach and/or have low traversal.
In the case of the Golem I needed to have at least 2 target painters with both cruise and torps in order for the missiles to perform well even against other battleships.
To add to this, I had every support skill for missiles to lvl 5.
In my Nightmare I'm using navy guns and have very few support skills to lvl 5, yet it outperforms.



well large missiles need to be looked at, which will happen at the time battelships get a look at. two target painters as a support module isn't that much asked, when you think about turret ships often use tracking enhancers and tracking computers to make range and tracking competitive enough for the general pvp environment, especially at the battlecruiser lvl and bigger, just think about the horrible tracking of medium and large laser turrets.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6371 - 2013-01-11 11:19:33 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Yes, launchers can still fire without cap, however, without cap most boats that can fit missiles will drop like flies, unless you're considering launchers on armor tanks or passive shield tanks..


You mean like active shield tanked Veng, Sac, Damnation?
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#6372 - 2013-01-11 14:02:30 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

The Nightmare can perfectly hit targets in missions as long as they're on the approach and/or have low traversal.


everything ur saying is pretty specific to missions. Ur nightmare would struggle to hit player targets because they wouldn't just fly straight towards u.

Quote:
Now, in pvp have damage selection is a good thing. However, once the fight begins swapping damage types mid fight is often times less helpful and more harmful.


a good use of scouts an d-scan allows u to chose the optimum damage type before the fight. good scouts will also prevent u from being the one who is warped in on all the time. sitting in space and waiting for them to come to u is a very bad idea

Quote:
Also, in CCP's great wisdom they decided to make the new destroyers have damage specific bonuses, so it's obvious they're not getting away from this design


that did suck, and atm the drake looks to be keeping its kinetic bonus Ugh but it is still useful to have other damage types to chose from, even when its un bonused.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6373 - 2013-01-11 14:48:17 UTC
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:


you mean like every other actively tanked ship in eve? (yes, even with turrets..)
and who could think of a passive tanked missle boat anyway.... never heard of those.


Ok, Your knowledge of Eve is extremely lacking, but I'm going to bite anyway.
A Drake is a passive tanked shield boat.
There are 5 types of tank.
- active armor
- active shield
- buffer armor
- buffer shield
- passive shield

Soo, I'm gonna say pretty much everyone who has flown Caldari..


Quote:

i underlined the section where you took the wrong turn. as i understood your statement, you need to consider the tracking and the range of the enemy out of defensive reasons (?) as to not get hit and so forth. why exactly does this not concern turret ships? they do not want to get hit either. in addition they have to mind their own tracking and range. i don't see the big advantage of turrets here.


I don't know if this is your intended purpose, but when you speak, I bet lost.
But yes, as a missile boat Pilot you do.
Example..
If I were to face a ship that I was equally pitted against in Every way (tank, dps, etc. etc.) only he had turrets and I had missiles.
I would need to warp in directly on top of him and take advantage of his tracking, and remove as much flight time off of my missiles as possible to give me an advantage.

Quote:

sounds to me like the only turret ships you encountered so far in your active tanked drake/Golem (why would you use a golem for pvp?) are sniper tier3 bc/ battleships.


HUH??
ANY ship fittings turrets wants to be in their optimal. So, if they warp in on me, they want me in their optimal. If I warp in on them using a missile boat, I want to do my best to not be in their optimal.

See, these comments you're making give me the feeling that you have no idea what you're talking about and are either here just for the sake of argument/trolling, or have a very bad understanding of Eve and the way weapon systems work.

Quote:

i dare you to list all those advantages and disadvatages.
let's start right now from the top of my head:

advantages turrets: - generally more dps compared to missiles
- the concept of falloff
disadvantages: - the issue of tracking
- the concept of falloff
- dmg can be avoided completly by outrunning the tracking speed

advantages missiles: - no tracking to be minded
- no chance of missing a target -> as long as in range, some dmg is always applied, even to small targets
disadvantages: - generally less dps compared to turrets
- no blapping of smaller targets at range
- it is possible to destroy missiles

so far both systems have a strong and a weak side.


Yes, both systems have strong and weak points, but the strong point of turrets devistate the weak points of missiles.
Oh, and missiles do not always hit. Unless you wanna consider a target outrunning your flight time, or if you'd like to consider message such has "Your scourge fury cruise missiles hit the target for 0 damage."

So, lets do a list of positives and negatives

Turrets
Positives
Instant damage
cheap ammo
2 damage types in a shot
Falloff
(damage selection for projectiles)
Can hit targets better when tracking isn't an issue
Can land damage for higher than normal dps

Negatives
Falloff
Tracking
Limited to two damage types (exluded as a negative with projectiles)
can land hits for less than normal dps

Missiles
Positives
No Tracking
Damage Selection
No Optimal
Same damage on every volley (assuming the target maintains current settings)

Negatives
No falloff
flight time
Can be outrun by ships within range
Acceleration time
Damage selection is null and void when a pvp battle begins(unless your target has logistics)
While tracking isn't an issue, target travel distance is, because if he's close to your max range and orbitting, you may not hit them.
Exp velocity can be outrun
Require target painters even against stationary targets or other situations where tracking would be a non-factor to turrets
Can be destroyed mid flight (granted defenders suck and smart bombs are difficult)


Now, I put no falloff as a negative for missiles because we don't have that extra breathing room.
If they're not within range, then they're not within range.
At least with turrets you can still do some damage.

Quote:
well large missiles need to be looked at, which will happen at the time battelships get a look at. two target painters as a support module isn't that much asked, when you think about turret ships often use tracking enhancers and tracking computers to make range and tracking competitive enough for the general pvp environment, especially at the battlecruiser lvl and bigger, just think about the horrible tracking of medium and large laser turrets.

However, now that they slapped the crap out of heavies, there isn't a missile system that is comperable to turrets.

Sure, target painter support isn't that much to ask, but there are 3 things wrong with target painters.
1) Their cycle times are all whacked out in comparison to missile cycle times, which means missile pilots must waist time between target swaps waiting for the target painters to off line
2) They have a optimal/falloff
3) WE always require them, even against stationary targets. (Even in pvp when a target is webbed to almost a full stop, missiles still require target painters.)

Yes, tracking is pvp is always a factor, but there are many times where turret boats can shine with no tracking
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6374 - 2013-01-11 15:01:55 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:


everything ur saying is pretty specific to missions. Ur nightmare would struggle to hit player targets because they wouldn't just fly straight towards u.


I used that as an example because mission running is what I do, however, it still applies to pvp.
In situations where tracking is low or the target is stationary, you require little to no tracking mods in order to hit that target.
Missiles require target painters reguardless of whether or not the target is even moving, and in certain circumstances will even require a web because the target is outrunning the missiles.

Quote:
a good use of scouts an d-scan allows u to chose the optimum damage type before the fight. good scouts will also prevent u from being the one who is warped in on all the time. sitting in space and waiting for them to come to u is a very bad idea


I agree, however, just because you know what ship is coming doesn't mean you'll pick the right damage type to use. Like I had stated, often times players will build up their resist hole and make it even stronger than the other resistances.

Quote:
that did suck, and atm the drake looks to be keeping its kinetic bonus Ugh but it is still useful to have other damage types to chose from, even when its un bonused.


Agreed, but that's only if your target has a massive resist hole.

Most of the time the damage specific bonuses are 25% more damage at lvl 5.
That said, your target would need to have a significantly weaker resists to another damage type in order for them to be preferred over kinetic.

I'm not sure if there's more factor to this math than what I'm thinking but basically, if you're target has a 50% kinetic resist, in order for another damage type to outperform the target would need a resist hole that is less that 25% resist.
So, the other resistance for the damage type you're using would need to be over 25% weaker than their kinetic resists.

This is why attempting to swap damage types may be more detrimental then helpful.

That said, there are time where you may be able to dictate this.
Such as, if a ship is flying fast and using high dps, then you may be able to assume that his resistances are low.
Knowing what ship they're flying you might be able to swap to a damage type for his weakest resists and find a soft spot.
Normally this is only the case though for small, fast moving ships that have little room for tank if they wish to have good dps and utility, and is not often the case the larger the ship gets.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#6375 - 2013-01-11 16:46:51 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

a lot of stuff that shows me he does not understand my posts.


please read my posts again with an ironic tone and a pinch of sarcasm now and then.
if i had no clue about the difference of missiles and turrets or how a drake is usually tanked i would not write in this thread ;)

so now i'm making it strait and clear:
all your considerations about enemy tracking and (optimal)range do also apply, when you fly a turret ship. thats nothing specific for missile ships and thereby no disadvantage. thats just flying your ship smartly.

no falloff on missiles is a moot argument, because missiles have a bigger range, which is comparable to optimal and falloff and then some. additionally with no falloff there is no dmg reduction @ range.

that turret ships always fight in optimal is some idealisation on your part. it may be partly true for lasers because they have only a-little-more-then-nothing falloff.

you are the only person i know who thinks selectable dmg-type is something bad for pvp. swapping ammo is also something to be considered for turrets. think about lasers, where you need to switch between the different crystals for adjusting the optimal, although this is not a big deal since the swap is instantly. when using blasters you have 5 seconds between eg.: antimatter and null (-> try to stay in optimal with blasters a whole fight long ^^) when using projectiles the change needs 10 seconds to take place. nevertheless it is thought to be one of the big advantages of projectiles. how come (sarcasm alert)?
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6376 - 2013-01-11 17:05:52 UTC
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:

a lot of stuff that shows me he does not understand my posts.


please read my posts again with an ironic tone and a pinch of sarcasm now and then.
if i had no clue about the difference of missiles and turrets or how a drake is usually tanked i would not write in this thread ;)

so now i'm making it strait and clear:
all your considerations about enemy tracking and (optimal)range do also apply, when you fly a turret ship. thats nothing specific for missile ships and thereby no disadvantage. thats just flying your ship smartly.

no falloff on missiles is a moot argument, because missiles have a bigger range, which is comparable to optimal and falloff and then some. additionally with no falloff there is no dmg reduction @ range.

that turret ships always fight in optimal is some idealisation on your part. it may be partly true for lasers because they have only a-little-more-then-nothing falloff.

you are the only person i know who thinks selectable dmg-type is something bad for pvp. swapping ammo is also something to be considered for turrets. think about lasers, where you need to switch between the different crystals for adjusting the optimal, although this is not a big deal since the swap is instantly. when using blasters you have 5 seconds between eg.: antimatter and null (-> try to stay in optimal with blasters a whole fight long ^^) when using projectiles the change needs 10 seconds to take place. nevertheless it is thought to be one of the big advantages of projectiles. how come (sarcasm alert)?




Well, you need to work on your sarcasm, cause it doesn't come across.

That said, i'm going to quickly break down comments on your post.

Turret pilots can use pilot skill for both offensive and defensive actions.
With missiles, movement doesn't give you any offensive advantages, only defensive.

No falloff on missiles is not a moot argument. Take a look at the thread you're commenting on.
Heavy missiles have had their range greatly reduced, putting them at the bottom of the list on range when compared to the turret boats OPTIMAL range.
Beam lasers were pretty much tied while projectile and hybrid could outrange significantly.(at least with long range weapon systems)


I do not think selectable damage types is bad in pvp.
I do, however, feel that only having one damage type is bad, but, I mostly feel that swapping damage types mid fight more often than not is more detrimental to your cause than helpful.

The reason why I say falloff isn't that important is because players will do their best to stay in optimal, and keep their opponent from being in their optimal.

This is hard to do for turrets since they have different optimals with each ammo type.

However, as the attacker I get to dictate the initial range of the fight and my opponent must either try to counter me, or change to an ammo fit for the range.

In a missile boat, I can warp in at just about any range. However, as long as the turret pilot has at least one ammo type that can reach me at optimal. I will never have the advantage. His volley will hit first, even though I was the first one to engage.

The further away I try to come in at with a missile boat, the longer it will take me to establish dps. Often times, giving too much range will allow your target to run out of range before your first volley even reaches them.

When it comes to missiles you pretty much need to warp in at 0 and pray your target isn't fitted for close range combat.
The only time you have another option is when you know you can outrange your intended target even if they had long range weapons.

However, even that is difficult to do now because missiles are getting their ranges nerfed. (at least that's the way it seems based on heavy missiles)
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#6377 - 2013-01-11 18:50:27 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:


Turret pilots can use pilot skill for both offensive and defensive actions.
With missiles, movement doesn't give you any offensive advantages, only defensive.



what do you mean with offensive advantages? the ability to succesfully hit the target?
i'd rather see an advantage in not having to mind an optimal and only having to care about the targets velocity. stay in range and spew missiles like a pro.

Joe Risalo wrote:


No falloff on missiles is not a moot argument. Take a look at the thread you're commenting on.
Heavy missiles have had their range greatly reduced, putting them at the bottom of the list on range when compared to the turret boats OPTIMAL range.
Beam lasers were pretty much tied while projectile and hybrid could outrange significantly.(at least with long range weapon systems)



thats just wrong.

720mm howitzer artillery II : 34,5 km optimal range without ammo, 7,5 km with quake and 54 km with tremor
250mm Railgun II: 36km without ammo, 9 km with javelin, 64,8 with spike (lolrails...)
heavy beam II: 30km without ammo, 7,5km with gleam and 54km with aurora
heavy missiles: T1: 62 km, T2 Fury: 47 km
(lvl5 support skills)

t1 ammo of rails and arties (and beams) which are worth using reduce the base optimal range further.
so the sniper-ammo of rails and arties and beams are the ones that outrange the high dmg variant of heavy missiles. but they do less dmg. the only thing that comes as far as faction/T1 heavies are rails with spike, which is like never used.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#6378 - 2013-01-12 00:38:55 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

HUH??
ANY ship fittings turrets wants to be in their optimal. So, if they warp in on me, they want me in their optimal. If I warp in on them using a missile boat, I want to do my best to not be in their optimal.



negative. u must consider ur own weapons AND ur opponents. taking the example of a stabber and a thorax, the stabber has a higher tracking and lower optimal than the thorax, so ur logic would suggest that it wants to get in as close as possible. This would doom the Stabber however, as it just could not take that kind of punishment and come out on top. In fact what the stabber should be doing is kiting out to 10-15km and using the longer fall off of its auto cannons to hit from range AND nullifying the Thorax's guns because of their short range (low fall off). in fact most of the time AC's fight in fall off.

like wise with missiles, although fighting as close as possible will reduce the travel times of missiles, the main advantage of missiles is that their damage is unaffected by range, in fact the only thing to consider is whether its in range or not. so a HAM drake with a range of roughly 18km, should try to keep that 18km distance for as long as possible. there are very few comparable BC's that can deal anywhere near as much damage as a Drake at that range. This goes ten-fold when heavy missiles are considered. No medium turret can project damage as well as a heavy missile launcher beyond 50km. This why missiles are considered very useful for ranged fights, so useful in fact they got nerfed.
Quote:

I used that as an example because mission running is what I do, however, it still applies to pvp.
In situations where tracking is low or the target is stationary, you require little to no tracking mods in order to hit that target.
Missiles require target painters reguardless of whether or not the target is even moving, and in certain circumstances will even require a web because the target is outrunning the missiles.


there are very few cases when ur target will be moving so slowly or altogether stationary, so this point does not apply to PvP. it really doesn't.

Missile launchers don't always require target painters either. Just look at the sig radius of stabbers and the unmodified explosion radius of HAMs. they do 80% damage (thats good!) with no GMP skilling or full damage with GMP V. if the target is moving then things are different yes, but that is the same for turrets, which also benefit from painters.

Quote:
I agree, however, just because you know what ship is coming doesn't mean you'll pick the right damage type to use. Like I had stated, often times players will build up their resist hole and make it even stronger than the other resistances.


this is where knowledge of the ship and ur opponent come in. if u know hes the type to plug resist holes (cause not everyone does) then u go for the secondary damage type which will be lower than normal. its a gamble for sure, but the chances of picking the worst possible damage type is small, and u'll still do decent damage with 2nd or even 3rd best.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#6379 - 2013-01-12 01:10:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Joe Risalo wrote:


I'm not sure if there's more factor to this math than what I'm thinking but basically, if you're target has a 50% kinetic resist, in order for another damage type to outperform the target would need a resist hole that is less that 25% resist.
So, the other resistance for the damage type you're using would need to be over 25% weaker than their kinetic resists.



the math is close. but not as linear as ur making out. because: damage received = damage dealt* (1-resist%) u need to take ur thinking and apply it from the perspective of damage done rather than damage resisted.

for example;

if i do 100 damage that is resisted at 20% i deal 80 damage
if i do 100 damage that is resisted at 40% i deal 60 damage

notice that despite the resistance being twice as high, i dnt do half the damage.

instead:

if i do 100 damage that is resisted at 20% i deal [((1-0.2)*100) = 0.8*100] = 80 damage
if i do 100 damage that is resisted at 60% i deal ((1-0.6)*100) = 0.4*100 = 40 damage

so NOW we are doin half the damage

and here is a quick look at some higher resists
100 damage at 80% resist = 20
100 damage at 90% resist = 10
so despite there being only 10% between these two, 80% is actually half as resistant (or takes twice as much damage) as 90% resist

adding in a kinetic damage bonus:
Taking an omni shield tank-

a drake doing 125 kinetic dps against 40% resist would do 75dps
a drake doing 100 therm dps against 20% resist would do 80dps
a drake doing 100 em dps against 0% resist does 100dps

so against most T1 shield tankers, u would be better off using thermal or em missile over bonused kinetic missiles. and this is at level V

Taking an omni armour tank-

a drake doing 125 kinetic dps against 25% resist would do 93.75 dps
a drake doing 100 explosive dps against 10% resist would do 90 dps
a drake doing 125 kinetic dps against 35% resist (gallente T1) would do 81.25

so against most armour tankers, the kinetic damage is more useful, however, against Gallente T1 (like a myrmidon) explosive damage is more useful. u can also notice in any case, that choosing the wrong damage type does not condemn the drake too much anyways. just try to avoid using EM against armour tankers and explosive against shield tankers.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6380 - 2013-01-12 04:36:06 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:


I'm not sure if there's more factor to this math than what I'm thinking but basically, if you're target has a 50% kinetic resist, in order for another damage type to outperform the target would need a resist hole that is less that 25% resist.
So, the other resistance for the damage type you're using would need to be over 25% weaker than their kinetic resists.



the math is close. but not as linear as ur making out. because: damage received = damage dealt* (1-resist%) u need to take ur thinking and apply it from the perspective of damage done rather than damage resisted.

for example;

if i do 100 damage that is resisted at 20% i deal 80 damage
if i do 100 damage that is resisted at 40% i deal 60 damage

notice that despite the resistance being twice as high, i dnt do half the damage.

instead:

if i do 100 damage that is resisted at 20% i deal [((1-0.2)*100) = 0.8*100] = 80 damage
if i do 100 damage that is resisted at 60% i deal ((1-0.6)*100) = 0.4*100 = 40 damage

so NOW we are doin half the damage

and here is a quick look at some higher resists
100 damage at 80% resist = 20
100 damage at 90% resist = 10
so despite there being only 10% between these two, 80% is actually half as resistant (or takes twice as much damage) as 90% resist

adding in a kinetic damage bonus:
Taking an omni shield tank-

a drake doing 125 kinetic dps against 40% resist would do 75dps
a drake doing 100 therm dps against 20% resist would do 80dps
a drake doing 100 em dps against 0% resist does 100dps

so against most T1 shield tankers, u would be better off using thermal or em missile over bonused kinetic missiles. and this is at level V

Taking an omni armour tank-

a drake doing 125 kinetic dps against 25% resist would do 93.75 dps
a drake doing 100 explosive dps against 10% resist would do 90 dps
a drake doing 125 kinetic dps against 35% resist (gallente T1) would do 81.25

so against most armour tankers, the kinetic damage is more useful, however, against Gallente T1 (like a myrmidon) explosive damage is more useful. u can also notice in any case, that choosing the wrong damage type does not condemn the drake too much anyways. just try to avoid using EM against armour tankers and explosive against shield tankers.


Yes, but in most cases it's best to just take the loss in damage than to attempt 10 seconds worth of reloading to a damage type that may or may not do more damage.