These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

In-Depth Missile Comparison & Issues

Author
Aivlis Eldelbar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#21 - 2014-08-08 14:32:49 UTC
Nice analysis, thanks for taking the time to plot it out.

Seems missiles are unbalanced even among themselves, and woefully bad when compared to guns, as the Thorax example shows. HMLs are the most blatantly in need of a rework right now, as evidenced indirectly by the abject absence of Drakes from nullsec and by the fact people are actually fitting rails on Tengus. I dare say a substantial improvement in application is needed, so they can at least hit shield tanked cruisers for decent damage.

And to all the "but they get better range than guns" crowd: it hardly matters when they can't effectively use the extra range as it's more often than not beyond point range; meaning the target will either warp off before the damage lands, or pick up speed to negate a ludricrous amount of it. The solution here might be along the lines of what CCP experimented on with the Mordu's line of ships: much less flight time, much greater speed. I hope they implement that into the base stats of missiles in the future.
Hakan MacTrew
Konrakas Forged
Solyaris Chtonium
#22 - 2014-08-08 16:13:54 UTC
Experiment 32423 wrote:
[1: I am comparing the most-used missiles of certain launchers to prove that, Heavy Missiles in particular, have a severe shortcoming when it comes to applied damage.

2: Anyone participating in this discussion should already be well aware of the damage difference between the listed missiles and launchers, including CCP. Otherwise finding that basic information is easy enough on your own and shouldn't add any clutter to these numbers to keep it simple. HAMs do roughly 50% more damage, yet also apply more damage than HMs.

3: Rigs and modules are not added; an additional section with rigs is displayed to emphasize the problem at hand, which is that even with rigs, HMs still do not apply nearly enough damage.

4: T1 ammo is generally garbage and faction ammo is widely regarded as the best balance between raw damage and applied damage, as my numbers show. If faction ammo fails to apply damage, do you really think T1 will do any better? Rockets, LMs and CMs have no place in this discussion as they perform their intended role at an acceptable level.

5: Again, these values have no place in this thread as they do not reflect the problem at hand. If a missile fails to apply damage against an MWD, how do you think it will fare against an AB target? Just about every weapon in the game will apply close to full damage against its intended target-size if the target is webbed, including missiles. Battleships and above are in the league of Cruise Missiles and Torpedoes, and are greatly unaffected by the current speed-meta so damage application is not a problem, meaning that in a discussion about small to medium-sized damage application, they are completely irrelevant and would only take the focus of important issues away.

6: A couple of posts above yours shows a very good comparison between a HM Caracal and a rail Thorax, I suggest you take a look.


My point was that your "In-Depth" comparrison is anything but. You have ignored several balancing factors, (like actual applied DPS, range, flight speed, reload times, etc... And if you are comparing things, then why only compare the most common, there is no depth to your 'in-depth' comparrison. On top of that, your target selections are also very niche.

You endevour to bash RLML's yet you ignore their drawbacks in favour of only showing their strengths.

And if you are trying to compare small/medium systems then why did you add Torps to your chart? It is downright ridiculous! Even on a bomber they are not intended to attack small/medium targets.

So, if you want to compare, then COMPARE. Don't pick and choose.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2014-08-08 16:17:04 UTC
@Hakan MacTrew: So what do you make of my numbers?

Straight up compare between HML caracal and a rail thorax. Not a full missile analysis piece, but highlights how garbage HML are at this time.
Hakan MacTrew
Konrakas Forged
Solyaris Chtonium
#24 - 2014-08-08 16:42:55 UTC
afkalt wrote:
@Hakan MacTrew: So what do you make of my numbers?

Straight up compare between HML caracal and a rail thorax. Not a full missile analysis piece, but highlights how garbage HML are at this time.

I think you are on the money.
But then, HML's are able to apply their DPS under circumstances that would leave turrets helpless, not to mention the lack of split damage that missiles enjoy.

There are so many factors, not least the fact that there is no 'direct' ewar counter to missiles as opposed to turrets under tracking disruptors, but then turret damage is instant and cannot be outrun.

So many factors...
Experiment 32423
Doomheim
#25 - 2014-08-08 19:37:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Experiment 32423
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
Experiment 32423 wrote:
[1: I am comparing the most-used missiles of certain launchers to prove that, Heavy Missiles in particular, have a severe shortcoming when it comes to applied damage.

2: Anyone participating in this discussion should already be well aware of the damage difference between the listed missiles and launchers, including CCP. Otherwise finding that basic information is easy enough on your own and shouldn't add any clutter to these numbers to keep it simple. HAMs do roughly 50% more damage, yet also apply more damage than HMs.

3: Rigs and modules are not added; an additional section with rigs is displayed to emphasize the problem at hand, which is that even with rigs, HMs still do not apply nearly enough damage.

4: T1 ammo is generally garbage and faction ammo is widely regarded as the best balance between raw damage and applied damage, as my numbers show. If faction ammo fails to apply damage, do you really think T1 will do any better? Rockets, LMs and CMs have no place in this discussion as they perform their intended role at an acceptable level.

5: Again, these values have no place in this thread as they do not reflect the problem at hand. If a missile fails to apply damage against an MWD, how do you think it will fare against an AB target? Just about every weapon in the game will apply close to full damage against its intended target-size if the target is webbed, including missiles. Battleships and above are in the league of Cruise Missiles and Torpedoes, and are greatly unaffected by the current speed-meta so damage application is not a problem, meaning that in a discussion about small to medium-sized damage application, they are completely irrelevant and would only take the focus of important issues away.

6: A couple of posts above yours shows a very good comparison between a HM Caracal and a rail Thorax, I suggest you take a look.


My point was that your "In-Depth" comparrison is anything but. You have ignored several balancing factors, (like actual applied DPS, range, flight speed, reload times, etc... And if you are comparing things, then why only compare the most common, there is no depth to your 'in-depth' comparrison. On top of that, your target selections are also very niche.

You endevour to bash RLML's yet you ignore their drawbacks in favour of only showing their strengths.

And if you are trying to compare small/medium systems then why did you add Torps to your chart? It is downright ridiculous! Even on a bomber they are not intended to attack small/medium targets.

So, if you want to compare, then COMPARE. Don't pick and choose.


I'm not going to repeat myself, but if you don't know the DPS differences between the most common missiles that I proceeded to list here, then I really don't think you have anything constructive to add to a discussion centered around HM balance, no offense.

Let me make this a little clearer to you, if I haven't already done so. My point is that certain missile platforms currently experience issues in PvP, HMs in particular. The reason this is the case, is that 1: they were over-nerfed and 2: speed increases in recent times.

I have explained to you that HMs do approximately 50% less damage than HAMs, yet offer less damage application. HAMs have increased damage, increased application, reduced range; HMs have increased range yet both damage and damage application is reduced - not a very fair trade-off, is it?

I'm not bashing RLMs in any shape or form, I think they are in a great spot and perform their role accordingly; personally I don't enjoy the eternal reloads, so I wouldn't mind seeing at least that mechanic changed into something more fun, other than that, no complaints.

Torpedoes are there as a reference point, I could have used CMs but either way, they are nothing more than a simple guideline. Torpedoes are also in an acceptable spot in terms of balance, in my opinion.

Please refrain from commenting if you don't even have the courtesy to read my posts before making accusations because I have provided all the necessary numbers to support my argument. Like I have already stated previously, if a Heavy Missile cannot apply damage against its intended target (cruiser, battlecruiser) with an active MWD (which is the average PvP condition), why do you need further evidence to understand the point I am trying to make?
Zavand Crendraven
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2014-08-08 22:42:19 UTC
Experiment 32423 wrote:

Sadly your numbers are incorrect since you haven't used the formula correctly and left out the Reduction Factor numbers.

Correct numbers would be here

As one can see the Precision Heavy Missiles are stated to apply 9.3% damage as opposed to the actual 25% and all the other numbers are also skewed towards applying less damage than they should
Experiment 32423
Doomheim
#27 - 2014-08-08 23:11:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Experiment 32423
Zavand Crendraven wrote:
Experiment 32423 wrote:

Sadly your numbers are incorrect since you haven't used the formula correctly and left out the Reduction Factor numbers.

Correct numbers would be here

As one can see the Precision Heavy Missiles are stated to apply 9.3% damage as opposed to the actual 25% and all the other numbers are also skewed towards applying less damage than they should


Seems like you're right, I just checked the formula I used and messed the RF values up. Thank you for pointing that out, I'll update the post accordingly.

I'll add faction missiles when I have a bit more time and perhaps include LMs as well as additional targets.
Hakan MacTrew
Konrakas Forged
Solyaris Chtonium
#28 - 2014-08-08 23:20:34 UTC
Experiment 32423 wrote:
SNIP

I read your posts. As I pointed out, your 'in-depth' comparrison' picks and chooses what equates to the worst situations as a basis rather than even a reasonable range of situations.

You aren't comparing anything of worth because you only use a fraction of the data.

The reason I said to use actual DPS as part of the factor, rather than percentages is because percentages are relative. Actual and applied DPS is not. If I could apply 100% damage from a weapon system that does 25dps or 10% damage from a system that deals 300dps I know which I would go for.

Also, given that targets at high speed are the worst choices to use missiles on, you only compare damage percentages against targets using MWD's. How would turrets fair against such targets orbiting in point range I wonder? You should compare against targets with slower speeds too.

Realistically, your data is only valid in the niche area of Kiting and you ignore everything else. So, the comparisson is about as deep as the average reality TV contestant.


Are you going to compare Battleships using Autocannons vs Artillary against kiting tacklers next?
Experiment 32423
Doomheim
#29 - 2014-08-08 23:58:27 UTC
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
Experiment 32423 wrote:
SNIP

I read your posts. As I pointed out, your 'in-depth' comparrison' picks and chooses what equates to the worst situations as a basis rather than even a reasonable range of situations.

You aren't comparing anything of worth because you only use a fraction of the data.

The reason I said to use actual DPS as part of the factor, rather than percentages is because percentages are relative. Actual and applied DPS is not. If I could apply 100% damage from a weapon system that does 25dps or 10% damage from a system that deals 300dps I know which I would go for.

Also, given that targets at high speed are the worst choices to use missiles on, you only compare damage percentages against targets using MWD's. How would turrets fair against such targets orbiting in point range I wonder? You should compare against targets with slower speeds too.

Realistically, your data is only valid in the niche area of Kiting and you ignore everything else. So, the comparisson is about as deep as the average reality TV contestant.


Are you going to compare Battleships using Autocannons vs Artillary against kiting tacklers next?


DPS values make the applied damage very unclear, I will however consider adding the actual DPS values from a single launcher on a ship without any bonus as a secondary result.

You saw the HM Caracal vs rail Thorax comparison. Either way, I don't think this thread should turn into turrets vs missiles, but rather keep the focus on the imbalance that exists between missile types.

I don't ignore everything else, missile damage vs webbed/no prop targets doesn't require any attention from my experience.
Claud Tiberius
#30 - 2014-08-09 01:07:23 UTC
This isn't a very good analysis. It doesn't mention flight time, missile velocity, reload time, ammo capacity, rate of fire...

The missile is only half of the weapon system. You need to include the launcher as well.

Once upon a time the Golem had a Raven hull and it looked good. Then it transformed into a plataduck. The end.

Aivlis Eldelbar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#31 - 2014-08-09 14:51:46 UTC
Claud Tiberius wrote:
This isn't a very good analysis. It doesn't mention flight time, missile velocity, reload time, ammo capacity, rate of fire...

The missile is only half of the weapon system. You need to include the launcher as well.


I agree it's not in-depth as the title claims, but rather a discussion of HM application, I'd rename the thread to "Cruiser sized missile damage application comparison" or something along those lines.

However, if you then take the launcher into account, HAMs have a vastly better RoF, so they only get better. Overall, you get +50% paper dps with HAMs, as OP stated. I know missiles well enough to know the different damage from Fury vs CN, but it would be nice to have it included for clarity, it takes all of 10 minutes to do.
Reload speed on missiles is on the bad side, supposedly to counter the damage type selection, but this whole mess is beyond the scope of the current discussion, in my opinion.
Experiment 32423
Doomheim
#32 - 2014-08-09 15:08:55 UTC
Aivlis Eldelbar wrote:
Claud Tiberius wrote:
This isn't a very good analysis. It doesn't mention flight time, missile velocity, reload time, ammo capacity, rate of fire...

The missile is only half of the weapon system. You need to include the launcher as well.


I agree it's not in-depth as the title claims, but rather a discussion of HM application, I'd rename the thread to "Cruiser sized missile damage application comparison" or something along those lines.

However, if you then take the launcher into account, HAMs have a vastly better RoF, so they only get better. Overall, you get +50% paper dps with HAMs, as OP stated. I know missiles well enough to know the different damage from Fury vs CN, but it would be nice to have it included for clarity, it takes all of 10 minutes to do.
Reload speed on missiles is on the bad side, supposedly to counter the damage type selection, but this whole mess is beyond the scope of the current discussion, in my opinion.


As stated, in the coming days once time permits, I'll update the post with a wider range of scenarios and launchers as well as DPS values for those unfamiliar with the damage differences.

What you described was my main concern when putting together these numbers, but more data shouldn't hurt.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#33 - 2014-08-09 16:14:13 UTC
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
afkalt wrote:
@Hakan MacTrew: So what do you make of my numbers?

Straight up compare between HML caracal and a rail thorax. Not a full missile analysis piece, but highlights how garbage HML are at this time.

I think you are on the money.
But then, HML's are able to apply their DPS under circumstances that would leave turrets helpless, not to mention the lack of split damage that missiles enjoy.

There are so many factors, not least the fact that there is no 'direct' ewar counter to missiles as opposed to turrets under tracking disruptors, but then turret damage is instant and cannot be outrun.

So many factors...



Indeed, though getting under medium guns would take a frigate and the heavy missiles are so horribly bad against them too.

I'm focusing on heavy because they are so bad. I think lights are far better than guns and should probably be addressed.

They were about right before the significant medum weapon buff, now they are so far behind its a real shame.
Aivlis Eldelbar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#34 - 2014-08-10 10:35:33 UTC
Rapid lights are really powerful right now... as long as you don't have to reload.

They're in an odd spot, since most of the time you won't feel their drawback, and just enjoy the great application vs. small targets. They can still be speedtanked, but the burst of damage tends to catch pilots unprepared.
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#35 - 2014-08-11 08:47:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Deerin
Here I completed the table for you:

I used average values for sig and speed. I painted the actually relevant parts.

http://i.imgur.com/EDgBQjw.jpg (Edit: Fixed cruise precission mistake)

At small ships area, t1 faction rockets can somehow deal its damage to its size. t1 light missiles deal around 80% of their damage to an average MWD'ing frigate. Both weapons can deal their damage to destroyers without problems.

At medium size however, proper size weapons fail to apply their damage. Especially HML's are in a pretty bad shape on that regard. Both weapons can deal their damage to BC's properly.

At large size the application is somehow there. BS size weapons can deal a large portion of their damage to BS size targets.

Here is what actually happened:
The HML nerf happened before tiercide. When HML's were nerfed a regular cruiser would do around 1200-1500 depending on ship. In fact, if you use this level of speed on cruisers you'll get fair values on damage application.

Then tiercide arrived at cruisers and we had an almost 50% increase on cruiser speeds....and no adjustments on HML exp velocities. Over time, people have realized HML's were no longer working, and switched to RLML's instead. Fury lights had very nice applied damage and RLML's also gave the option to engage frigs.

Increase in RLML users was noticed by CCP....and they decided that there was something against design there....and went to the nerfmobile.

Apparently the design decission of CCP is; if you want to use medium size missile weapons against their intended targets, you better be in a fleet and have someone hold them and paint them so that you can deal your damage properly.....which is kinda fair condisering we are playing a MMORPG.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#36 - 2014-08-11 09:12:48 UTC
The solution isn't to tweak missiles further, but to finally add low-slot Ballistic Enhancers:

• T1 Ballistic Enhancer = +12.5% explosion velocity, +5% explosion radius, +5% missile velocity
• T2 Ballistic Enhancer = +15% explosion velocity, +7.5% explosion radius, +10% missile velocity
• Faction Ballistic Enhancer = +17.5% explosion velocity, +10% explosion radius, +15% missile velocity
• Officer Ballistic Enhancer = +20% explosion velocity, +12.5% explosion radius, +20% missile velocity

