open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Missiles and PvP?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Privan Kharolis
Republic Military School
Posted - 2007.01.29 05:58:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Privan Kharolis on 29/01/2007 05:58:10
I'm not understanding why missiles are seen as bad for PvP combat? The only argument I've seen to support the idea is that guns do more damage and missiles take time to hit.

A) How does a delay between launch and missile impact make any difference in PvP? I've seen some people state that you can warp away before they hit but, except in specific configurations, you'd be hard-pressed to find a equivalent missile to ship combo (Standard - Frigates, Heavy - Cruiser, etc...) where the pilot could identify missiles as incoming and have time to align and warp away before impact.

Edit:
Also, is (A) a bad thing? So your opponent warps away before the missiles hit, now your opposing force has lost part of their combat potential (at least until the warp back) and effectively released a ship to engage someone else.

B) Guns do more damage, yes, but only in (or around) the sweet spot confined to Optimal and Fallout. Missiles give the ability to really maneuver around your opponent making life difficult for them while not impacting your own damage potential. I understand how this can make it difficult, in solo PvP, to maintain a Warp Scrambler lock but is it really that big of an issue?

As far as I can tell the only major issue at hand is the fact that you have to get close to an opponent to Warp Scramble and if someone fits short range guns/ammo then you have effectively entered the "Sweet Spot." That would also explain my confusion since I don't fit Warp Scramblers so I don't suffer that problem.

P.S.
The reason I don't fit Warp Scramblers is because I don't actively engage in PvP but I also rarely run from a fight, so my goal is to "win" as opposed to "destroy." This means I don't care if you can warp out, I've achieved my goal at that point by causing my opponent to become combat ineffective in my area.

Moved from General Discussion - Devil ([email protected])

Siriyana
Astrum Contract Services Group
Posted - 2007.01.29 06:00:00 - [2]
 

I haven't yet been able to outrun a projectile, hybrid, or laser shot with speed alone (aside from transversal tanking) in my interceptor...

I have yet to meet a missile I can't outrun in my Interceptor...

I dunno, might have something to do with it? Smile

x racer
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.01.29 06:01:00 - [3]
 

Instant damage makes all the difference

x

Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
Posted - 2007.01.29 06:03:00 - [4]
 

well... especially in fleet situations, when the guy in charge calls a primary and everyone starts shooting at it, the turrets (should) eliminate it. if the missles didn't fire on the secondary but joined in on the first victim, their firepower is "lost"

Privan Kharolis
Republic Military School
Posted - 2007.01.29 06:05:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Privan Kharolis on 29/01/2007 06:08:13
Edited by: Privan Kharolis on 29/01/2007 06:03:20
Edited by: Privan Kharolis on 29/01/2007 06:01:14
Originally by: Siriyana
I haven't yet been able to outrun a projectile, hybrid, or laser shot with speed alone (aside from transversal tanking) in my interceptor...

I have yet to meet a missile I can't outrun in my Interceptor...

I dunno, might have something to do with it? Smile


So Missiles are useless in PvP because of a single ship class and a few specific ship configurations (Nano-fad ships)?

Quote:
Instant damage makes all the difference


Okay, if you hadn't noticed half the reason for this post is I don't understand why it makes the difference.

Quote:
well... especially in fleet situations, when the guy in charge calls a primary and everyone starts shooting at it, the turrets (should) eliminate it. if the missles didn't fire on the secondary but joined in on the first victim, their firepower is "lost"


Seems to me that's a lack of proper coordination and not a fault of missiles themselves. Why isn't it effective to have your missile ships focus on a damage spread, or maybe on the secondary target to soften it up so your alpha strikes can be split to take down two ships at a time instead of a single primary? You can't honestly tell me that the damage from turrents isn't lost from time to time either.

Edit:
To be clear, by "lost" turrent damage I mean a leader calls a primary target, X number of ships lock on and fire to destroy the ships. Remaining Y ships that had yet to lock on or fire have now lost their damage potential. By the time a new primary is called and re-locked the original X ships have had their turrents cycle and in the same position as the Y ships in terms of damage output.

Stitcher
Caldari
Posted - 2007.01.29 06:11:00 - [6]
 

Missiles may hit more consistently, and hit equally hard across the entirety of their range, but they suffer most from A) producing a lower DPs and B) being confined to a single damage type

With the exception of some projectile ammunitions, guns do two or more damage types - kinetic/thermal, EM/thermal, or some combination of explosive and something else. This makes them harder to tank against. Often, missile users offset this fact by using more than one type of missile at a time, but this drives the average DPS down even further.

