open All Channels
seplocked Warfare & Tactics
blankseplocked Missiles vs Turrets for PvP
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Ob'lisk
Posted - 2009.09.22 07:55:00 - [1]
 

Sorry for the newbish question but I continue to hear multiple times that missiles are pathetic compared to turrets when it comes to PvP. Why is this?

I understand that they have a delay in hitting, but considering that you'll be queuing up the next missiles while it's in flight, it's not THAT big of a deal. Just means your missiles will hit versus missing like turrets do.

destinationunreachable
Hello Kitty Fanclub
Posted - 2009.09.22 11:33:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: destinationunreachable on 22/09/2009 11:38:12
Originally by: Ob'lisk
Sorry for the newbish question but I continue to hear multiple times that missiles are pathetic compared to turrets when it comes to PvP. Why is this?

I understand that they have a delay in hitting, but considering that you'll be queuing up the next missiles while it's in flight, it's not THAT big of a deal. Just means your missiles will hit versus missing like turrets do.


There is nothing wrong with missiles in general when it comes to PVP.
They have the advantage of no tracking issues and free choice of damage type, but also the disadvantage that you reduce damage with speed.
The delay is only important if you fly with a larger fleet and especially a sniper fleet.
If 100 BS fire at 150km at one target, the target is usualy dead pretty quickly, your missiles will still be in flight at that time.
For small and close-range engagements it doesn't matter.

Intigo
Amarr
Genos Occidere
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.09.22 11:55:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: destinationunreachable
Edited by: destinationunreachable on 22/09/2009 11:38:12
Originally by: Ob'lisk
Sorry for the newbish question but I continue to hear multiple times that missiles are pathetic compared to turrets when it comes to PvP. Why is this?

I understand that they have a delay in hitting, but considering that you'll be queuing up the next missiles while it's in flight, it's not THAT big of a deal. Just means your missiles will hit versus missing like turrets do.


There is nothing wrong with missiles in general when it comes to PVP.
They have the advantage of no tracking issues and free choice of damage type, but also the disadvantage that you reduce damage with speed.
The delay is only important if you fly with a larger fleet and especially a sniper fleet.
If 100 BS fire at 150km at one target, the target is usualy dead pretty quickly, your missiles will still be in flight at that time.
For small and close-range engagements it doesn't matter.


For the most part right, just one thing to add: Rockets are absolutely horrendous, never fit them. Ever.

Acid Flipper
Sock Robbers Inc.
Posted - 2009.09.22 12:57:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Intigo

For the most part right, just one thing to add: Rockets are absolutely horrendous, never fit them. Ever.


why is that actually?

Kezzle
Posted - 2009.09.22 13:01:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Acid Flipper
Originally by: Intigo

For the most part right, just one thing to add: Rockets are absolutely horrendous, never fit them. Ever.


why is that actually?


For starters they have larger explosion radii and are slower than missiles, so they are worse affected by the small size and high speed of any small, fast, target than missiles are, even though they have a larger base damage. They're also not, IIRC, affected by a good proportion of the skills that improve missile effectiveness that you might think improve the effectiveness of anything that comes out of launchers looking to blow things up.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2009.09.22 13:01:00 - [6]
 

Low base damage.
Highish fitting requirements.

Required to have their non-ABing frigate target webbed and scrambled to deal ~full damage, but many target frigates use ABs and many rocket frigates don't have room for a web.

The end result is crap base damage that is far too easily mitigated.

Shade Millith
Caldari
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.09.22 13:01:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Acid Flipper
Originally by: Intigo

For the most part right, just one thing to add: Rockets are absolutely horrendous, never fit them. Ever.


why is that actually?


From the little I've played with them, and a great deal of what I've heard, they have poor raw damage. That coupled with poor explosion velocity (I believe the same as a torpedo) means they have some serious problems.

This is mostly from what I've heard, I very rarely fly frigate sized things anyway

Acid Flipper
Sock Robbers Inc.
Posted - 2009.09.22 13:05:00 - [8]
 

ah cool. that makes things clear. thanks!