And yes, these would be stacking penalized with rigors, flares and hydraulics.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2014-08-11 10:48:08 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
The solution isn't to tweak missiles further, but to finally add low-slot Ballistic Enhancers:

• T1 Ballistic Enhancer = +12.5% explosion velocity, +5% explosion radius, +5% missile velocity
• T2 Ballistic Enhancer = +15% explosion velocity, +7.5% explosion radius, +10% missile velocity
• Faction Ballistic Enhancer = +17.5% explosion velocity, +10% explosion radius, +15% missile velocity
• Officer Ballistic Enhancer = +20% explosion velocity, +12.5% explosion radius, +20% missile velocity

And yes, these would be stacking penalized with rigors, flares and hydraulics.


If they are not mid, then medium missiles need a DPS buff across the board.

I mean, for goodness sakes, PRECISION heavy missiles cant hit a fecking MWD shield tanked cruiser for full!

And lord knows the DPS is absolutely godawful.


/goes back to rail boat
Experiment 32423
Doomheim
#38 - 2014-08-11 12:09:56 UTC
Deerin wrote:
Here I completed the table for you:

I used average values for sig and speed. I painted the actually relevant parts.

http://i.imgur.com/EDgBQjw.jpg (Edit: Fixed cruise precission mistake)

At small ships area, t1 faction rockets can somehow deal its damage to its size. t1 light missiles deal around 80% of their damage to an average MWD'ing frigate. Both weapons can deal their damage to destroyers without problems.

At medium size however, proper size weapons fail to apply their damage. Especially HML's are in a pretty bad shape on that regard. Both weapons can deal their damage to BC's properly.

At large size the application is somehow there. BS size weapons can deal a large portion of their damage to BS size targets.

Here is what actually happened:
The HML nerf happened before tiercide. When HML's were nerfed a regular cruiser would do around 1200-1500 depending on ship. In fact, if you use this level of speed on cruisers you'll get fair values on damage application.

Then tiercide arrived at cruisers and we had an almost 50% increase on cruiser speeds....and no adjustments on HML exp velocities. Over time, people have realized HML's were no longer working, and switched to RLML's instead. Fury lights had very nice applied damage and RLML's also gave the option to engage frigs.

Increase in RLML users was noticed by CCP....and they decided that there was something against design there....and went to the nerfmobile.

Apparently the design decission of CCP is; if you want to use medium size missile weapons against their intended targets, you better be in a fleet and have someone hold them and paint them so that you can deal your damage properly.....which is kinda fair condisering we are playing a MMORPG.



That is exactly my point - while missiles aren't amazing in PvP, the more recent changes to cruisers in particular that led to today's speed-meta affected medium missiles more than any other weapon platform.

Thank you for the table, I will update accordingly, with credit of course.
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#39 - 2014-08-11 12:47:14 UTC
Zavand Crendraven wrote:
Experiment 32423 wrote:

Sadly your numbers are incorrect since you haven't used the formula correctly and left out the Reduction Factor numbers.

Correct numbers would be here

As one can see the Precision Heavy Missiles are stated to apply 9.3% damage as opposed to the actual 25% and all the other numbers are also skewed towards applying less damage than they should


I thought those numbers looked off. Thanks for unskewing them. o7
CW Itovuo
The Executioners
Capital Punishment.
#40 - 2014-09-04 03:11:01 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
The solution isn't to tweak missiles further, but to finally add low-slot Ballistic Enhancers:

• T1 Ballistic Enhancer = +12.5% explosion velocity, +5% explosion radius, +5% missile velocity
• T2 Ballistic Enhancer = +15% explosion velocity, +7.5% explosion radius, +10% missile velocity
• Faction Ballistic Enhancer = +17.5% explosion velocity, +10% explosion radius, +15% missile velocity
• Officer Ballistic Enhancer = +20% explosion velocity, +12.5% explosion radius, +20% missile velocity

And yes, these would be stacking penalized with rigors, flares and hydraulics.



Disagree.


The problem as it exists today was brought about by CCP_balancing.


The solution is to adjust the changes made previously while also acknowledging the other game attributes that have been modified in recent releases (ship speed).


Either: rebalance missile stats, or change the underlying damage application equation.


A new module is just a dog chasing it's tail....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25fGcmRTO3o

Previous page123Next page