Basically, missiles are good for medium-to-short range spike damage, but over time, guns just perform better, hence their popularity.

Privan Kharolis
Republic Military School
Posted - 2007.01.29 06:13:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Stitcher
Missiles may hit more consistently, and hit equally hard across the entirety of their range, but they suffer most from A) producing a lower DPs and B) being confined to a single damage type

With the exception of some projectile ammunitions, guns do two or more damage types - kinetic/thermal, EM/thermal, or some combination of explosive and something else. This makes them harder to tank against. Often, missile users offset this fact by using more than one type of missile at a time, but this drives the average DPS down even further.

Basically, missiles are good for medium-to-short range spike damage, but over time, guns just perform better, hence their popularity.


I thought about this as well, but I've yet to see anyone not go for either a Speed tank or "Omni Tank" setup for PvP. Especially becaues you don't know what damage type you're going to be facing. In light of that running a single damage type over two or more makes little difference.

Frug
Omega Wing
Snatch Victory
Posted - 2007.01.29 06:25:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Privan Kharolis
A) How does a delay between launch and missile impact make any difference in PvP?


Try to gank someone from 30km + away with missiles.

They notice you lock. They look at you. They see this big yellow ball heading at them. They turn their ship. They maybe get hit with a volley. They warp away.

Even if you were to assume that the damage over time of missiles and turrets is the same (which it aint), there is a lag between when your damage starts being dealt and when they start feeling it.

Brunswick2
coracao ardente
Posted - 2007.01.29 06:45:00 - [9]
 

There are some creative tactics you can use with missiles to make them rather fun and useful. But those tactics only work in situations.

Redglare's Demise
Mutually Assured Distraction
Posted - 2007.01.29 07:41:00 - [10]
 

If you don't actually have any PvP experience, dont try to give advice about it.

OP: Theres nothing wrong with missiles in PvP.

Phoenix Lord
The Scope
Posted - 2007.01.29 07:47:00 - [11]
 

The only issue i see with missiles is in large fleet ops.

People with turrets usually kill the primary before your cruise missiles hit them.

Large fleets with battleships also tend to use sniper setups, so the travel time for the missiles become even more apparent then.

Serzath
Gallente
Dynaverse Corporation
Vertigo Coalition
Posted - 2007.01.29 07:58:00 - [12]
 

Missiles are oke for PvP. Though if the missile boats are at long range they shouldn't focus on small targets that are called primary since in most cases the target dies before the first missile hits.

For larger targets they are realy nice for dmg. hit a bs with 6 torps and you get some nice spike dmg while the turrets "slowely" keep eating the hitpoints.

Cipher7
Posted - 2007.01.29 08:13:00 - [13]
 


Problem is, Caldari has everything. Every single ship in the fleet is either very viable or best in class.

Where's the downside?

It's a munchkin race.

Quilan Ziller
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2007.01.29 08:56:00 - [14]
 

Nobody really says that missiles are not useful for PvP. They do have their use (just like almost any other module and ship).
However, you have to realize that most missiles are long range weapons (and thus suffer from lower DPS, and require you to use a very specific strategy).
In many (if not most) solo PvP situations it is extremely desirable to
1. Warp scramble and web your target to prevent it from getting away
2. Use Nos or Neuts on your target to break its otherwise unbreakable tank
All of the above requires you to be very close to your target (closer than 20 km).
A high damage, short range gun ship will be able to web, scramble, drain cap, and do a lot of damage at the same time.
A missile ship (or a long range gun ship) will be at a disadvantage here due to its lower DPS. Or it will require a wingman who could get in close to use a web and warp scrambler.
I think that this is why there is a general perception that missiles are not a very good PvP option.
Of course, missiles are quite useful - they just have to be used differently than guns.

Valandril
Caldari
Ex-Mortis
Posted - 2007.01.29 09:14:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Valandril on 29/01/2007 09:11:01
In short-mid range fight missiles are mkay, but when it comes to sniperfight....

To produce decent dps in raven/whatever u need torpedos cruises deal crap damage, ha in sniperfight u wont even have enought range to fire torps at target so ur stuck with cruises and before your missile chain hit enemy hes already dead/warped away.

This is where it comes to instadmging, scout warps on 100km gun ppl shoot him - he dies. Ur missiles wont even be close to hit.

