open All Channels
seplocked Skill Discussions
blankseplocked Missile skills vs gunnery
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Clone T
Posted - 2006.01.30 16:43:00 - [1]
 

Compare the large beam laser specialization requirements with the torpedo specialization requirements:

Lasers:

Sharpshooter V
Large Energy Turret V
Medium Energy Turret V
Small Energy Turret V
Medium Beam Laser Specialization IV
Small Beam Laser Specialization IV
Gunnery V

Torps:

Torpedoes V
Missile Launcher Operation IV
Heavy Missiles III
Standard Missiles III

The supporting skills are more or less the same training time. So we can conclude that torp and cruise skills are less of a burden to train, so what's the catch? Do Caldari ships need more training time in the defence department to compensate for this imbalance or is it just because you need missiles and guns to have an effective set up?


Theo Gradus
Posted - 2006.01.30 18:16:00 - [2]
 

OK. I am not a very experienced player, but here goes.

The gunnery skills that you have listed have a couple of "second tier" skills listed (the specilization and sharpshooter skills) that you do not need to operate the guns. If you take those out of the problem, the skills seem to be faily balanced. If you do want to keep the "tier two" skills in there, include the missle equivalents also (Missle projection and such) You should see a pretty balanced training load on both sides of the problem.

Although, to fully utilize the missles (or guns for that matter), tier 2 skills need to be trained to ensure that you can dish out the damage at a good rate and with a good DPS.


Erloas
Posted - 2006.01.30 19:05:00 - [3]
 

Its a fair comparision, because its just between the required skills to use t2 versions of each weapon. Sure all the extra gunnery skills and missile skills will make using them much more effective but they aren't required skills.
There are also a decent number of ships that don't use guns at all if they can fill it all with missiles.
Missile spamming does seem to be the easy mode for NPCing. The debates of its effectiveness in PvP I don't want to get into.
I think it would make a lot more sense if cruise or torpedo spec required lower level specs too. If cruise spec required light and heavy missile spec to IV first then the two would be much closer.
If its justified in terms of balance I don't know, it appears to be needed in theory. None of the other primary weapon types let you just skip to the specialization you want, you have to work up through the lower levels of the spec.
I think it comes from the fact that I think initially (wasn't around back then, just in theory here) missiles were only a secondary weapon to turrets and as such it was fine for them to have an easier spec tree for them. However now that missiles can be a primary weapon (and sometimes only) I think it would need a few more require skills for them. However that is next to impossible to do since I'm sure many players have spec skills without having the lower ones done and I doubt they would add requirements to skills so many people already have, it would just get messy.

Caldari are sheild tankers and that does take a bit more skills then armor tanking, but there are other races that shield tank too (on at least some of the ships) so its not really much of a disadvantage.

Probably should be balanced a bit better in skill training but the skills are too old and too entrenched in peoples training for them to be able to adjust them so I think we just have to live with it.

Hamatitio
Caldari
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2006.01.30 22:55:00 - [4]
 

Because t2 launchers didnt come out for a LONG time after, it wouldnt be fair to take away all the damage a ship does and force them to train 3 months worth of skills just to be right back whre they were before the patch

1.5 months was enough thank you

Cheechako
Contraband Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
Posted - 2006.01.30 23:12:00 - [5]
 

Yeah, the comment about the late introduction of T2 launchers is about right. Similar to some of the drone debates about people already training for drone dmg shouldnt be penalized by a later change. In an event, I'm caldari and actually going up the tech tree of hybrids for an eagle(and hopefully our tier 3 BS) and the biggest thing I realize is that once you get T2 Large whatever, you got awesome medium and small skills for your races cruisers and frigates. To me, thats a nice addition where as the cerb users have to train heavy missiles, then if they want to use the raven, they have to train torps or cruises and the heavy missile time doesn't really matter(hey heavy missile 3 takes hardly any time)

Draaken
Caldari
hirr
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2006.01.31 02:17:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Clone T
So we can conclude that torp and cruise skills are less of a burden to train, so what's the catch? Do Caldari ships need more training time in the defence department to compensate for this imbalance or is it just because you need missiles and guns to have an effective set up?

In regards to your conclusion you're pretty much right, training missiles up is a lesser burden (54d from 0 to Torpedo Specialization I, 173d from 0 to Large <some gun> Specialization; no learning skills/implants included, completely balanced attributes).
However: missile damage is more size dependant than gun damage (at least I think it is?), you have insta-hit with guns in opposition to flight-time of missiles; and then you get more than just what you trained for when you're going Large Gun Spec, as CheeChako pointed out already.

I'm sure other reasons could be found as well, but it's time for me to catch some zzzs...

