Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Roland Deschaines
Minmatar Esquires Of Questionable Intention
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 16:35:00 -
[1]
OK.
As far as I know, with missiles, damage is reduced if you're going faster than the missile explosion velocity or if your signature radius is smaller than the missile's explosion radius. However having a bigger signature radius than the missile's explosion radius doesn't make the missile do more damage.
As a result of this, using an MWD makes you 500% faster, and the 500% sig radius penalty you don't really care about. Take a torpedo shooting a Megathron for example. A Bane Torpedo has a 450m explosion radius. A Mega has a 400m sig radius. So only a tiny part of that 500% sig radius penalty will make the torpedo do more damage. However, all of the 500% speed bonus will make the Torp do less damage.
With turret ships, a bigger sig radius than the gun's sig resolution DOES affect hit chance. So the 500% speed bonus and sig radius penalty cancel out.
Isn't this a big imbalance?
|
Gartel Reiman
Civis Romanus Sum
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 16:44:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Roland Deschaines As far as I know, with missiles, damage is reduced if you're going faster than the missile explosion velocity or if your signature radius is smaller than the missile's explosion radius. However having a bigger sign
Incorrect. Part of the recent missile formula changes was to address this imbalance specifically - in broad terms, your speed is divided by your signature as part of the factor to determine damage reduction through velocity. So basically, if you have 5 times the signature and are going 5 times as fast, you'll take exactly the same damage as if you hadn't used the MWD. Or in other words, the explosion velocity is the speed at which a target of the missile's explosion radius starts to take reduced damage.
Thus they've already sorted out your perceived imbalance.
|
Roland Deschaines
Minmatar Esquires Of Questionable Intention
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 16:56:00 -
[3]
OK - good to know (and good solution too).
|
Bad Messenger
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 18:07:00 -
[4]
use after burner and reduce torpedo damage to half or more
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 20:02:00 -
[5]
The mighty Punisher can almost perma-tank a HML Cerberus when using AB and going max speed (ie. 1k/s in wide orbit). I say almost because he warped away before I got in Scram range, but had zero issues up until then.
One of the most effective counters to the AF swarms we are seeing now is missiles. Caracal's using assault launchers tear them apart like nobody's business.
The changes QR actually work pretty well and AB has a place outside missions again. It is still situational and requires balls of steel and patience when up against faster ships .. but deadly when it works.
|
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 05:30:00 -
[6]
Quote: Incorrect. Part of the recent missile formula changes was to address this imbalance specifically - in broad terms, your speed is divided by your signature as part of the factor to determine damage reduction through velocity. So basically, if you have 5 times the signature and are going 5 times as fast, you'll take exactly the same damage as if you hadn't used the MWD. Or in other words, the explosion velocity is the speed at which a target of the missile's explosion radius starts to take reduced damage.
Not true. The missile formula values sig radius more then explosion velocity. You will take more damage from missiles with the MWD active. I've ripped up frigates with SB torps before because they MWDed around.
|
Gartel Reiman
Civis Romanus Sum
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 07:28:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Kahega Amielden Not true. The missile formula values sig radius more then explosion velocity. You will take more damage from missiles with the MWD active.
Ah - I should have clarified that I was talking solely about the "damage reduction through speed" part; which according to Stafen's missile formula takes the term "sig/vel" as the multiplying factor, which is why increasing your speed and sig by the same factor makes no difference on this part.
You're right that there's also a separate "damage reduction through being small" part, which is a straight comparison of sig against explosion radius with no mitigating factors. Thus if you were getting damage reduction from this part before, you're likely to lose most if not all of it when you blow your sig up with the MWD.
I was thinking about the old situation of heavy missiles against shield-extended nanoships, where the base signature was not small enough to get a damage reduction and all reduction came through speed; in that case it's true that firing up the MWD will not change the damage you take (once you reach top speed, if you're hit while accelerating you may take slightly more if there was a speed-based reduction previously). On the other hand, a worst-case situation would be where you were a sixth (or less) of the missile's explosion radius; in which case, adding 500% to your sig means that you're actually taking 500% more damage . (In fact I can believe that a typical frigate can actually reach the explosion radius of torps if MWDing and dual-painted; 40m * 6 * 1.36 * 1.36 = 443m...)
|
Roland Deschaines
Minmatar Esquires Of Questionable Intention
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 16:54:00 -
[8]
In that case, can anyone provide the missile damage formula :)?