And as mentioned above missiles = low dps.

J Valkor
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.01.29 10:16:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: J Valkor on 29/01/2007 10:14:53
Edited by: J Valkor on 29/01/2007 10:13:54
A few things to consider for smaller ops or solo.

A ship approaching a missile ship will take more damage on the approach then what the ship it is closing on should be able to do base. Let's create a hypothetical situation where your opponent is closing in on you from 50km going 2km/s. You have locked them are firing on their approach. Let us also say that the enemy ship is a close range blaster set up (just for this situation.) Let us also claim that your missiles have a ROF of 5 seconds and that they do two hundred damage a piece and move at 4 km/s. This is to make math easy.

If the target was stationary, you would hit them every five seconds. If they were at 50 km, it would take your missiles 12.5 seconds to hit them. However, if the enemy target was at 40 km, the missiles would take only 10 seconds to hit. Since your opponent is shortening the time it takes for the next round to hit him every meter he approaches you, he is increasing your DPS. Likewise, if he is moving away from you, he is decreasing the DPS you do to him. No matter how close or far he is from you, when he stops moving your DPS goes to what it "should be".

Just my random input on missiles that I don't believe I've read. Useless for fleet ops, obviously, but somebody might find it useful for something.

Thiet
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.01.29 10:18:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Thiet on 29/01/2007 10:15:58
Edited by: Thiet on 29/01/2007 10:15:13
There is a huge lack of flexibility in small gang warfare with cruises and torps. You will always be dependent on a tackler. In large fleet actions you are even more useless. A familiar sight to the Raven pilot is the wild and random dance of his missiles as they fly off into space with no target :P.

PS cannot get sig to display properly. if you got any advice its quite welcome!

James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2007.01.29 12:09:00 - [18]
 

When someone says 'missiles suck for PvP' they usually mean specifically at range.

Basically, beyond about 30km, a missile is of limited value, since the target is either dead or in warp already. If either you or your target starts to warp, your missiles do no damage, which means you cannot warp in, fire a volley, warp out.

Good points of missiles:
They use no cap.
You can use all damage types.
FoFs (some launchers)
No tracking.
Good extreme range.

Bad points:
Lower damage output. (Last time I checked, a raven did about half the raw DPS of a blasterthron)
Damage reduction against smaller ships (signature radius vs. explosion radius)
Do lower damage against fast moving ships (explosion velocity vs. ship velocity)
Variable damage, generally removes ship damage bonus.
At long range, flight time is a serious disadvantage.

I'm not intending to turn this into a turrets vs. missiles comparison, however I'll note that turrets also have problems vs. small/fast targets.

Oh, and on a final note, missile ships tend to also be shield tankers. This can make it harder to fit 'drawback counters' e.g. webbers or painters.

zayanka
Posted - 2007.01.29 12:20:00 - [19]
 

for long range fights they r bad....it's been already discussed....

now look at solo pvp...and at raven.

to do a decent damage u need t2 torps + 3 BCUt2, so ...at the end u will at least do 2/3 of megas or geddons damage. With torps and bcu's u will not be able to fit noses, no PG.

Also to fight someone u will have to scramble and get in range to scrambl. So this means u would have to sacrifice at least 2 med slots, with weber it's avtualy 3 med slots.

Since raven uses meds it would have a realy bad tank with only 3 meds dedicated to tanking.

James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2007.01.29 12:26:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: J Valkor
Edited by: J Valkor on 29/01/2007 10:14:53
Edited by: J Valkor on 29/01/2007 10:13:54
A few things to consider for smaller ops or solo.

A ship approaching a missile ship will take more damage on the approach then what the ship it is closing on should be able to do base. Let's create a hypothetical situation where your opponent is closing in on you from 50km going 2km/s. You have locked them are firing on their approach. Let us also say that the enemy ship is a close range blaster set up (just for this situation.) Let us also claim that your missiles have a ROF of 5 seconds and that they do two hundred damage a piece and move at 4 km/s. This is to make math easy.

If the target was stationary, you would hit them every five seconds. If they were at 50 km, it would take your missiles 12.5 seconds to hit them. However, if the enemy target was at 40 km, the missiles would take only 10 seconds to hit. Since your opponent is shortening the time it takes for the next round to hit him every meter he approaches you, he is increasing your DPS. Likewise, if he is moving away from you, he is decreasing the DPS you do to him. No matter how close or far he is from you, when he stops moving your DPS goes to what it "should be".