Brad Stone
Caldari
Posted - 2006.01.31 13:10:00 - [7]
 

Its odd that torps only require MLO IV whereas Cruise missiles require Launcher Op V - generally I would think Caldari folk would get cruise missiles before torps.

Weird.

Anonymous 0
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2006.01.31 13:37:00 - [8]
 

Dont the lasers have lower fitting requirements than the torpedo launchers? I'm pretty sure you need to have a BS or higher to carry torpedoes.
Also, are you forgetting the torpedo specialisation skill?

Serj Darek
Posted - 2006.02.01 07:23:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Serj Darek on 01/02/2006 07:25:18
Edited by: Serj Darek on 01/02/2006 07:23:52
Originally by: Anonymous 0
Dont the lasers have lower fitting requirements than the torpedo launchers? I'm pretty sure you need to have a BS or higher to carry torpedoes.
Also, are you forgetting the torpedo specialisation skill?


Originally by: Clone T
Compare the -->large<-- beam laser specialization -->requirements<-- with the torpedo specialization -->requirements<--



Here are the stats for the launcher and guns in question

Siege Missile Launcher II
PG 1838 MW
CPU 88 tf

Tacyon Beam Laser II
PG 4125 MW
CPU 63 tf

Mega Beam Laser II
PG 3575 MW
CPU 58 tf

Dual Heavy Beam Laser II
PG 1925 MW
CPU 47 tf

So, no, the siege launcher II dont take more fitting (well in cpu it does, but not in PG). The fairest comparison would be with the Tachyon since its teh best range and highest damage.

Harum Skarum
Minmatar
Committee for Subversive Decoration
Posted - 2006.02.01 09:08:00 - [10]
 

BS4, 2 large guns specs to 4 and all support skills excluding WU and Adv WU to 4 is ~6.3mil sp, BS4 and torp/cruise spec to 4 with lvl 4 support skills and lvl 5 rapid launch/missile bombardement is ~5.5 mil sp.
Shield skills to 4 ~500k, armor tanking skills with reqs for t2 hardeners ~600k sp.

So yes, while the aspiring amarr BS pilot is still training skills the newbie caldari will already be pwning frigs with precision cruises.

End this injustice now CCP, unnerf the gunnery skilltree! Very Happy

djenghis jan
Amarr
Debiloff
Posted - 2006.02.01 15:47:00 - [11]
 

Yeah very true, i have the tech II tachyon and use them on my apoc. To be able to fit everything including an armor tank you need a heavy investment in the powergrid/cap skills.

I tried some pvp against ravens but found that missiles are more powerfull compare to the skill investment. Also i find that launchers do continue to fire even if the cap is depleted, so energy neutralising does not help. Defender missiles are not powerfull enough to reduce the incoming missiles. So my conclusion was that the only option is to either smartbom or to tank. Alas tanking a raven is also a problem because of freedom of damage type of the torps.

My idea would be to increase the speed of torps (with a skill) but remove the homing feature. In this way they would suffer from the same tracking problems. This would be the reverse problem as with turrets (long range good short range bad) and would make it interesting because both ships would struggle for optimal range.

I gues it would increase the cpu load on the server though so i gues this will not see the light of day. But its nice to dream right?

Xio2
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2006.02.02 00:13:00 - [12]
 

The support skills are not pretty much equal. If you look, the missile support skills have at least 3 that are rank 4 or 5. I cant remember exactly. For the guns, most of them are rank 2.

djenghis jan
Amarr
Debiloff
Posted - 2006.02.02 08:55:00 - [13]
 

Ok, for turrets we have:

Controlled Bursts / Rank 2
Rapid Firing / Rank 2
Sharpshooter / Rank 2
Surgical Strike / Rank 4
Trajectory Analysis / Rank 5

And for missiles

Rapid Launch / Rank 2
Missile Bombardment / Rank 2
Missile Projection / Rank 4
Warhead Upgrades / Rank 5
Guided Missile Precision / Rank 5

Both benefit from:

Weapon Upgrades / Rank 2
Advanced Weapon Upgrades / Rank 6

So the question is then if its pretty much balanced as it is. As far as i can see it depends on the details, fitting ships etc...

As an amarrian i have trained everything which has anything to do with powergrid or cap to lvl5. With this you can fit lasers just nicely. I have high hopes for the new ew drone skills. Espesially the heavy webber drones. If i can use three of them on an apoc or five on an arma i think i can hit pretty hard. That's the equivalent of having a named webber but with much more range to give an extra advantage.

Has anyone tested those yet?



Harum Skarum
Minmatar
Committee for Subversive Decoration
Posted - 2006.02.02 13:55:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Harum Skarum on 02/02/2006 13:58:29
It is not balanced because the missile skilltree makes it possible to specialize just for the Cerberus or the Raven.

