Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Comprehensive Medium Missile Analysis
Following is a medium missile damage application analysis. The test case was a base Tengu with 3x Ballistic Control II modules on a V-skilled toon and no implants. Weapons compared were T2 versions of rapid light missile launchers, heavy assault missile launchers and heavy missile launchers - all utilizing standard Caldari Faction Scourge ammunition. Both ammunition capacity and reloading time were factored into potential damage. Damage enhancement options were i) base (no rigs) and ii) rigs (2x T2 Rigor, 1x T2 Flare). These were further enhanced as follows: a) no electronic warfare, b) a single 60% stasis web and c) a single 37.5% target painter.

The results were graphed as a % of maximum damage application, using rapid light missile launchers as the baseline. When you see any bar "plateau", that means you're doing 100% damage application for that configuration (this doesn't necessarily translate into 100% DPS, however - since I'm not factoring in shield, armor or hull resistances).

Note: The spreadsheet utilizes the exact in-game missile formulas from EVE, so the results are fairly accurate.

Tengu Missile Comparison, Base
First up, a base Tengu with no electronic warfare. You can instantly see the difference rigs make, although for RLMLs there's almost no benefit if you're hunting anything larger than frigates. For HAMLs and HMLs, rigs benefit damage application to all ships smaller than battlecruisers. The damage application bump from using HAMs with rigs is just insane, and it's pretty-clear that HAMs are ideal for taking on anything from frigates to cruisers. No surprises with HMLs, other than RLMLs actually outperform them against cruisers (even with the 40-second reload). It's not until you start utilizing HMs against battlecruisers and battleships that they begin to truly shine. The effects of CCP Fozzie's HML nerf are fairly apparent.

Tengu Missile Comparison, Stasis Web
Next up, we add a single 60% stasis web to the fit. Again, this has almost no benefit for RLMLs except against interceptors - but a single web with rigs puts HAM damage application to 100% for anything destroyer size or larger. Since HAMs typically have shorter range, this is actually a good pairing. A similarly-rigged HML setup also achieves 100% damage application starting with cruisers, although you sacrifice your range advantage.

Tengu Missile Comparison, Target Painter
Finally, we swap the stasis web out for a single T2 target painter. The big winners here are RLMLs and HMLs, especially considering the extra range on target painters (although the increase in damage application with target painters is still less than with stasis webs). While HAMs also benefit from target painters, damage application is more pronounced with stasis webs.

Tengu Missile Comparison, T2 Missiles(addendum)
As an added bonus, I've included a comparison with T2 ammunition (no rigs or electronic warfare). It's kind of an interesting graph, because it really shows under which scenarios Precision, Fury, Javelin or Rage really shine. I was actually surprised to see how well Fury LMs outperformed both Precision and Fury HMs on cruisers (truly scary…) HAMs seem to benefit most from Rage ammunition against battlecruisers and battleships.

Conclusions:
• RLMLs: You get about as much benefit from a single stasis web or target painter, so you might as well use your rigs for tank.
• HMLs: They still suck, man do they suck. The fact that you need full rigors and flares to do 100% damage to battlecruisers speaks volumes.
• HAMLs: The clear winner in all of this, as they have some incredible potential when combined with rigs and webs/target painters (which probably means they're going to get nerfed next).

Comments welcome. Thanks.

I'm now so excited, 1 ship that can fit RHML will actually work with them; in the strictest of conditions, with the right missile loaded prior to the fight and only if he is alone.

That surely justifies keeping the weapon system.

NB; Sorry forgot to add, it is also the only battleship to get a useful bonus (7.5% Damage) So now we have a whole weapon system designed around 1 ship and not even a Caldari 1 at that.


***Stitch, I'm not having a go at you, it is actually good to see someone has found a use for them.. Regardless of how limited a use it may be.
My point is, CCP obviously did not think about how these new launchers would be used or how the bonuses on the ships that could use them would be far less than usable. ROF bonuses with a burst weapon are about as much use as a used teabag.