Just my random input on missiles that I don't believe I've read. Useless for fleet ops, obviously, but somebody might find it useful for something.


If it weren't for the fact that missiles have an explosion velocity, you would be correct. It used to be entirely possible to 'cost' at the same speed as your torpedos, firing all the time, and then hit all at once in a big volley.

Shayla Sh'inlux
Eve Space Exploration Guild
Posted - 2007.01.29 12:35:00 - [21]
 

Quote:

Lower damage output. (Last time I checked, a raven did about half the raw DPS of a blasterthron)



Check again.

That, or stop comparing a tanked cruise raven to that mythical Neutron Blasterthron.

Quote:

Damage reduction against smaller ships (signature radius vs. explosion radius)



Well, turrets have that too. Instead of every hit doing 3,9 damage you just get 80 misses and 3 hits for 600.

Quote:

Do lower damage against fast moving ships (explosion velocity vs. ship velocity)



Lower damage still beats the no damage of turrets in this area.

Quote:

Variable damage,



... is an advantage

Quote:

Oh, and on a final note, missile ships tend to also be shield tankers. This can make it harder to fit 'drawback counters' e.g. webbers or painters.


This sure is true. That is, however, for the most part compensated for by shield tanking being vastly superior to armor tanking and those ships having 5+ medslots to work with as opposed to 3 or 4 where one is a mandatory cap injector.

Valandril
Caldari
Ex-Mortis
Posted - 2007.01.29 12:52:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Valandril on 29/01/2007 12:50:35
Edited by: Valandril on 29/01/2007 12:49:27
Originally by: Shayla Sh'inlux
Quote:

Variable damage,


... is an advantage


Originally by: =Shayla Sh'inlux
3 hits for 600.
Yarr turrets are leet

Everyone can quote only half of sentence, and if that u change damage type == u loose bonus is advanantage, well

Also torp raven < blasthron.
Face it

welsh wizard
0utbreak
KrautbreaK
Posted - 2007.01.29 13:19:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Shayla Sh'inlux
Quote:
Damage reduction against smaller ships (signature radius vs. explosion radius)



Well, turrets have that too. Instead of every hit doing 3,9 damage you just get 80 misses and 3 hits for 600.

Quote:

Do lower damage against fast moving ships (explosion velocity vs. ship velocity)



Lower damage still beats the no damage of turrets in this area.



Have to disagree here Shayla, having the chance to smack a fast ship with a few good volleys is preferable to doing 0-10 damage per missile. At least with guns you've got a chance of popping them, its easier for a tackler to make a mistake against a gun boat.

Ships with guns have better defence against fast moving ships imo. The Hawk is an exception on rare occasions.

Chi Prime
Black Omega Security
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.01.29 13:31:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Chi Prime on 29/01/2007 13:27:40
Hehe, Shayla, still going at it?

Imo the downside to missiles (the lack of instadamage) makes up for an advantage close range over rails and the like. Blasters et al seem pretty balanced to me, and with the introduction of the hyperion you finally have something to go up against the raven in Smile

Dread Phantom
Caldari
End Game.
Posted - 2007.01.29 13:40:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Cipher7

Problem is, Caldari has everything. Every single ship in the fleet is either very viable or best in class.

Where's the downside?

It's a munchkin race.


Laughing

welsh wizard
0utbreak
KrautbreaK
Posted - 2007.01.29 13:43:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Chi Prime
Edited by: Chi Prime on 29/01/2007 13:27:40
Hehe, Shayla, still going at it?

Imo the downside to missiles (the lack of instadamage) makes up for an advantage close range over rails and the like. Blasters et al seem pretty balanced to me, and with the introduction of the hyperion you finally have something to go up against the raven in Smile


Agree, both weapons systems are different and its currently as balanced as its ever been. In other words about as balanced as two completely different game mechanics are going to get.

It just needs tweaking. Simpily if you want a job that only guns can do then bring a gunboat and vice versa.

James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2007.01.29 15:16:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: James Lyrus on 29/01/2007 15:14:21
Originally by: Shayla Sh'inlux
Quote:

Lower damage output. (Last time I checked, a raven did about half the raw DPS of a blasterthron)



Check again.

That, or stop comparing a tanked cruise raven to that mythical Neutron Blasterthron.



Quick quickfittery, has a siege II raven with a bay full of (T2) drones, and rage torps doing 585 dps on struture, on a dread. That's with everything I can think of to give it more DPS, and whatever skills I have loaded on my copy of quickfit at the moment.

What do you get on a megathron? Similar tests, (e.g. just typing stuff into quickfit) say about 1150dps, assuming I had BS 5. No, I'll not argue that being able to do a choice of damage types at 600dps is better than being stuck with kin/therm at twice that, since ... well, that's a different advantage, that counters the drawback listed:
"less dps"

Quote:

Quote:

Damage reduction against smaller ships (signature radius vs. explosion radius)



Well, turrets have that too. Instead of every hit doing 3,9 damage you just get 80 misses and 3 hits for 600.



As I said, wasn't really looking to get into 'turrets vs. missiles' but .. yes, you're correct (and I _think_ I noted this). I have popped 'ceptors at long range in a rohk, and know full well that I could not do this in a raven. At close range, the ability to do 'some' damage to a non-MWD 'ceptor is useful, but in neither case are you going to kill it.

Quote:

Quote:

Do lower damage against fast moving ships (explosion velocity vs. ship velocity)



Lower damage still beats the no damage of turrets in this area.



Provided you draw the distinction between velocity, and transverse velocity, I will agree. I will always do '0.1 damage' on a 'ceptor doing 5km/sec with a raven. Whether this is more or less useful than perhaps being able to hit it at 200km in a sniper BS is debatable, and frequently is.

Quote:

Quote:

Variable damage,



... is an advantage



I'm pretty sure I mentioned variable damage types as an advantage. This bit you are misquoting is the point where I refer to the fact that _most_ missile ships have a damage type specific damage bonus. So by switching to one of your other damage types, you lose your ship's damage bonus.

Quote:

Quote:

Oh, and on a final note, missile ships tend to also be shield tankers. This can make it harder to fit 'drawback counters' e.g. webbers or painters.


This sure is true. That is, however, for the most part compensated for by shield tanking being vastly superior to armor tanking and those ships having 5+ medslots to work with as opposed to 3 or 4 where one is a mandatory cap injector.




Raven has 6 mids, a caracal has 5. I'm unconvinced that shield tanking is 'vastly superior'. Slot for slot, a peak dps soak of a shield tank is higher than an armour tank. But as I'm sure you well know, that's far from the only factor. However shield tanking vs. armour tanking is regularly done to death, there's probably still a thread running somewhere here, so I shall leave it at that, and just get a final prod in with most people preferring to armour tank for PvP.

VJ Maverick
Splinter Cell Alfa
Posted - 2007.01.29 16:01:00 - [28]
 

There is a fundamental flaw with comparing the DPS of guns and missiles. Everybody says that guns are better because their DPS is much higher. That's only true on paper. Guns do more damage to offset the fact that they miss a lot more. Missiles ALWAYS hit, except for a few minor scenarios - interceptors and ships warping away - except in those cases, guns are pretty useless, too. If you really take into account everything, their actual effective DPS might be even or missiles might be better. Missiles work at more ranges - so you don't waste time jockeying for position and optimal range. You can start firing earlier and continue to fire longer than with guns.

James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2007.01.29 16:05:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: VJ Maverick
There is a fundamental flaw with comparing the DPS of guns and missiles. Everybody says that guns are better because their DPS is much higher. That's only true on paper. Guns do more damage to offset the fact that they miss a lot more. Missiles ALWAYS hit, except for a few minor scenarios - interceptors and ships warping away - except in those cases, guns are pretty useless, too. If you really take into account everything, their actual effective DPS might be even or missiles might be better. Missiles work at more ranges - so you don't waste time jockeying for position and optimal range. You can start firing earlier and continue to fire longer than with guns.


No, comparing DPS is entirely valid. It's a theoretical damage output given ideal situations.
We all know that 'ideal' situations are infrequent, however ... well that's where the pros and cons of the weapon come in.

Valandril
Caldari
Ex-Mortis
Posted - 2007.01.29 16:28:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: VJ Maverick
Missiles work at more ranges - so you don't waste time jockeying for position and optimal range. You can start firing earlier and continue to fire longer than with guns.
Sir did you ever use guns ?
Getting below my optimal only lower my chance to hit them, this is where tracking comp/enchancers come into play and u hit most time (i mean big ships here, not frigates).
Hell even with good skills, good fleetsetup u can easy hit cruisers unless they are mwding.
Thats at least on my thron ^.^


Pages: [1] 2

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