Heavy spec should need standard and rocket spec at 4, torp and cruise spec should need heavy spec at lvl 4.
Either that or remove the lower spec skills from the requirements of medium and large t2 turrets.

Bellac
Posted - 2006.02.02 19:39:00 - [15]
 

Its a good post and i had never noticed this before. This is a clear advantage to missile ship pilots, and a massive gimping of laser ship pilots.

As a comparison to turret tech 2 skills it should have gone something like - cruise specialisation needs torp specialisation needs heavy missile specialisation

This would of course required heavy missile and torp lvl 5 as well as cruise lvl 5 which sort of balances with turrets. also to balance with the sharpshooter lvl 5 you would also need something like missile bombardment lvl 5. It is however not easy to do a straight comparison as you have 3 levels of turrets (small, med, lrge) but 5 levels of missiles (rockets to cruise, ignoring defenders as they are a defense). FOF is just like the diference between beam and pulse.

What i would say to the devs however for gods sake please don't change missile skills again. Even though i am a laser turret specialist I am prepared to accept this uneven bias in the skill tree. I am currently working on building these skills up Very Happy


Mudkest
Adventurers
Matari Visionary Coalition
Posted - 2006.02.02 20:04:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Mudkest on 02/02/2006 23:52:22
Edited by: Mudkest on 02/02/2006 20:06:45
Originally by: Serj Darek
Originally by: Clone T
Compare the -->large<-- beam laser specialization -->requirements<-- with the torpedo specialization -->requirements<--


So, no, the siege launcher II dont take more fitting (well in cpu it does, but not in PG). The fairest comparison would be with the Tachyon since its teh best range and highest damage.


fitting reqs is another thing, talking about skill reqs)and sp) here.

large beam spec(edit: or any other large spec for that matter) needs 3.4M SP in prerequired skills
torpedo spec needs 1.1M SP in prereq skills
cruise misisle spec needs a bit more, 1.6M SP

Apertotes
Posted - 2006.02.02 23:44:00 - [17]
 

hey, if we are comparing, lets see.

amarr -----> energy weapons, armor tank
caldari ---> missile + rails, shield tank
gallente --> rails + drones, armor tank
minmatar --> projectiles + missiles + drones, armor tank + shield tank

i dont see caldari overpowered. caldari ships are slow and heavy, and even though are great for EW, you need at least 3 to 4 medium slots for shield tank, and that means very few caldari ships can have a good tank and EW at the same time

Draaken
Caldari
hirr
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2006.02.03 01:18:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Draaken on 03/02/2006 01:49:48
Originally by: Harum Skarum
BS4, 2 large guns specs to 4 and all support skills excluding WU and Adv WU to 4 is ~6.3mil sp, BS4 and torp/cruise spec to 4 with lvl 4 support skills and lvl 5 rapid launch/missile bombardement is ~5.5 mil sp.

Wrong. Here's the numbers (Battleship 4, Weapon Upgrades 5 and Advanced Weapon Upgrades IV have been left out of both calcs, as you want/need them with both types):

Gunnery V 256k
Small Gun V 256k
Med Gun V 768k
Large Gun V 1,280k
2x Small Gun Spec IV 272k (2x 136k)
2x Med Gun Spec IV 525k (2x 226k)
2x Large Gun Spec IV 724k (2x 362k)
Controlled Bursts IV 90k
Motion Prediction IV 512k
Rapid Firing IV 90k
Sharpshooter V 512k
Surgical Strike IV 181k
Trajectory Analysis IV 262k
------------------------------
TOTAL: 5,728k

Missile Launcher Op V 256k
Standard Missiles III 16k
Heavy Missiles III 28k
Cruise Missiles V 1,280k
Torpedoes V 1,024k
Cruise Spec IV 362k
Torp Spec IV 362k
Guided Missile Prec IV 226k
Missile Bombardement IV 90k
Missile Projection IV 181k
Rapid Launch IV 90k
Target Nav Prec IV 90k
Warhead Upgrades IV 226k
------------------------------
TOTAL: 4,231k

Edit: Corrected SP amount, forgot that you need Sharpshooter/Motion Predicion V each; so it ups the ante for turrets a bit, but read on.

As you get good skills for smaller guns right along with training for the bigger stuff when going for turrets, but have to train more skills/invest more time on the missile tree if you want to get to comparable levels there, here's the add-on for missiles that evens it out.

Rockets V 256k
Rocket Spec IV 135k
Standard Missiles V 512k
Standard Missile Spec IV 135k
Heavy Missiles V 768k
Heavy Missile Spec IV 226k
------------------------------
TOTAL: 2,032k

That's what comes on top of the earlier number if you want to even the playing field going missiles only. In this case, you actually have to train for more 500k more SP than in gunnery (not that much). The total training time for turrets+support is about 325d (balanced attributes, no learning/implants), the same for missiles+support is about 322d, same stats.

So I guess what it boils down to is: it's not unbalanced.

Long post to get to that conclusion. Rolling Eyes

Severe McCald
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2006.02.03 11:24:00 - [19]
 


This thread is starting from the wrong place.

The two sets of skills are not comparable. If you use missiles and do not train gunnery, you are confined to using very few ships. Missiles are also a relatively poor weapon for long range PvP.

More importantly, the more complex missile skills were introduced long, long after the gunnery skills. Once upon a time there were only the launcher skill, plus the standard (rocket, etc. to torp) skills. That was it! CCP annoyed its missile using customer base as much as it could afford to, to bring the two trees closer together (in terms of skill training times) and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. It appears that gunnery specialists want to nerf missile users even more.

I don't mind (I've trained both), but to be fair there ought then to be a much wider possible use of missiles. Possibly make every gunship also need at least one missile launcher for every two guns (and vice versa)? Sure, it would remove diversity; but you people seem to want everything to be the same Rolling Eyes.

Sev

djenghis jan
Amarr
Debiloff
Posted - 2006.02.03 12:39:00 - [20]
 

Well look at it from the perspective of having skill points bennefitting your set up devided by skillpoints needed. One could calculate the efficiency of training time to achieve damage. I know that this is rather accademic but here is what we end up with (info taken form post above)

Gunnery V 256k
Small Gun V 256k
Med Gun V 768k
Large Gun V 1,280k
Small Gun Spec IV 272k
Med Gun Spec IV 525k

total sp influencing use:1,546
total sp needed: 3,357
efficiency: 46%

with support skills:

Controlled Bursts IV 90k
Motion Prediction IV 512k
Rapid Firing IV 90k
Sharpshooter V 512k
Surgical Strike IV 181k
Trajectory Analysis IV 262k
------------------------------
TOTAL: 1,647k

total sp influencing use:1,546+1,647=3,193
total sp needed: 3,357
efficiency: 95%

for tech II torps:

Missile Launcher Op V 256k
Standard Missiles III 16k
Heavy Missiles III 28k
Torpedoes V 1,024k

total sp influencing use:1,280
total sp needed:1,546
efficiency: 83%

Guided Missile Prec IV 226k
Missile Bombardement IV 90k
Missile Projection IV 181k
Rapid Launch IV 90k
Target Nav Prec IV 90k
Warhead Upgrades IV 226k
------------------------------
TOTAL: 903k

total sp influencing use:1,280+903k=2,183
total sp needed:1,546
efficiency: 140%

Hmm, now compare the results:
sp needed for tech II torp fitting: 1,546 needed and 2,183 with support
sp needed for tech II beam lasers: 3,357 and 3,193 with support

so the question is then if we can find a point where damage out/s of the torp equals that of the tachyon and how many sp that would need. Of cource one could calculate this for a single weapon leaving the power grid and cap use out of the equasion but that would not be very fair. In any case i don't have the time to calculate all this.

Anyone intersted?

Caztra Tor
Posted - 2006.02.03 13:19:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Caztra Tor on 03/02/2006 13:30:13
@ Draaken -- Nice analysis, really cuts to the chase and makes it easy to see. I wonder if anyone can post a chart off of those numbers?

@ Djenghis -- Also a very nice analysis. Would probably be worth seeing a chart on that as well.

@ Severe -- Very good point. I would hate to see everyone w/ the same cookie cutter setups.

At the time the new missle skills were introduced, I was equally divided between missles and gunnery. I decided to bump up my missle skills first due to the new skills. I loved the results. Now i'm focusing on gunnery skills and the ships that support gunnery through bonuses and I am loving it. W/ guns they target tends to pop a lot quicker. At least npc's, can't wait to try my new tec 2 guns in pvp.


djenghis jan
Amarr
Debiloff
Posted - 2006.02.03 14:17:00 - [22]
 

All very true, like i said its academic. Beam lasers require more attention on the part of the pilot. Its all about avoiding high transversal speed relative to your target and having the right lens / distance. Once you learn how this works you will be fine damage wise. Just select view so that you see the target and point your nose in the right direction. Use speed setting to control relative speed. In this way you can fry a t1 cruiser or a battleship. The missile user will try to maximise transversal velocity by steerring perpendicular to the direction the laser boat is traveling in. Learning to control position and speed are just as important as learning skills and choosing which weapons to fit.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only