Delivering 400 dps in 48 s with bonus or 53 s without, then no dps for 40 s. Does the 5 second faster delivery really matter that much, except in the exact right situation?

Would you have killed that Demios in 7 volleys had he been able to pull range on you so you could not web / neut him or would you have died horribly while reloading?

Yeah this is nice.

HAMs are effective if you have web or painter support - which you really ought to, given that the entire reason for using HAMs is to take advantage of its range advantage over other short-range weapons. Someone was criticising the missile velocity bonuses a while back, but the range-bonused hulls are particularly useful for this, as they take HAM range out across the important 20-30 km ish window, as well as making LMs much more useful against fast frigates. For HAMs, there is a bit of a contradiction in terms of the difficulty of webbing something at 20 km, but the ubiquity of links and the value of a range-bonused webber in terms of range control in a skirmish gang goes a long way to mitigating this.

HMLs - you say you need rig/tackle support for full damage from HMs to a BC, but I think this only applies to an ABing one. Do you think that's unreasonable? I think we all agree that HMs need fixing, but it's not clear which of more base damage or more precision they need. I lean towards more base damage, although some combination of the two would also likely work.

Would there be any ground for a module next to the BCU?

lets say a Balistic Guidence Unit.

where a T2 BCU gives 10,5 % RoF and 10% Damage

a T2 BGU would do something like 10,5 Ro and x% Explosion raduis reduction. (I'm not going to burn my hands on an exact number)

or an unit with an explosion velocity and a Damage bonus.

this will ballance it´s self due to the fact that they are al low slot modules, fitting one over the other will lower your damage potential over your precision.


I can´t see the damage in creatinmg these options, though I might be overlooking something.

Since you didn't mention any fittings, I assume all the targets are naked? So, no AB or MWD.

Yes that's completely fk'd up, HML's RLML's and HAM's are cruiser weapons, not just battle cruiser weapons.

If you look at the sig resolution on medium turrets they are all set to 125m, which shows medium weapons are designed to hit other cruisers for full dps under optimal conditions... all except HML's which no matter how many implants and painters you put on won't hit a cruiser for their full dps. Spare a thought for those of us who are not space rich and don't have the skills to fly tech 3 cruisers even if we could afford them. Battlecruisers are oversized hulls in the cruiser class they are NOT the standard, they have bigger sig as a penalty for having better tanking abillities and generally more firepower than other cruisers.

Well of course... nerf cruise missiles, light missiles and rockets. Everything that works is OP (cruise missiles) and everything that's broken is okay (heavy missiles).

Good analysis but :
- you don't show the numbers for ship with no prop mod (the case with a scramed MWD ship) ;
- I suspect your targeted ships are without tank : buffer armor tank will kill your speed and even more your proped speed while shield increase your signature, which can increase your missiles damage by between 15 and 30%.

We hear now that even HAM's are a bit too good and close to OPness, which is probably true in their minds, considering they're secretly hoping for every Caldari pilot to be a tankless Kamikaze, flying only with DC and feeding everyone on the field easy kills.

But the entire purpose of an AB is to produce a speed-tank effect. Given that AB on a BC is normally a pretty bad idea, and that the small speed-tank effect vs. HMs is readily countered by a single web or painter, I don't think this is significant problem. We all agree that HMs need help, but I'd prefer the help to be in terms of raw DPS, not precision.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the rest of your post, because all turrets hit all targets for full DPS under optimal conditions - the problem being the flexible nature of "optimal", the relative difficulty of achieving it and the circular logic of the statement! And because you don't actually define the cruiser being referred to. While it's certainly true that some small cruisers have sig radii smaller than HM explosion radius of 105 m - Stabber 100 m, Guardian 70 m, there are good balance reasons why these ships are hard to apply damage to. Since improving raw HM damage would also improve its applied damage against such a ship, I think it's shortsighted to focus on a need to apply "full" damage, whatever that may be, without reference to what that damage actually is.

Alternatively, you could devise a new missile formula that enables any missile to deal full damage to a sufficiently slow target. Some might criticise it for homogenisation with turret mechanics, but the devil is in the detail.