|
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 17:26:00 -
[9]
Really wouldnt mind seeing this formula. I want to know if I could have tanked a HAM fof drake in my huginn by simply zipping around him w/o mwd (explosion velocity is 112 or something) ----------------- Friends Forever |
Anda Chiyo
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 19:04:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Haniblecter Teg Really wouldnt mind seeing this formula. I want to know if I could have tanked a HAM fof drake in my huginn by simply zipping around him w/o mwd (explosion velocity is 112 or something)
I need to look up that formula as well, as I'm not sure. But afaik all missles have the equivalent of falloff much like guns. I believe it is fixed at 1500m/s for all types - torps, cruise, hvy, hvy assaults, etc. In other words in regards to your HAM reference, if said explosion velocity was 112m/s, then at 1612m/s (1500m/s+112m/s), all other things being equal, damage would be reduced by half.
|
|
Soporo
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 22:31:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Bad Messenger use after burner and reduce ALL MISSILES damage to half or more
Fixed. Particularly which is why HAMS and Rockets and Torps suck versus anything other than a very narrow band of encounters. They don't benefit from most of the missile support skills that matter so everything needs to be mass tackled/pained.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.05.24 18:35:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Soporo
Originally by: Bad Messenger use after burner and reduce ALL MISSILES damage to half or more
Fixed. Particularly which is why HAMS and Rockets and Torps suck versus anything other than a very narrow band of encounters. They don't benefit from most of the missile support skills that matter so everything needs to be mass tackled/pained.
In Soporoland, all BS/BCs fit afterburners, and nobody fits webs.
|
Theron Gyrow
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 11:41:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Anda Chiyo
Originally by: Haniblecter Teg Really wouldnt mind seeing this formula. I want to know if I could have tanked a HAM fof drake in my huginn by simply zipping around him w/o mwd (explosion velocity is 112 or something)
I need to look up that formula as well, as I'm not sure. But afaik all missles have the equivalent of falloff much like guns. I believe it is fixed at 1500m/s for all types - torps, cruise, hvy, hvy assaults, etc. In other words in regards to your HAM reference, if said explosion velocity was 112m/s, then at 1612m/s (1500m/s+112m/s), all other things being equal, damage would be reduced by half.
That is what it was before QR; it was completely revamped at that point. At some point of the process, the following was the correct formula, but I'm not 100% it hasn't been changed after that...
missile_dam = missile_warhead * min(target_sig/expl_rad;1)*(expl_vel/target_vel * target_sig/expl_rad)^(DRF*0.21429) |
Soporo
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 18:45:00 -
[14]
Quote: In Soporoland, all BS/BCs fit afterburners, and nobody fits webs.
While in Gypsioland everyone sits perfectly still, afk while running MWD.
|
Roland Deschaines
Minmatar Esquires Of Questionable Intention
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 19:12:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Roland Deschaines on 25/05/2009 19:18:20
Originally by: Theron Gyrow missile_dam = missile_warhead * min(target_sig/expl_rad;1)*(expl_vel/target_vel * target_sig/expl_rad)^(DRF*0.21429)
Mind explaining DRF? Ignoring DRF and using just 0.21429 as the power I get OK looking results on Excel, but that DRF might be important, so... |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 19:51:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Soporo
Quote: In Soporoland, all BS/BCs fit afterburners, and nobody fits webs.
While in Gypsioland everyone sits perfectly still, afk while running MWD.
I'm afraid not. But do you wonder, even for a second, how I'm using missiles so much more effectively than before QR? Are you not curious to discover how you're failing so hard? It's no great secret... I'd tell you if you ask politely... but I think it would do you good to figure it out for yourself.
PS. It doesn't involve PVE or using kinetic missiles against a Deimos.
|
Roland Deschaines
Minmatar Esquires Of Questionable Intention
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 20:04:00 -
[17]
Web drones + TP seems like a good way to make 'em work well. Is that the secret :P? |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 20:38:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 25/05/2009 20:44:30 No, web drones are as stupid as painter drones - you'd almost always deal more damage using combat drones.
Edit: this is all from a PVP perspective. I think Soporo is coming from a PVE perspective, but PVE and PVP are very different things. I do virtually no PVE, so I'm not going to comment on missile effectiveness in missions etc.
As for PVP. Put simply, nobody uses ABs on anything bigger than a frigate. This means that Soporo's crying about HAM/torps vs ABs is EFT nonsense. If you do meet an ABing BC/BS, the chances are that they're a clueless carebear and the rest of their fit is so bad that they're no threat to you at all.
So we can disregard ABs on the scale above frigates. This means that a single web is sufficient to eliminate all damage mitigation via speed. For example, a Rupture receives no damage mitigation vs. torps from speed when webbed. None. Speed is simply not an issue in a pvp-fit ship/gang.
At this point Soporo is probably crying that he needs to fit a web on his solo Raven. Several points here. Solo Raven was stupid because before QR because of nanos and it's stupid now because of AFs. Hell, any solo BS is pretty stupid because when someone sees a solo BS they think "bait" and make sure they have backup, and because you don't have the scan res to lock anyone who doesn't want to be locked.