Chssmius
legio immortalorum
United Front Alliance
Posted - 2009.09.22 18:16:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Chssmius on 22/09/2009 18:48:37
Edited by: Chssmius on 22/09/2009 18:29:18
Yeah, there is very little to love about rockets but they are not a total loss.

The briefest explanation is that a frigate at full speed or webbed with an AB will only take about 75% damage +10% for variability in signature and top speed for both rockets and light missiles.

Light missiles will always deliver ~5%(ex: at 400 m/s LM do ~73% while R do ~68%) more of their total damage than rockets will unless you get below ~250 m/s. Lights do better compared to rockets the faster the target is going.

Rocket vs Light Missile graph*
Now rockets only do ~10% more damage to begin with so there is only going to be ~5% damage benefit from using Rockets. The exception is if a target frigate is doing basically half its max non-propulsion mod velocity. Because of the higher DRF(Damage Reduction Factor) if a frigate is doing ~850 m/s or more(typical Frigate ABing speeds) then LM and Rockets are within a 1 or 2 DPS of each other. DRF is kind of complicated in how it works but the short version is the higher DRF the faster the damage falls off with higher speed and/or smaller sig signature. Keep in mind that ships which are likely to use rockets that ~5% improved DPS will translate into about 5 DPS, which isn't really noticeable.


This wouldn't be so bad if the range of rockets wasn't so terribly poor. EFT max rang is only 10.1 km. Realistically that is much shorter in a real fight and more likely to be 8 or 9 km after you account for rocket acceleration and target travel during rocket flight time.

Finally the max velocity for a rocket is less than 3.5 km/s which is a little on the slow side considering T1 frigates can go faster than that. Granted anything with an MWD has to be in scram and web range to take damage anyway, but short flight time isn't the only problem.

Javeline Rockets vs Light Missile graph*
Also, Javelin rockets, while they have 50% more range(15 km), they exasperated the lack of damage improvement for rockets over LM. Between the ~25% reduced base damage and 0.2 difference in the DRF for Javelin rockets compared with their faction cousins means faction LM always do at least 10% more damage with ~3 times the range.


In short, rockets need a target frigate to be double webbed and scrammed to improve noticeably on light missile damage. Furthermore, rocket users can either engage well inside web and scram range or would be better off with light missiles.

The only redeeming attribute for rockets is their low fitting cost compared with LM. But then, about every small short range turret system has some option that would be easier to fit(in at least one way) and out damage a rocket inside its optimal(which isn't that far off the rockets max range). Though, admittedly, direct comparisons aren't strictly valid.


*DPS lines are for a Kestrel with 4x T2 launcher, navy kinetic ammo(unless otherwise noted), perfect skills, one BCU II, and one small Warhead Calefaction Catalyist rig firing at a ship equivalent to a Rifter without any signature bloom. % lines are equivalent for all ships except for the Heretic and Flycatcher(the Amarr and Caldari Interdictors).

Don Pellegrino
Pod Liberation Authority
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.09.22 18:41:00 - [10]
 

Also, don't forget that missiles are range independent.
That's the reason why there's ALOT more missiles seen in the Alliance Tournament.
As long as your target is in range, you will do damage based on speed and signature radius, not
on the distance your target is from you (and no tracking issues).

Ob'lisk
Posted - 2009.09.22 19:16:00 - [11]
 

Thank you! I keep hearing "Missiles are crap in PvP" over and over. I have been hearing that HAMs are some of the best for PvP fight though which I do believe. I thank everyone who answered cause I thought I was SCREWED cause I picked Caldari...

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2009.09.22 19:51:00 - [12]
 

HAMs are great.
HMs are great.
LMs are fine.
Torps are great.

Rockets aren't great.
Cruise has no role.

The flight time issues simply don't exist in typical small-gang fights, where the combination of good DPS and good range makes HMs in particular really powerful.

Don Pellegrino
Pod Liberation Authority
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.09.22 21:01:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Don Pellegrino on 22/09/2009 21:00:59
The HAM Drake is probably the best BC when it comes to DPS/tank ratio.

1 damage control, 3 ballistic controls, 1 MWD, 1 warp disruptor, 1 web, 2 large shields ext, invuln, shield extending rigs (and maybe 1 anti-em) and 7 HAMs (missiles depending on the situation).

The kind of DPS it does is crazy for the tank it has. It has no problem to take out small targets like interceptors (yes, really, with the right T2 missile) AND you are never primaried.

Ob'lisk
Posted - 2009.09.22 23:58:00 - [14]
 

Why do you say that cruise missiles are not worth it? In 1v1 long range rights, where you are kiting the enemy I can see those owning. I understand why rockets suck, but CMs? But I definitely gotta try the HAMs Drake. That sounds awesome!

Pan Dora
Caldari
Organization for Nuclear Research
Posted - 2009.09.23 01:10:00 - [15]
 


Because there is no 1v1 long range, the target will flee if yuo dont warp disrupt him.

Ob'lisk
Posted - 2009.09.23 01:15:00 - [16]
 

That's true. Can't believe I didn't think of that. But don't Cruise Missiles do more dmg than HMs?

Von Kroll
Caldari
Kroll's Legion
Posted - 2009.09.23 04:05:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Ob'lisk
That's true. Can't believe I didn't think of that. But don't Cruise Missiles do more dmg than HMs?



To larger targets, yes. The point he's trying to make is that a target that's not warp disrupted or scrammed is a target that will get away. You can't take advantage of the Cruise Missiles range or damage unless you are inside Warp Disrupter Range, and then you're also inside Torp range. Torps are truly spectacular in the right situations. To date, no one has really developed a technique for credible cruise missile deployment in fleet or long range fights.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2009.09.23 08:42:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Gypsio III on 23/09/2009 09:59:14
Originally by: Pan Dora
Because there is no 1v1 long range, the target will flee if yuo dont warp disrupt him.


This is simplistic. There are plenty of times that a missile pilot wants to shoot at an untackled target at range, and will be quiet happy simply to force the target to warp out.

Rook, Falcon, Arazu, Rapier, Curse, Scimitar etc... all these targets can be be crippling for a small gang or solo, all have a tendency to sit at range, beyond most the range of most turrets, but all can be removed from the field by missile fire.

The problem with Cruise is that Cruise is an anti-BS and -BC weapon, and the targets listed are cruisers, better suited for attack with HMs. If you want to hit BS and BCs at long range, then you're in a sniper gang and you want the instant damage of turrets. This means that Cruise basically has no role. Yes, you can use Cruise to hit those Recons, but HM Drake or Cerb is basically better.

Pan Dora
Caldari
Organization for Nuclear Research
Posted - 2009.09.24 01:53:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III
Edited by: Gypsio III on 23/09/2009 09:59:14
Originally by: Pan Dora
Because there is no 1v1 long range, the target will flee if yuo dont warp disrupt him.


This is simplistic. There are plenty of times that a missile pilot wants to shoot at an untackled target at range, and will be quiet happy simply to force the target to warp out.

Rook, Falcon, Arazu, Rapier, Curse, Scimitar etc... all these targets can be be crippling for a small gang or solo, all have a tendency to sit at range, beyond most the range of most turrets, but all can be removed from the field by missile fire.

The problem with Cruise is that Cruise is an anti-BS and -BC weapon, and the targets listed are cruisers, better suited for attack with HMs. If you want to hit BS and BCs at long range, then you're in a sniper gang and you want the instant damage of turrets. This means that Cruise basically has no role. Yes, you can use Cruise to hit those Recons, but HM Drake or Cerb is basically better.


Actualy I agree with everything you said.
y oneline was a reply for why cruiser missiles are not good at the scenario Ob'lisk proposed (1v1 long range) and not a full answer for why cruise missiles are problematic to use.



 

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