If you were soloing in a missile ship (eg HAM Drake) before QR, you almost certainly had a web before anyway (to keep your target tackled!), so nothing really changed with QR. Any gang that has a torp Raven in has other ships with webs in. Problem solved.
So much for short-range missiles. Let's look at LMs and HMs. Well, before QR, most inties were immune to LMs, whereas now they are not. Soporo is about to start on about before/after comparisons with LMs vs AFs; however, this comparison is meaningless because nobody flew AFs before QR because they were deathtraps. HMs, before QR, were worthless as a PVP weapon - Jav HAMs did almost their damage to almost their range, but neither Jav HAMs nor HMs were capable of doing any damage to the nanoed targets that were capable of staying at range. Now the situation is immensely better, to the extent that my Rook can kill a Curse that burns at it, rather than just hitting for 0.1 damage.
I haven't included rockets here, or that favourite carebear weapon system, Cruise. Rockets are gimped because of low base damage, high fittings, popularity of ABs on their frigate-sized targets and the lack of slots on their frigate host to fit the required web. Cruise's problem is that a long-range anti-BS missile is simply not useful. That's not a fixable problem. You could redefine Cruise as an anti-cruiser weapons system - but that exists, it's called HMs.
Put simply, a single web removes the ability of non-AB ships to speed-tank. A second web removes the speed-tank of an AB-ing ship, but any ABing ship is going to get webbed. You can argue that you won't go into web range and hence will benefit from some speed-tank - but this ignores that fact that if you'd done this before QR then you'd have been immune to missiles. Not now.
|
Theron Gyrow
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 07:25:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Roland Deschaines
Mind explaining DRF? Ignoring DRF and using just 0.21429 as the power I get OK looking results on Excel, but that DRF might be important, so...
Oops, looks like I indeed had an outdated formula. I believe the most up-to-date one can be found at http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=901280 and is Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(MIN(target_sig/Expl_rad,1) , (target_sig/Expl_rad * Expl_vel/target_vel)^(log(DRF) / log(5.5)) )
DRF is "damage reduction formula" which depends on the missile type. I think it is shown in the "show info" page in-game, but I can't check that at the moment. At some point it was as follows:
rocket 3 light missile 2.8 HM 3.2 HAM 4.5 cruise 4.5 torp 5
Rage/Fury/Javelin variants have a bit more, Precisions a bit less. |
Gartel Reiman
Civis Romanus Sum
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 08:15:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Anda Chiyo
Originally by: Haniblecter Teg Really wouldnt mind seeing this formula. I want to know if I could have tanked a HAM fof drake in my huginn by simply zipping around him w/o mwd (explosion velocity is 112 or something)
I need to look up that formula as well, as I'm not sure. But afaik all missles have the equivalent of falloff much like guns. I believe it is fixed at 1500m/s for all types - torps, cruise, hvy, hvy assaults, etc. In other words in regards to your HAM reference, if said explosion velocity was 112m/s, then at 1612m/s (1500m/s+112m/s), all other things being equal, damage would be reduced by half.
No, definitely not - that's the old formula, where speed was everything and nanos were invincible to missiles. In fact the situation you stated was the main driving force for rebalancing the missile damage formula, since a MWD would almost always give notable damage reduction.
Though to answer the question you quoted - a couple of things. Firstly, there's no such thing as FOF HAMs; only long-range missiles have FOF variants, so either the Drake was fitting HAMs or he was firing FOFs. Secondly, the Drake doesn't get a range bonus, so with your webs you could easily maintain range at 22km or so, outside the range of his HAMs (unless he's unusually fitted range rigs). He may fire Javelin HAMs at you still, but there's a reasonable chance that he's either using T1 launchers or didn't bring Javelins, and at least they're easier to tank.
Originally by: Theron Gyrow
Originally by: Roland Deschaines
Mind explaining DRF? Ignoring DRF and using just 0.21429 as the power I get OK looking results on Excel, but that DRF might be important, so...
Oops, looks like I indeed had an outdated formula. I believe the most up-to-date one can be found at http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=901280 and is Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(MIN(target_sig/Expl_rad,1) , (target_sig/Expl_rad * Expl_vel/target_vel)^(log(DRF) / log(5.5)) )
That's correct, that's the formula I was referring to and my understanding is that it's still current (there's not been any changes to the formula post-QR IIRC).
The meaning of DRF is essentially a falloff for missiles; it's a measure of how "quickly" their damage drops off once a ship's sig-modified velocity exceeds the missile's explosion radius-modified explosion velocity. Higher values of DRF mean a steeper damage dropoff (since the power term is greater, so the less-than-one number is made smaller). |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |