|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
466
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 16:38:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Rapid Launchers (both Light and Heavy) will be changed to have a much higher damage per second number, roughly on par with Heavy Assault Launchers and Torpedo Launchers respectively, but their ammo capacity will be reduced and their reload time will be increased increased (think Ancilliary Shield Boosters). It's an interesting proposal, and as a die-hard missile player I'm not entirely opposed to the proposed changes. The 40-second reload time isn't necessarily a problem provided we consider:
GÇó Including explosion radius, explosion velocity and missile velocity for RHMLs on battleship and battlecruiser hulls GÇó Including missile velocity for RLMLs on T3 hulls GÇó Reducing the grid/CPU requirement for RHMLs such that they can be utilized to some extent on battlecruisers
Otherwise, either the ammunition capacity needs to be doubled or the reload time reduced to 20 seconds. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
466
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 17:08:00 -
[2] - Quote
On further reflection, this is actually quite an innovative direction for RLMLs and RHMLs. I think the reload time needs to be adjusted down to 30 (or even 20) seconds, as 40 seconds in PvP is an eternity. The one thing that no one's really considering is that you may see a mix of RLML/HML and cruise/RHML setups. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
466
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 17:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
Justin Einstein wrote:The problem that I can thing of is for missioning. I use Rapid lights on my Caracal now for L2 missions, but there is no way that it will be practical to do this after the change I think. I think they'll still be fine, to be honest. You'll be dealing out substantially more DPS at the outset, which should clear out a few additional targets before having to reload. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
466
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 17:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:this is false you need a certain ammount off missiles/ships. The #ships you kill before reload depends on clipsize not dps. the clipsize is smaller therefore youll kill less before reload. I think you missed the point in my response. You'll only need a few volleys (at most) to kill most ship types in an L2, which means with a 35% improvement to rate of fire you can more quickly dispense any ships aggro'ing you. With maximum skills, a minimum of 3 ballistic controllers and +3/+5 damage/rate-of-fire implants I think you'll be looking at under 2 seconds per volley with Caldari Navy faction RLMLs (since it's about 3-seconds for me now). Faction launchers hold a bit more ammunition (my guestimate would be about 25 rounds). That translates into roughly 50 seconds of rapid firing before reload. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
466
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 17:39:00 -
[5] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:This. There's a reason artillery is so popular despite having lower DPS than the other LR turrets. (cough) GǪ ganking GǪ (cough) Some of us do see the potential, even with the changes as proposed. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
466
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 17:46:00 -
[6] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Eh, I'm not sure that the RMLs will be useful for ganking even after this change. It will take longer than 30s (which is the maximum CONCORD response time IIRC) to empty them, and even then, they'll still do less damage than the HAMsTorps you could fit instead. I meant artillery is popular for ganking, due to the high alpha. Missiles, not so muchGǪ If they gave torpedoes an insane damage bump for reduced rate of fire, that could be interestingGǪ I do like the idea of the proposed RLMLs in Faction Warfare, though. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
466
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 17:49:00 -
[7] - Quote
Mhari Dson wrote:Do note that someone doing L2's will not have anything close to maximum skills Also you're talking about a 75% magazine reduction on rapid lights. I'm only running IV's for most of my missile skills, and even III's with some +2/+3 implants wouldn't see that big a difference. Yes, it would appear to be a 75% capacity nerf. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
466
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 18:37:00 -
[8] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:i didn't miss a thing..... you said something very false. what you meant does not matter if you dont say it. if you meant the time needed to kill em but then say so. its not my responsibility to distinguish between intentionally wrong arguments and badly made arguments. I thought it was fairly obvious since my response was to a question about L2 missions. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
466
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 18:40:00 -
[9] - Quote
I think the only change that needs to be seriously considered with the current iteration is a reduction in the reload time to 20 seconds. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
466
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 18:55:00 -
[10] - Quote
Justin Cody wrote:but now you have to wait an entire day to do it again! It's about the quality, not the quantity. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
466
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 19:14:00 -
[11] - Quote
zbaaca wrote:problem is that no1 wants to use overnerfed HM. And yet I still see HML Drakes everywhere I go... |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
466
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 19:21:00 -
[12] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Ive also seen laser ravens, 400 plate harbingers and small armor rep maelstroms. Doesnt make any of them good. In terms of mid-range/entry-level missile platforms, HML Drakes are fine. The damage application on Navy Drakes is better, although HMLs certainly could stand to see some improvement. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
467
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 19:30:00 -
[13] - Quote
Ranamar wrote:Do RHML-launched heavy missiles get the range bonus from Raven hulls, now that some of the "like other battleship launchers but better" concerns have been addressed by making rapid launchers significantly different?
Other than that, this sounds interesting and I'm looking forward to seeing how it pans out. Not in the last iteration, anyway. Just damage and rate of fire bonuses (although there was some question as to whether the Golem not receiving it was an oversight). |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
467
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 19:39:00 -
[14] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:For this to be appropriately balanced, the "high dps window" needs to be long enough to bring down a typical target. Then the reload window needs to be long enough to make it un-ideal when sustained dps is important. I think your 20s attack, 10-15s reload is too short on both accounts, and the 50s attack, 40s relaod is just about ideal. So you're saying as proposed is probably balanced? |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
467
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 19:43:00 -
[15] - Quote
Can we at least get missile velocity applied to RHMLs on battleshup hulls? |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
468
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 19:56:00 -
[16] - Quote
zbaaca wrote:just compare HML HAML and now-RML on something like caracal. what point to use HML ? Range. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
471
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:13:00 -
[17] - Quote
SOL Ranger wrote:[quote=Arthur Aihaken]I think the better idea would be to scale the rapid launchers down in terms of fitting costs, now these launchers have a clear weakness so the up sized fitting requirements are no longer needed, then we can also add a rapid cruise launcher into the lineup.
That way you'd get the bonuses for each size rapid missile launcher almost by default for each ship, applying battleship bonuses to heavy missiles seems out of place in the current balancing theme EVE is in, I think the only way to get something similar yet acceptably functional is with a rapid cruise launcher. RHML Tengu, I'm in. I still want the missile velocity bonus on my Ravens, though. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
473
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:27:00 -
[18] - Quote
Octavian Madullier wrote:but still ... 40 seconds ??? ... It's something different, which as far as I'm concerned is a welcome change for missiles. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
473
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 20:30:00 -
[19] - Quote
Iris Bravemount wrote:Overheating already covered this. Oooh, thanks for mentioning that. RLML's get a 15% rate of fire bonus, so that translates into about 27 seconds of overheated firing time then a cooldown of 40 seconds while it reloads. Awesome! |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
474
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 22:15:00 -
[20] - Quote
There's way too much aluminum foil in this thread. The proposed change effects two weapon systems (one of which is still very much on the drawing board). The only aspects that may need to be adjusted are the reload time or ammunition capacity. Either a 30-second reload time (instead of 40 seconds) or a 50% ammunition reduction (instead of 75%). So instead of just dispensing with the idea outright, how about we look at a few suggestions to help refine it. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
474
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 22:22:00 -
[21] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:The design shoudl jsut be less extreme. Keep rapids on a dps scale between current and the proposed values (rof time) But also do not nerf the capacity so much.
Extreme designs almsot NEVER worked in eve (They floped misreably or became overpowered). Rate of fire is fine. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
479
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 01:25:00 -
[22] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: Switching ammo types (other damage types or to FOF(does anyone actually use fof?)) will be very difficult which is key for missile users I commented earlier on the missile switching - I think it is a valid complaint and I'd like to find a work-around for it as an iteration but I don't think it's a show-stopper. Several of the ships using these systems are kinetic bonused which means you don't switch that often. You still have time to switch on the way to a fight based on what damage type might be best. You still have the option to switch as you run out of charges and would be reloading anyway. But again, this is a legit complaint and I want to look into it. 1. Can we please get Faction FoF missiles added back to the LP store for Rubicon? (yes, some of us use them) 2. The 40-second reload is fine, but the ammunition capacity is a tad low. If you increase this to 25 for a T2 RLML and 30 for a Caldari Faction launcher this will probably balance out better. 3. For missile switching, is it possible to implement a 10-second swap-out with the caveat that only the type and not the quantity of ammunition is replaced? |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
480
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 18:15:00 -
[23] - Quote
With Rubicon now less than 9 days from release, and assuming the changes will need to be frozen a few days prior - we're only talking a few days at most to get these live and tested. I don't think that bodes well for such a substantial change, regardless of which side you fall on.
What I'm fairly displeased with is the fact that the RHLM thread was open for the better part of a month with ZERO dev feedback. I mean, nothing. If there were issues with the proposed RHLMs during live testing it was completely oblivious to those of us following. Interaction doesn't mean you have to respond to each and every thread, but I don't think an update every few days (even if the answer is "nothing's changed, still on-track with the last iteration") is entirely out of the question.
I would almost suggest that RHMLs and the proposed changes to RLMLs be shelved for the next quarterly update, and with that update missiles should be a top priority (torpedoes, HMLs, RLMLs and RHMLs). |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
483
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 00:14:00 -
[24] - Quote
Patri Andari wrote:Should be required viewing for all new developers. I guess it was one of those 1 year plans. You nailed it right there. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
484
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 02:34:00 -
[25] - Quote
With (now) 8 days to go, we've got a sole dev update? Honestly I don't even know why we have these forums. The premise is that the interaction is supposed to be somewhat cathartic, but following these forums seems more akin to reading the obituaries (every time there's an update, we know something's died; we just hope it's not related to us). |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
484
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 03:06:00 -
[26] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:It's been Sunday all day and now it's finally Monday in Iceland. As of this post it's just about 3am at CCP HQ; let people do things like get out of bed and eat breakfast and maybe even unlock the front door at CCP so people can get into the building. 8 days until Rubicon and you don't think people aren't working weekends and putting in OT? (they should be if they're not) And since when is the above a prerequisite to posting a simple update which can be done remotely from virtually anywhere at any time? I'm not the one that pulled the proverbial rabbit out of the hat mere days before a major release, either. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
484
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 03:31:00 -
[27] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:8 days until Rubicon and I'm pretty sure people aren't working Sundays and coming in at 3am on Monday morning, yes. At the very least, I sincerely hope they're not working 7 days a week and putting in 20-hour days. That would make for some significantly bad results. Pretty sure they are putting in substantial OT (would be very surprised if they weren't). You don't have to work 20/7 to post a simple update, so please stop trying to equate this with third-world slave labour. Again, I'm not the one that introduced the proposed change at this stage - and the RHML thread was all but ignored for the past month. I'm already prepared for this being implemented as is, and am not realistically expecting any substantial dialog on changes. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
484
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 04:07:00 -
[28] - Quote
wowyouareacow wrote:However, please leave regular light launchers the way they are. YeahGǪ I have the distinct feeling that's not on the table. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
484
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 06:31:00 -
[29] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:I too am a bit concerned with the overall feel that this was revealed as an 11th-hour change and has had little communication - and that what communication we've gotten has seemed more-or-less totally dismissive of anything we've said.
Perhaps this is me simply misinterpreting things, but I'm not altogether sure Rise is entirely as receptive to feedback as he was before or could be. Especially not when he pre-nerfs ships before they're even available to test, saying "this is probably the last change before they go live".
Now you see why I said what I said before - I don't really think this thread is intended to get feedback so much as to prevent people saying that they weren't told changes were coming. You're not alone in this impression. And considering there was almost nothing on RHMLs until this update, and with Rubicon literally days away - I'm not expecting anything either. Winter is definitely coming... |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
484
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 06:47:00 -
[30] - Quote
Bob Niac wrote:I am thinking this is going to be pushed back to a future patch. WAAAY too much negative feedback. How much ISK are we wagering? |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
484
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 07:45:00 -
[31] - Quote
Darling Hassasin wrote:If people think the reload time is too much they can simply pretend it does not exist at all and they are back to business as usual. You're funny. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
488
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 18:27:00 -
[32] - Quote
Another day - no updates. Hope looked slim for our heroesGǪ On the plus side, these changes will be fairly easy to adapt for missions. It may make more sense to mix launcher types (RLMLs/HMLs and RHMLs/cruise) to ramp up the sustained DPS during reloads. And even though light missiles don't take up a lot of space, you won't have to carry as many of them. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
488
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 18:51:00 -
[33] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Give Rise time to read 45 pages of discussion [Rubicon] Rapid Heavy Missiles Launchers 2013.10.07 - 11:58, 13:03. That's it. 35 days, not a single followup response.
[Rubicon] Rapid Missile Launchers v2 2013.11.08 - 11:22, 11:36, 11:40, 13:34, 14:01, 14:13 2013.11.09 - 12:30 Not holding my breath on this thread, either. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
502
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 05:34:00 -
[34] - Quote
RIP: RLML, Caracal... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
502
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 06:20:00 -
[35] - Quote
Ion Blacknight wrote:We deserve a clear explanation.
Oh wait, were you serious? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
502
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 06:58:00 -
[36] - Quote
Angelus Ryan wrote:5s less don't make it any less crap. It is still horrible for all the reasons listed in the thread. Regardless, these are probably set in stone. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
503
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 14:33:00 -
[37] - Quote
Patri Andari wrote:When can we expect this on the test server? November 19. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
503
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 14:56:00 -
[38] - Quote
Tune in next expansion: Same bat time, same bat channel. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
516
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 15:14:00 -
[39] - Quote
ISD Cura Ursus wrote:Many many many of the posts seem to be attacking the person rather than the idea. Yes, well - maybe players just aren't thrilled with the prospect of a new idea materializing in the span of a weekend, bypassing any kind of testing whatsoever and going straight to deployment. Oh, and perhaps because these feedback forums are virtually useless. It's not really our fault that we keep being offered a free set of steak knives with every new update... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
516
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 15:41:00 -
[40] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I'm not sure where the idea comes from that this plan came out of thin air in a few days has come from. Yes, it's late in the release cycle, but we spent weeks talking about how to deal with this problem and went through multiple review processes before anything showed up here, just like we do with all changes.
I also assure you that I am not ignoring negative feedback. There are absolutely a lot of people giving that in this thread. In the past when I've gotten negative feedback which is backed with well articulated arguments I don't hesitate to make changes (see industrial rebalance, electronic attack frig rebalance, battleship rebalance), but in this thread the majority of complaint is very disorganized and unhelpful, that's why I'm instead going with the positive feedback coming from the CSM, from our testing and from some posters here. That's funny. Let me refresh your memory with the original RHML thread. Well over a solid month with no updates or responses to any of the questions, concerns and suggestions that were posted. Then literally in the span of a weekend everything changes. And I'm just referring to RHMLs - let alone RLMLs. If you indeed 'spent weeks talking about how to deal with this problem', this is completely alien to most of us - since you'll be hard-pressed to find a single, solitary dev update indicating any issues whatsoever.
And saying that the 'majority of complaint is very disorganized and unhelpful' makes one question your reading comprehension skills. It's fairly obvious even to me where the concerns lie. And just to be clear, I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea. Where I have a problem is the extreme late-stage of the game where this is being rolled out regardless. This isn't a personal attack, but the lack of interaction in these two threads speaks volumes. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
516
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 15:43:00 -
[41] - Quote
I think this particular image sums it up better than I ever could. http://johngushue.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451f25369e20120a513810c970b-800wi I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
516
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 22:13:00 -
[42] - Quote
Whatever happened to the scripted missile 'tracking computer' or 'ballistic enhancer'? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
516
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 23:14:00 -
[43] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:And let's extend this conversation to RHMLs, since they are getting mostly ignored in this debate. What is the point of these things at this point? They have all the well-documented weaknesses of HMs, don't benefit from range or explosion bonuses, and suffer from all the inflexibility issues mentioned above. RHMLs are going to totally rock on Ravens for L4s. As for PvP, battleships are basically dead post-Rubicon anyway - so I don't think it matters what benefit or detriment RHMLs have there. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
517
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 23:24:00 -
[44] - Quote
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:I see no reason not to fly battleships in PvP post rubicon, not everybody flies in environments with bubbles and even there I see plenty of opportunities for battleships to still be fun and useful. Blobs, sure. But solo - they're finished with the new warp speed mechanics. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
517
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 23:31:00 -
[45] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:Ravens only get one bonus for RHMLs, and the range of many fights in L4 missions is going to really make you miss the other one. Besides, Ravens already have no issues with L4 missions. I would really hope there are more uses than that for RHMLs, though I'm pretty sure there won't be. True, but that's at least one that counts - and it's still better than zero bonuses on the Navy Raven. Yes, Ravens are already rock L4s - I meant they're going to be even better now. Same effective DPS as cruise with more explosion velocity and less than half the explosion radius of cruise missiles. Three hydraulic rigs will push these to almost 100km, which is more than enough for any L4. Officer RHML versions should have a nice ammunition supply (something not available to RLMLs). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
517
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 23:33:00 -
[46] - Quote
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:I get that people are concerned about the warp speed changes affecting battleships, but I'm not ready to buy into this 'the end of solo battleships' gospel quite yet. But lets not go so horribly off-topic Time will tell. We'll have to see how it plays out with the new warp speed implants. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
517
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 01:38:00 -
[47] - Quote
650+ DPS RLML-Tengu is going to be absolutely brutal. Caracals, nom-nom. Can I at least laugh about the CN Rapid Light Missile Launchers selling for $100-million apiece @ Jita? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
517
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 02:22:00 -
[48] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:All other factors are not equal. 40s is a loooong time to allow shields to regen and allow the new system caracals to apply dps. They lose 2 caracals before reload, but the 3rd caracal on each side dies at about the same time, and the 4th old caracal lives until 2nd reload. I think the old caracals will win.
This is assuming they just sit there and shoot each other. If people are dodging point and warping out, the new system caracals get absolutely shafted by wasted volleys. As of today, the old Caracals no longer exist. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
517
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 02:51:00 -
[49] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:So, at least for my purposes, RIP RLMLs. Let us know if you have a chance to try it out with a Tengu running Faction launchers. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
517
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 03:18:00 -
[50] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I would suggest against this, since the list of things that can now kill your tengu is expanded to "anything that webs you while you are reloading" I thought we were talking about the test server? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
548
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 21:55:00 -
[51] - Quote
This is really a dead horse until the next post-Rubicon update. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
550
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 22:27:00 -
[52] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:That doesn't stop people from continuing to argue with each other in the Marauders thread or ask if the SoE ships are deliberately missing a CPU bonus to probe launchers. Sure... ask and ye shall not receive. 5 days to Rubicon, snowball's chance of anything changing... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
553
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 01:07:00 -
[53] - Quote
700+ DPS on a Tengu with RLMLs. Yeah, I'm cryin' my eyes out... Just suck it up and adapt (it's not like you have a choice for the next 3 months anyway). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
573
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 03:28:00 -
[54] - Quote
4 days until the new RHMLs. Can't wait! I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
573
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 04:41:00 -
[55] - Quote
Is all this griping cathartic? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
575
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 07:03:00 -
[56] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Is white-knighting the work of an inept douchebag satisfying? I'm not "white-knighting" anything. Scroll back to some of the first posts in this thread and you'll see that my take on this is "interesting". In terms of timing, my suggestion was to defer the proposed changes until players had a chance to test them. However, in their infinite wisdom TPTB have decided to forge ahead. Since it's abundantly clear that no amount of rational or logic arguments are going to persuade otherwise, griping is an even further waste of time. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
577
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 08:39:00 -
[57] - Quote
RavenGǪ RHMLGǪ 1200+ DPS... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
577
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 09:12:00 -
[58] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Fair enough. I didn't read the first pages of this thread (I found out about this moronic idea just a few days ago, unfortunately), but saying that "it's too late" and that we might as well not gripe is sort of defeatist. TBH I'm hoping someone else at CCP will read this stuff, realize how dumb this idea is, and take the matter out of Rise's hands. You won't get any argument from me. We tried for over a month to get some dialog on the original RHML iteration and this was the net result (I think it's fair to say it caught everyone completely by surprise, because RLMLs weren't on anyone's radar).
Sentinel Smith wrote:Was nice of CCP Rise on the video today.. saying he wants feedback, when he's virtually ignored everyone and everything said. I suppose my quality was set too low to see the *only if it reinforces the direction we've chosen to take. Nope, you didn't miss anything. In fact, RHMLs on Ravens pretty much dominated the subject (RLMLs were really only a footnote, gee - wonder whyGǪ) I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
577
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 15:03:00 -
[59] - Quote
Chrom Shakiel wrote:Plz increase mag size on the RHML , more like 40 would be way more useful. Time to save up for Faction or Officer. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
580
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 21:08:00 -
[60] - Quote
So I must've missed the part where the power grid requirements for RLMLs got bumped...
Quote:Rapid Light Missile Launcher I Fitting: 72 PG, 35 CPU Rate of fire: 7.8s Charge capacity: 16 Reload time: 40s
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II Fitting: 76 PG, 39 CPU Rate of fire: 6.2s Charge capacity: 18 Reload time: 40s I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
580
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 00:28:00 -
[61] - Quote
Since these changes are "officially" in Rubicon 1.0, let's discuss what we can change for Rubicon 1.1. My proposal is to revise RLMLs by increasing ammunition capacity by approximately 100% and reducing reload time by 25%.
Rapid Light Missile Launchers GÇó Revise ammunition capacity from -77.5% to -50% (0.60 m3/40 rounds on RLML II) GÇó Decrease the reload time from 40 seconds to 30 seconds
Rapid Heavy Missile Launchers GÇó No changes I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
581
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 00:53:00 -
[62] - Quote
Dinta Zembo wrote:So will the Golem get a bonus to heavy missile damage? edit - never mind, found it Don't feel bad for asking. In testing, the new Marauders never got the 100% missile damage bonus for RHMLs - and despite numerous (and repeat) requests for clarification in both the Marauders and RHML threads - not a f*ck was given. That's my biggest gripe with the changes: little or no advance notice, and feedback and questions from players has all but been ignored. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
582
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 01:20:00 -
[63] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:I second this, and implement 10 second ammo switch I'll add that. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
583
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 04:25:00 -
[64] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:CCP Rise, congratulations you have completely killed missile boats for me. Can I have your stuff? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
583
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 06:33:00 -
[65] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:This thread is truly depressing. Only if you use RLMLs. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
585
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 08:06:00 -
[66] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:*Correction*
After playing around with the RHMLs on Singularity some more. I have to agree that they show some promise/use. The clip size could be a bit larger, that would be nice you know, like 25 Missiles. Faction are probably 25, no? (I imagine Officer hold a few more) I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
591
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 04:23:00 -
[67] - Quote
I still think it's an interesting idea, and it remains to be seen how effective (or not) they'll be. I like the idea of quickly clearing out any frigates and cruisers in any given mission, and the "burst" aspect will certainly make that an almost absolute certainty. 40 seconds is not an eternity, since a lot of time it takes 20+ seconds to lock a lot of the smaller targets anyway. Many of you are talking about "paper DPS". It's almost never realized anyway when you're waiting for target locks, dealing with ECM jamming, having the wrong type of ammo loaded or simply waiting for the current weapon cycle to finish. It's entirely possible that being able to finish smaller targets off more quickly and having far less time between cycles will actually translate into higher damage application. I'm going to give both new systems a go before signing death warrants for either. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
591
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 05:12:00 -
[68] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:Even if they turn out to be okay, all the people who liked the way the old versions worked are getting completely screwed. That's pretty lame in my opinion. Old Marauders... old HACs... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
591
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 20:14:00 -
[69] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Ok, now any of the smartasses defendign these changes want to come here and sy they know better than wildcat? Both math and good pvpers atest how problematic this is. So beyond reverting back to the original RLMLs (I think RHMLs will be fine), what's the solution? Because I think if anyone is holding out hope that CCP is going to reinstate the original RLML specs they're going to be extremely disappointed. Would a 20-second reload time make them too OP, or would a combination of a 30-second reload time and increased ammunition be better? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
591
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 21:06:00 -
[70] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Would a 20-second reload time make them too OP, or would a combination of a 30-second reload time and increased ammunition be better? PvP reasons aside, PvE needs old rapid launchers back. Nerf damage by 5%, nerf range by idk 20% but bring it back as it was. No, we're not nerfing anything. The last thing we need is to go down the path of HMLs and end up with another marginal weapon system. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
591
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 21:16:00 -
[71] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:You're miasing the point which is that rlml apply their damage nearly perfectly to every target regardless of speed. While their dps is relatively low at only 280 or so dps for a cruiser. . they are pushing that dps to 50km and hitting for full damage pretty much everu time. Now take heavy missiles and literally double the dps... 900dps over 50s is 45k damage dealt.. and the application of said damage is very good too...
it's not as simple as you suggest. Provided you use these weapons on the right targets you will melt them nearly every time. The long reload is to ensure you can't just sit there and wipe a whole gang solo. 1. Let's leave RHMLs out of this for the time being. They're an entirely new missile system, and they're going to be perfect as is (yes, even with the 40-second reload time). 2. It's unlikely that Rise is going to change RLMLs substantially from the new iteration. So I'll repeat the question: how do we fix these? Double the ammunition capacity and reduce the load time to 20 or 30 seconds? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
591
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 21:21:00 -
[72] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:40s reload, 15-20% DPS nerf, and ~40% PWG isn't a nerf? You want the old RLMLs back with a 5% damage and 20% range nerf?! Isn't 'adjusting' HMLs how we got into this mess in the first place?! I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
591
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 21:29:00 -
[73] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:I think a 5-10% damage nerf to light missiles and the PWG increase they implemented would've been perfect. It also would've also addressed light missile launchers which are widely considered to be a bit too good as well. That's not a nerf, that's a minor adjustment. From what I understand, we were looking at a considerable RLML nerf and the current iteration was the alternative. Granted, this is just speculation - but since the new RLML version is quite radical I don't think it's a stretch to suggest we were going to see a substantial change one way or the other.
I think what everyone can agree on is that there should have been more of a discussion/dialog with RLMLs prior to any change. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
591
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 21:35:00 -
[74] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:CCP overnerfs. That's what needs to stop. HMLs would be fine if they hadn't neutered their range, damage, and explosion radius all at once. Talk about overkill. I think we're seeing a trend here... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
591
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 21:48:00 -
[75] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:CCP doesn't know how to balance in all honesty, and apparently your definition of "nerf" has been warped by their heavy-handedness. Game designers commonly use incremental 5-10% adjustments in game balance. It's the way to bring overpowered elements more in line rather than just making them underpowered instead. You just called a 5-10% change a "nerf". I called it an "adjustment". Now you're calling it an "adjustment" after criticizing my definition of "nerf". You sure you're firing on all cylinders today?
The only real issue with RLMLs seemed to be their dominance, and it could be argued that nerfs to HAMs and HMLs were the contributing factor there. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
591
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 21:58:00 -
[76] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:Nerf is just slang for negative adjustment. You're the one who seems to be making some arbitrary distinction between the two. A 5% reduction in dps is a nerf. So is a 20% reduction in dps. There are big nerfs and there are little nerfs, well unless you are CCP. They only do big nerfs for some reason. If you've seen little 'nerfs' in EVE, I'd love to hear about it. All I've seen are massive rebalancing and things hit repeatedly with the whiffle bat... Which was basically my point: one way or the other we were going to see some radical changes to RLMLs. We've seen one facet with the latest iteration, and I can pretty much guarantee that a 5-10% DPS and power grid adjustment borders on fantasyland. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
591
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 22:10:00 -
[77] - Quote
Is there any reason we couldn't look at rebalancing LMLs, HAMs, HMLs and Torpedoes? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
591
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 23:12:00 -
[78] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Well really it's hams/torps/rockets that should be the burst firing mods yes? No. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
591
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 23:25:00 -
[79] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:For all the close attention that he was allegedly paying to this thread... Surely you jest... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
591
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 23:34:00 -
[80] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:Unfortunately I agree with that. I was arguing for what should've happened though, not whether or not CCP would be willing to go that route. Personally, I'm thinking some people need to be replaced in the balance department to be honest. Good game balance, especially with old, established games is all about subtlety and incremental adjustments. CCP seems to have never gotten that memo. I think we can both completely agree on that point. I wasn't even aware RLMLs were on the radar for review, to be honest. For some strange reason RLMLs got lumped in with the introduction of RHMLs, which is unfortunate - because the "fix" for RHMLs (which again is bizarre, because there was zero indication of any issues with the first iteration of RHMLs in the original thread). I suggested (as did others) that changes to RLMLs simply be put off until Rubicon 1.1 in 3 months. Heck, with the number of Dust-related patches it's not like they couldn't implement a change or two along with a minor patch, either. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
591
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 23:49:00 -
[81] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:So rapids are OP slightly, but to fix the range issues, explosion radius, explosion velocity, change rapids to HAMs and rockets, and add 2s to 3s to thier RofF compared to what heavy assault launcher and rocket launchers do now and everything is fixed. Their range is much less, explosion radius is more, explain velocity is less and taking a couple seconds from RofF will keep their DPS in check. Don't allow cruisers, BCs or BS to give their explosion bonuses to rapids. Also rockets still won't get the range or DPS HAMs would, and HAMs wouldn't get the DPS torps would, meaning rapids will be used mostly for smaller targets like they are suppose to be/ If adjusted right,it will work. I'm resurrecting your earlier post with respect to RHMLs to make a few points.
GÇó Heavy assault missile - 100 damage, 0.015 m3 volume, 125m explosion radius and 101 m/sec explosion velocity. GÇó Heavy missiles - 135 damage, 0.0 m3 volume, 140m explosion radius and 81 m/sec explosion velocity.
If you swapped heavy missiles for heavy assault missiles, you'd double ammunition capacity, increase explosion radius by 12%, explosion velocity by 35% - but reduce damage by 35% and range by almost 75%. The range reduction alone would kill RHMLs as an effective weapons platform, and they'd be further ahead running HMLs. So no, insofar as RHMLs are concerned this is an absolutely horrible idea. I also think you're misinformed on battleship missiles bonuses for RHMLs: all they receive is damage and rate of fire (no velocity, explosion radius or explosion velocity). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
591
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 00:41:00 -
[82] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:You are right, so that makes them not OP and depending on ship speed with depnd on damage per volley, which makes them what? Not OP. Right now RMLs do the same amount of damage per volley no matter the target ships speed. (Check my test) The range reduction isn't anything crazy, it would be at the least 10km, and with Cerb, Caracel 20km to 30km, I think that is MORE then enough, so disruptors hit 24km. Really BS don't get explonsion velcoity, maybe look at the Golem, explosion radiu CNR. This does nothing BUT fix the issues rapids have now, and makes them work for the role they are made for. And if we are lucky takes this crazy 40sec idea away. So this is not a horrible idea, it's an idea that would work IF you read all my input on it, and went hrough my testing. This could work, will it ned to be adjusted, I'm sure it will but that's why SiSi is there. To test and to fix issues before hitting the real server. But as you rather argue with everyone on this post instead of trying to find away to fix the rapids have at it I guess. If I had a nickel for ever Raven HAM setupGǪ Oh wait, no ones uses HAMs on battleships because they're totally useless. So there's "not OP" and then there's "pointless"; your suggestion for RHMLs falls under the latter. The proposal for RHMLs is fine (including 40-second reload time), so stop trying to cloud the issues with RLMLs by lumping them in with RHMLs. RHML = new weapon system, so it's not breaking anything. RLML = different story.
Again, you don't have a clue how RHMLs operate. Even with the first iteration they didn't receive any explosion radius, explosion velocity or missile velocity bonuses. This hasn't changed with the second version. And RHMLs aren't "Op". They have a range of around 60km (less with Precision or Fury) On a Raven Navy Issue cruise missiles receive a 25% explosion radius bonus, which puts them fairly close to heavy missiles in terms of damage application. Aside from the huge range difference, there's also the issue of speed - and again, they're at a huge disadvantage compared to cruise missiles. So yes, for approximately 45-50 seconds they'll do some fairly decent DPS and then be offline for reloading. Which is why you probably won't see very many native RHML battleship setups and they'll probably be more of a mix of cruise-RHML or torpedo-RHML.
I'm not going to get into your numbers with RLMLs because I think given the choice of the changes in Rubicon or switching the old system back to rockets, most would probably take the new design. And if I wanted a short-ranged missile system with high rate of fire, decent damage application and large ammunition capacity - HAMs already fit the bill.
So yes, it's a horrible idea for RHMLs. Perhaps less so for RLMLs, but only marginally. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
592
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 01:36:00 -
[83] - Quote
The loss of SP training should be interesting to reconcile with your idea. Because everyone trains to Light Missile-V and Light Missile Specialization-V so that they can use light missile launchers... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
592
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 01:51:00 -
[84] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:On a Battleship, wich is already much slower, has a significantly longer lock time, are you really expecting anyone to place missile launchers wich have 1/5 th of the range, and a lot less alpha damage, and a lot less DPS? H*ll yes.
Not sure where you get 1/5th the range, but what's the actual effective range of cruise missiles without sensor boosters or amplifiers? For all intents and purposes around 100k, which is what RHMLs will hit to with a few hydraulic rigs. 1200 DPS isn't anything to sneeze at, either. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
593
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 02:53:00 -
[85] - Quote
You fly a Harpy and you're lecturing me on missile use for PvP? Oh man, that's priceless. Do you even have any PvP kills with missiles? (bombs don't count) Sorry, didn't mean to get sidetracked with PvP. You were saying...?
Right - your idea for rebalancing. Truly great ideas need not worry with trivial concerns like invaliding entire skills or requiring new ones (never mind logistics, etc.). There's untold genius in having thousands of players instantly unable to use RLMLs until they start learning a new set of skills on November 19.
I can certainly understand your misgivings with the new RLMLs and RHMLs. That Harpy of yours is going to be pretty vulnerable preying on battleships starting on Tuesday. Especially those new Golems. The way to PvP (as you see it) is to simply nerf any effective counter to small gangs into the ground. Yeah, don't think that's gonna happen. I may have misjudged Rise and not given him entirely enough credit.
The only thing I know for certain is that I'm glad an anti-missile proponent such as yourself isn't at the helm with respect to missile changes. Troll indeed... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
599
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 06:33:00 -
[86] - Quote
Battleships in PvP just got a whole lot more interestingGǪ I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
599
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 07:54:00 -
[87] - Quote
Mind Reaper wrote:To fix all the problems just add shield strength and armor thickness. Hahaha. When are visiting hours? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
603
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 16:53:00 -
[88] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:I'm reposting this to see if anyone is interested... It got a couple likesGǪ instead, Completely remove reloading from rapid launchers. adjust their RoF and whatever else so that they're balanced.
But instead of worrying about reloading, the advantage that these launchers would have is that they never reload, unless you're swapping damage types. It's an interesting idea, but it might give this particular weapon an unfair advantage once you settle on the damage type. Lasers are the most limited for damage type, followed by hybrids and projectiles - with missiles having the most flexibility. To avoid unbalancing any of the other weapon systems, I think the 10-second reload/swap for missiles needs to be retained.
In truth, we just need a little bit of rebalancing to the existing light-medium missile-based weapon systems. Something along these lines:
GÇó Rockets: 20m radius, 170 m/sec velocity (+20), 33 damage GÇó Light missile: 60m radius (+20), 150 m/sec velocity (-20), 83 damage GÇó Heavy assault missile: 100m radius (-25), 125 m/sec velocity (+24), 100 damage GÇó Heavy missile: 125m radius (-15), 100 m/sec velocity (+19), 135 damage I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
603
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 17:00:00 -
[89] - Quote
If the 40-second reload/swap time is the issue, why not just revise it down to 20 seconds for RLMLs? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
603
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 20:05:00 -
[90] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Some values were off by a bit, I made the necassary corrections for you. You're welcome! Er, thanksGǪ I think. I'll give a bit more explanation behind my numbers and you can ponder them.
GÇó Rockets: 20m radius, 170 m/sec velocity (+20), 33 damage GÇó Light missile: 60m radius (+20), 150 m/sec velocity (-20), 83 damage GÇó Heavy assault missile: 100m radius (-25), 125 m/sec velocity (+24), 100 damage GÇó Heavy missile: 125m radius (-15), 100 m/sec velocity (+19), 135 damage
I swapped the explosion velocity bonus between rockets and light missiles because rockets are kind of the "HAM" equivalent and should be a bit more effective than light missiles in terms of damage application. The reason I increased the explosion radius on light missiles and substituted the rocket explosion velocity is because they're a bit too effective against, wellGǪ everything. To get the previous performance you'd need to run some rigor and flare rigs - so the idea is to have a bit of a tradeoff (as it should be).
As for heavy and heavy assault missiles, the issue is damage application. Heavy assaults should outperform heavies because there's already a range and damage tradeoff, hence why I dropped the explosion radius on heavy assaults to 100(-25) and 125(-15) on heavies. I also increased the explosion velocity on both, again giving heavy assaults better damage application than heavies.
The end result is that heavy assault missiles become very effective against cruiser and even destroyer-sized targets, especially on something like a Navy Drake where they receive a 25% explosion radius bonus. With rigors and flares, L4 skills and a few implants they'll probably outperform the new rapid light missile launchers in terms of sustained damage. As for heavies, they become a more effective at longer ranges, but they'll really shine in combination with rigors, flares and target painters. GǪ..
I suspect one reason RLMLs became as prevalent as they did was because they could essentially forego the use of missile rigs or target painters, where all the other missile systems relied on a combination of rigs, webs and target painters. It was implied that something radical would happen with RLMLs, and I think the current proposal is a better alternative than simply nerfing a weapon systems into oblivion (been there, done that). Rubicon is out tomorrow and I've got a bunch of Faction rapid light missile launchers to put through their paces, so it should be interesting at least. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
604
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 20:34:00 -
[91] - Quote
If we're going down the 'missile damage' path, perhaps it would be worth considering fixing the damage types on T2 missiles similar to T2 gun ammunition, ie:
GÇó Precision - kinetic and EM damage (35-65) GÇó Rage - kinetic and thermal damage (50-50) GÇó Fury - kinetic and explosive damage (75-25) I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
607
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 20:50:00 -
[92] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Rapid Light Missile Launchers are not overpowered. The Light Missiles they fire ARE. If you give Light Missiles the same heavy nerf that Heavy Missiles got, nobody will like Rapid Lights for anything either. This is what I've been trying to point out as well. It could be that in addition to some stat changes (suggested a few posts back) the damage for light missiles needs to be rolled back to somewhere in the 65-75 range. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
608
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 21:29:00 -
[93] - Quote
Void Weaver wrote:Cant believe I just wasted 8 days training RLML to 5... Would this be a good time to point out that the change was posted 8 days ago? (too soon?) I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
609
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 21:54:00 -
[94] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:Also that is also a bit short on notice to really read, comprehend or act on any player feedback. Thus I am probably safe to say that he had no intention of listening or acting on any feedback from players. Completely in disregard to the unwritten understanding between the player base and CCP as per their Incarna fiasco. 1. RLMLs were getting a substantial nerf. -or- 2. Something else.
I prefer door #2 and the current alternative, because we've been down the nerf road enough times to know it never ends well. At least with this iteration there's a good chance we'll see some of the stats tweaked, ie: increased ammunition capacity and reduced reloading time. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
609
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 22:41:00 -
[95] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:3. Rise will lose this ancillary war and we will get our old RLML back, perhaps with light missiles being slightly nerfed... lets hope for 3-5%... I think that would be more than fair.
EDIT: 4. They will do their best to fix HML and HAM ASAP and rebalanced missiles will be delivered for Rubicon 1.1. I have high hopes in CCP, dunno about you guys. Yes, current iteration for RLML and RHML followed by rebalancing for all missile systems in 1.1. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
610
|
Posted - 2013.11.19 00:10:00 -
[96] - Quote
The Azmodeth wrote:You know what, just ban me. screw this game. Can I have your RLMLs? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
610
|
Posted - 2013.11.19 00:49:00 -
[97] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:And about light missiles being op, my light missle launcher frigates and destroyers all disagree with that and some of them aren't even Caldari. If they're not even Caldari, they're not really true missile ships. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
610
|
Posted - 2013.11.19 01:37:00 -
[98] - Quote
In 8 hours this is all moot anyway... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
610
|
Posted - 2013.11.19 02:22:00 -
[99] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Hmmm.... so explosion radius is more important than explosion velocity, you say. That's very interesting. Yep, rigor, rigor and rigor (in that order). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
613
|
Posted - 2013.11.19 22:25:00 -
[100] - Quote
Rubicon Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher feedback... These are pretty effective in PvE against cruisers and even frigates, although they run through ammunition like there's no tomorrow. On the Caldari Navy Faction version I'm getting a rate of fire of 2.53 seconds and just shy of 900 DPS with Faction missiles (capacity of 26). So far the 40-second reloading time hasn't been a huge issue, although you find yourself consciously watching the reload blinking a lot (a cooldown timer would really be great here).
These things tear through battleships like a hot knife through butter and put both cruise missiles and torpedoes to shame. If there is any one aspect I could change it would be slightly increasing the ammunition capacity by maybe 25-35%. I really like the new turrets and the sounds are pretty cool. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
613
|
Posted - 2013.11.19 23:55:00 -
[101] - Quote
So players still seem more interested in b*tching and griping than proposing the best setups for these? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
613
|
Posted - 2013.11.19 23:57:00 -
[102] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:I have this distinct feeling that we're going to see a Light Missile nerf very soon. Do you see everyone switching over to LMLs en masse? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
613
|
Posted - 2013.11.20 00:21:00 -
[103] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:I didn't say a Light Missile Launcher nerf. I know, just with RLMLs being less effective... What purpose would a further light missile nerf serve? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
614
|
Posted - 2013.11.20 00:52:00 -
[104] - Quote
Improve the damage application on HAMs, HMLs and reduce the reload time on the new RLMLs to 20 seconds. That should fix most of the issues. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
618
|
Posted - 2013.11.20 16:40:00 -
[105] - Quote
Ideally reload needs to drop to 20-30 seconds -or- increase the ammunition capacity by 25-50%. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
618
|
Posted - 2013.11.20 18:52:00 -
[106] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:Rapid Missile Launcher Issues and Fix Take this hair-brained scheme elsewhere. No one wants to use rockets and heavy assault missiles in place of light and heavy missiles, forfeit the training they already have and then require two SP trees for a single weapon system. Stop spamming this thread and the rest of the forums. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
618
|
Posted - 2013.11.20 19:02:00 -
[107] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:Well to tell you the truth a lot of people think like this or very similiar... Sure. Unless you have something else to offer, this will be my last comment on this idea. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
618
|
Posted - 2013.11.20 19:08:00 -
[108] - Quote
Benedictus de Suede wrote:RHML, just tested it, are really fun and effective when they are shooting, but the reload time is simply boooooring and make no sence what-¦s so ever. It-¦s like a Ferrari with a 1 litre gastank.
Cut the reload time to max 20 sec and increase the number of charges to the to the double.
All missiles, in general, should be buffed but...all ships should also have the ability to use defensive countermeasures like "new" def. slots for defender gatling guns or defender missiles. Who uses defender missiles today? All real weapon systems need constant "buffing" it-¦s an evolution process where different system compete against each other. It-¦s time for the missiles to catch up... RHMLs are pretty well-tuned (even with the 40-second reload time). I run several ships, so in fairness I don't notice it as much (it gives me time to focus on the other ships). I wouldn't mind seeing a slight bump in ammunition, but I'm running Faction so that does give me a few more rounds at least. I was going to try my RLMLs, but they all sold at Jita (so I guess there are some fans of the new changes). Yes, agreed - missiles need an overhaul in general.
IIshira wrote:Just because you don't like it doesn't mean others would be open to the idea. Why are you scared of him posting a solution to this? If you have an idea by all means post it too. The forms are about sharing ideas so be helpful and share yours. Trolling others while sometimes fun doesn't really help in this case. It's not a solution - it's an abomination. There are several posts dedicated to why this is an extremely bad idea, but here's the short version: You invalidate your training for light and heavy missiles, you now require two (2) different skill trees for each weapon system to utilize it, you have to train rockets and heavy assault missiles, you take a huge DPS hit and you sacrifice the majorty of your range for slightly better damage application.
So please, by all means - do tell us why this is a great idea... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
618
|
Posted - 2013.11.20 21:10:00 -
[109] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:Well I'm having a blast in my Belicose with these things... It's ******* hilarious. The action is quite fast paced and I don't even seem to notice 40 seconds pass. If you really want to try something for sh*ts and giggles, use FoF missiles. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
618
|
Posted - 2013.11.20 21:57:00 -
[110] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:HAM are fine though, they also received a buff when HML were nerfed, but missiles users just appear to be completely terrorised by the idea of going to "short" range, and the discussions here prove it one more time. Not in the least. But if I wanted a short-range missile system, I'd go with heavy assault missile launchers. You do have a valid point about torpedoes; I wouldn't mind seeing them with an insane missile velocity with slightly more range and damage. As the 'HAM' equivalent, they should be faster than cruise missiles. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
618
|
Posted - 2013.11.20 23:33:00 -
[111] - Quote
I agree, and I have. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
618
|
Posted - 2013.11.20 23:40:00 -
[112] - Quote
Rekylb wrote:Does anyone know if heavy missiles will now work against frigates? They didnt do as much damage as lights before this patch? Yes, but you'll need rigors and/or target painters for maximum effect. Heavy assault missiles have better damage application against frigates. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
618
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 00:58:00 -
[113] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:I'm having a great time with the new launcher mechanic. Guess I have "Adapted". Me too. Guess we're in the minority. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
624
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 22:37:00 -
[114] - Quote
At least they finally removed this thread as a sticky, because it's obviously not going anywhere... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
624
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 22:43:00 -
[115] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:good. all is working as intended I have no idea if it's working as intended, but it seems obvious a review isn't in the cards... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
624
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 23:27:00 -
[116] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:You might feel differently if most of your skills were tied up in Caldari and Missiles. Most of my skills are tied up in Caldari and missiles. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
630
|
Posted - 2013.11.22 15:45:00 -
[117] - Quote
Markku Laaksonen wrote:Just a thought that I haven't thought about much, if the issue is long range coupled with high DPS, what would happen if rapid launchers shot the short range ammo instead?
We would have Rapid Rocket Launchers and Rapid Heavy Assault Missile Launcher (Rename Heavy Assault Missiles to Assault Missiles. 'Heavy' isn't a necessary descriptor since there are no light assaults.) Nice try. This has already been proposed (your alt perhaps?). No. If you really want rapid rocket and rapid heavy assault launchers put a request in with Rise for them (but leave rapid light and rapid heavy launchers alone). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
630
|
Posted - 2013.11.22 15:58:00 -
[118] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:Haha see I'm not to only one. funny you'd think is was my alt though, nice try. You are loosing lights and heavies as the rapid choose, I can see that. Start traning rockets and HAMs. Bite me. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
631
|
Posted - 2013.11.22 22:19:00 -
[119] - Quote
Seriously... I get that players are not happy with the RLML changes. But this incessant whining is getting tiresome, and I sincerely doubt it's going to have the desired effect. So how about we discuss some KISS fixes?
GÇó Reduce the reload time on RLMLs to 20 or 30 seconds GÇó Increase the ammunition capacity on RLMLs by 25-50% GÇó Some combination thereof I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
631
|
Posted - 2013.11.22 22:37:00 -
[120] - Quote
Habris wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote: GÇó Reduce the reload time on RLMLs to 15 or 20 seconds GÇó Increase the ammunition capacity on RLMLs by 15-25% GÇó Some combination thereof
fixed that for ya. At least it's in the right direction, although I think 15 seconds is going to be a tad to OP. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
632
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 01:08:00 -
[121] - Quote
Habris wrote:I could not agree more. Wasn't me (Fourteen Maken). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
632
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 02:11:00 -
[122] - Quote
Habris wrote:Editted, although you'd be alot cooler if you had said that. Have to give credit where credit is due...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
632
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 02:21:00 -
[123] - Quote
Habris wrote:After looking at RLML's rate of fire in contrast to LML's and compared it to RHML's and HML's. The RoF for the RLML's is a little fast compared to its heavier counter part. LML's are about the third the speed of RLML's where HML's are half the speed of RHML's. I digress that in the case of RLML's a debuff to the RoF may be prudent but still the reload nerf needs to be removed. I really need to try out the new RLMLs. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
634
|
Posted - 2013.11.24 23:35:00 -
[124] - Quote
Warp on... warp off. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
635
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 00:46:00 -
[125] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:For a weapon system mounted on a larger hull having a smaller clip size is kind of silly. The firing rate of a missile launcher has *nothing* to do with the barrels. You could technically deploy your entire magazine in one volley, and I think that should be an option.
Obviously expending 18/23 charges in a couple of seconds sounds hilariously OP, until you're out of ammo. And even then there's no guarantee of a kill since your total volley damage is still only 28k~~ for RLML and and some 40k for RHML.. which may get speed tanked down.
Just a thought. Well, the irony is that with the exception of cruise missile and torpedo launchers - all the missile systems feature multiple "pods", ie:
GÇó Rockets: 17 pods per launcher GÇó Light Missiles: 8 pods per launcher GÇó Heavy Missiles: 12 pods per launcher GÇó Rapid Light Missiles: 12 pods per launcher GÇó Heavy Assault Missiles: 16 pods per launcher GÇó Rapid Heavy Missiles: 10 pods per launcher
It could be argued that each shot is actually a small cluster (or volley) of missiles. I suspect server mechanics preclude having that many missiles in flight (although it would be visually entertaining).
Faster rate of fire for RLML and RHML? Sure, I'm game. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
635
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 00:56:00 -
[126] - Quote
Onictus wrote:I still want to know exactly whom thought this was a good idea. Everyone I've heard talk about it hates the reload and is busy trying to sell hulls. Scroll back to some of the earliest posts. There's a short list... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
635
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 01:33:00 -
[127] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:I kinda like that idea. Press F1, every single missile loaded fires at the same time and then you go into a long reload. ...While you warp out. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
636
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 02:42:00 -
[128] - Quote
I think we should get an "insane fits" discussion going. I just did a Cerberus build that cranks out 690 DPS (812 overheated), and tops out at 872 DPS with 3 Hobgoblin II drones. V skills and several three +5 missile implants. Totally useless for PvE, and far too expensive to solo PvP - but could be good for laughs in groups. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
636
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 03:44:00 -
[129] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:Caracal with 2 ordinary light missile launchers and 3 HAMs, it does 289dps with Javelin to 45km, or 382 dps within 25km with Rage HAM's. 40k EHP buffer tank, 190ehps shield regen, but no prop mod and no tackle lol How much does it change if you swap-out the light missile launchers for rapid light launchers? I'm thinking that the key to utilizing the new RLMLs is not as a primary weapon system, but a supplementary one. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
639
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 04:37:00 -
[130] - Quote
I finally had a chance (or rather, made the commitment) to try out the new RLMLs tonight.
They're entirely useless for anything over L3s (and only marginally useful in L3s), and I can't imagine PvP use. The reload time needs to be rolled back to nothing short of 20 seconds. RHMLs are fine for the moment, but a reduced 30-second reload time wouldn't hurt, either. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
640
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 06:34:00 -
[131] - Quote
SoGǪ to summarize: GÇó Drakes were killed GÇó We've now killed Caracals GÇó Tengus are next on the chopping block
To balance torpedoes we'll probably nerf cruise missiles. Did I miss anything? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
640
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 07:00:00 -
[132] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:You missed a lot. I'm not aware of any drake nerf. I like the new drake and would fly it any day. They didn't nerf the drake, they buffed things that aren't drakes. There's a difference.
Also, giving the Caracal a new distinct combat option without altering its curent capabilities in any way doesn't really count as a nerf.
Nerfing the Tengu is good. Don't quote no price on me, when a 600 mil ISK ship can take on 900 mil worth of tech 2 ships all by itself, it's just a little overpowered.
Finally, you must have very little faith in CCP to think they would nerf cruise missiles to balance torpedoes. Drakes use heavy missiles, heavy missiles got nerved in Retribution. Cerberus HAC is now more effective than Tengus in PvP since Odyssey, but you still want a nerf. Caracals used rapid light missiles, they nerfed RLMLs with Rubicon.
Torpedeos are seldom used since the cruise missile changes, and those that fail to learn from history tend to make the same mistakes - so yeah, I'm expecting a cruise missile nerf in range and damage.
Fourteen Maken wrote:Heavy missile nerf = drake nerf The new RLML does less dps and, requires more PG... if by distinct combat option you mean taking out solo frigs in a cruiser, that's not very distinct Exactly, that's why everyone is out flying Drakes with RLMLsGǪ I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
640
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 07:25:00 -
[133] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:No they didn't nerf the drake, they nerfed heavy missiles, which was the primary weapon of choice for drakes. The Drake is still very usable with a HAM nano fit and you might be able to complete most of the lvl 3 missions and a few lvl 4's with HML's, although it is going to take you a long time.
They have very much altered the capabilities of the caracal, it can no longer enter a fight with more than 1, possibly 2 small targets and have any hope of success. Caracal was always an anti frigate ship, it is no longer capable of this.
A 600 mil tengu ? Maybe 800 mil if he is able to take on 2 or 3 T2 hacs and win, he will need to have an offgrid booster there to help him, add 300 mil to the tengu's fleet cost, so now we have close to the same cost for both parties. Why should the tengu not win? I've seen a solo proteus take on 4 battlecruisers and win. I've seen 1 cynabal take on a vindi and 2 hacs and win (I was in 1 of the hacs, got out when the vindi went down the other hack stayed and died). I've also seen a killmail of 2 stilettos and a wolf taking out a tengu.
And yes your right, CCP won't nerf Cruises to balance torps, they'll nerf torps to make them even less able to deliver the paper dps they show. Torp raven with reasonable skills has just over 1000 dps but that it only useful vs a stationary target. For every mps your target is moving you can reduce the applied DPS. The HML and RLML nerfs have had the same net effect: players stopped using (and will stop using) the Drake and Caracals en masse. When the Tengus get nerfed (and it's almost certain they will), you'll simply see another mass migration from missile-based ships. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
645
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 04:07:00 -
[134] - Quote
I say put the reload on RLMLs and RHMLs back to 10 seconds and leave the other stats. The ammunition capacity was already nerfed by 77.75%, the power grid requirements nearly doubled and most of the hulls don't bonus RLMLs or RHMLs anyway. Let the games begin! I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
646
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 13:29:00 -
[135] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Fourteen Maken wrote:It should be pretty obvious that was said tongue in cheek, so the real question is why did you bother working all that out? It wasn't clear that it was tongue in cheek to me. It looked like just another case of people proposing ideas without having thought about the consequences. The idea of tripling capacity seemed to be serious also, but was just as absurd. Yes, sorry - that was a poor attempt at humor on my partGǪ I think the solution is to increase the ammunition capacity to 1/3 of the original (ie: 30 for Faction RLML and 45 for Faction RHML). Then the 40-second reload/ammunition swap isn't as much of a mitigating factor. Thoughts? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
646
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 15:29:00 -
[136] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:With RLML capacity of 30 and reload of 40 s, my spreadsheet say a Caracal has 74 s firing time during which it does 335 DPS. Adding in 40 s reload gives a sustained DPS of 217, which is basically identical to old RLML Caracal DPS of 218. So, essentially this is the DPS of an old Caracal, frontloaded and with a long reload. It exchanges flexibility of freedom of firing for frontloaded damage. I think the problem with this is that Rise had decided that RLMLs were too good and needed to be changed to become less flexible. I don't really agree with that - they were powerful but not excessively so, and I think fiddling with fitting requirements would have worked. But I spent a long time disagreeing with his Nos mechanic change on the basis that it would change nothing in practice and would serve as a nerf to the heavy Nos that most needed fixing, and I got precisely nowhere with that - the changes were made unaltered, and to no detectable change in Nos usage or popularity. So I'm working on the assumption that Rise is not going make any alterations that don't involve a nerf to sustained RLML DPS. It doesn't matter whether we disagree with this, it's going to happen. Realistically, my opinion is that the best to hoped for is a decrease in reload time to 30 s, giving 195 sustained DPS, a drop of 10% from old RLMLs, relative to the present 20% drop, which also takes away some of the immense frustration of the excessively long reload time. I was bang-on with my "guestimate" then (thanks for crunching the numbers). That 40-second reload is still a huge tactical disadvantage as it precludes swapping ammunition, but at least with greater capacity you can "stay in the fight" a bit longer. I mean, we're talking about maybe another 25-30 seconds total.
And the RLMLs did get nerfed with the power grid effectively doubling. This now precludes their use on frigates and destroyers, which I have to assume was the aim with the last-minute/unannounced change (since it was never mentioned here and only showed up on the patch list just prior to Rubicon being released).
Basically they need to: a) Drop the reload time to 20 seconds -or- b) Increase the ammunition capacity by approximately 1/3
The problem with RLMLs is that it was introduced as a cruiser-class missile system which utilized frigate-class ammunition. An easy enough adjustment would be to change the explosion radius on light missiles from 30m to 45m. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
646
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 16:00:00 -
[137] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Maybe it is just as well. It all looks like a bit of a love in over there, and thats fine. Whether I agree with these changes or not (its pretty clear I don't lol), CCP Rise is still just a dude trying to make his way in the world. Does this beg the question as to why CCP Rise can find 2.5 hours on Reddit to respond to questions but -zero- in CCP's own official forums? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
648
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 21:56:00 -
[138] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:The mind boggles... You ain't seen nothin' yet. Just wait until they nerf the Serpentis stasis web bonus on the Vindicator that Rise hinted at. If you thought Caracal owners got screwed over, just wait until all the post-Kronos folks that got screwed with the Marauder rebalance in Rubicon get screwed again after switching over to Vindicators... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
656
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 23:11:00 -
[139] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:I've been thinking about this and decided the best way to fix RLML's is to just fix HAM's and HML's instead and let the RLML fill whatever niche it was meant for. I wouldn't expect a huge buff for HAM's or HML either, although a dps buff would be nice there is no chance of that coming so I would settle for something that makes the dps they do have apply to more than just asteroids and space stations. Everything should have a niche in pvp, and here's what I believe those niche's should be without much buffing required, only tweaking of the damage formula and adding a new module: -// snip //- 1. HMLs need both a small explosion radius (125) and explosion velocity (100) buff. HAMs should be tweaked to (100) and (125), respectively. 2. Was there a change to TPs other than the new 5-second cycle? 3. Faction tracking computers should get a buff (not T2s). 4. RLMLs and RHMLs need a +1/3 ammunition increase if the current reload time is to be retained. 5. Navy Drake should get a +5% rate of fire per level in addition to the explosion radius bonus. Or a 5% kinetic damage bonus. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
656
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 23:22:00 -
[140] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:Yeah I'd take this either, but with a heavy target painter/script instead of just buffing sig radius, because I do think missiles should need to change their fit to get better dps against frigs, and that improved dps should only be effective in the 25km overheated disruptor radius not the full range of missiles. Not sure if we'll ever see a scripted target painter, to be honest. Truthfully, other than closing to range and using a stasis web or using a target painter at range - the only option is rigors, rigors and rigors (in that order). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
657
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 00:28:00 -
[141] - Quote
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:Even the rapid light is pretty useless. Needs about 20 missiles at least, or a shorter reload. Faction has 19, so maybe a tad more? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
659
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 01:23:00 -
[142] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:Regardless, I am completely out of Caldari ships in terms of combat. I may consider the use of certain ones for ECM but not if that gets nerfed too. So if I may say best of luck to you there. From the sounds of it ECM is going to be up on the chopping block sooner as opposed to later. .....
And on a related note, I found a role for RLMLs in PvP as an anti-frigate deterrent on my Tengu. Obviously the RLML changes haven't completely filtered out to everyone (mmmm, Hawk - nom nom). A pair of them puts out close to 200 dps for 50 seconds, which when combined with HAMs or HMLs is more than enough to finish the little bastards off.
Note: This is not a ringing endorsement. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
663
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 02:52:00 -
[143] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Rise isn't going to reply here anymore. He's done with this project and now he's busy with rebalancing Margin Trading. The only ones still watching this thread are the ISDs who hang around to make sure things don't get out of hand again. Yes, "Margin Trading"... because it's such a balance issue... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
663
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 03:58:00 -
[144] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:Lots of things need to be rebalanced. But I'd rather someone else do it. I hope CCP 40Sec sticks with ancillary issues like margin trading from now on. Dude is terribad at ship and weapon balance. Yes, Command ships were such a hit in Odyssey... and Marauders in Rubicon. Now a tentative nerf to Serpentis webs. I think if we keep working at it we can manage to **** off just about everyone in EVE while we wait for 'GoonGate'. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
670
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 13:54:00 -
[145] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:You guys really can't continue to claim I haven't acknowledged your negative feedback.
Look at the previous page of feedback. Several posts calling me names or talking about ECM, and one post from someone actually using RLML who says they are enjoying them. This is a really good example of how the thread has gone in general and represents why I haven't made big changes so far.
Rise, thanks for finally responding in this thread.
I went back through the few previous pages of feedback and the only example(s) I could find with respect to actual RLML use seem to beGǪ mine. Just to clarify: I had to "guess" and pre-load the pair of RLMLs and HMLs with what ammunition I thought would do well prior, and I went with scourge mainly because of the +25% damage bonus on the Tengu. I couldn't afford to forfeit the first 40 seconds of the engagement, so I instead opted to kept the pressure on with the scourge RLMLs while I swapped the HMLs out to mjolnir to break his shields, chew through his armor and put him seriously into hull before he managed to disengage.
As indicated, RLMLs work best as a supplementary weapons system; the 40-second reload still has too many inherent drawbacks to use exclusively in a primary role.
CCP Rise wrote:Since launch, I've been continuing to monitor the effect of the rapid missile change through usage metrics, discussion with CSM, conversation with players I know who are using them and using them myself on TQ. I see that some places, especially in this thread, there's a lot of frustration still about the change in general but the majority of it is lacking any substance except for the simple claim that 40 seconds of reload isn't fun.
I'm going to continue to watch this very closely and won't hesitate to make changes if I'm convinced (or others in my department) are convinced that they are needed. The 40-second reload isn't fun. I put the RLMLs on, go feed my ravenous Siberian Husky and by the time I return I've got one volley out with an auto-reload. Fun for the dog, not so much for me. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
673
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 15:20:00 -
[146] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:40s reload need planning, and planning is a good part of player skill. Landing on grid and farming frigate killmails by pressing F1 was not player skill BTW. Not to diminish what you're saying, but the only planning involves not utilizing the current RLMLs entirely as your primary weapon system. While you can split RLMLs into groups, you're still more or less dealing with a 40-second reload (albeit staggered). The also comes at the expense of a weakened opening volley. Pre-selecting the best ammunition choices is a crapshoot, at best. And if you guesstimate wrong, well...
While you're waiting for the 40-second reload your opponent can continue to deal damage or reload his ASB or AAR while he's given a reprieve. Unless you have another weapon system (such as HMLs or HAMs) that you can continue to apply pressure with or swap ammunition types out. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
674
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 15:38:00 -
[147] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Unless EVE Online is moving away from being a sandbox to a game of blob warfare, ALL styles of play and skill levels should be considered when balancing is done. If anything we need to look at changes to revitalize solo gameplay. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
682
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 19:22:00 -
[148] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I mean if this is actually the root of a lot of the problem then that's a different issue that we need to address. I'm not totally sure it is, but I want to take a hard look at HML before the point release and make sure we're okay with where we're at. If that needs a tweak then we should be doing that, not focusing on RLML as a solution to a HML problem. Here would be my suggestions for HMLs and HAMs (as well as a few others).
Rocket GǪ 20m explosion radius, 170(+20) m/sec explosion velocity, 1.0(-1)s flight time, 4500(+2250) m/sec velocity Light Missile GǪ 40m explosion radius, 150(-20) m/sec explosion velocity, 5.0s flight time, 3750 m/s velocity Heavy Assault Missile GǪ 100(-25)m explosion radius, 125(+24)m/sec explosion velocity, 2.0(-2)s flight time, 5000(+3500) m/s velocity Heavy Missile GǪ 125(-15)m explosion radius, 100(+19)m/sec explosion velocity, 6.5s flight time, 4300 m/s velocity Torpedo GǪ 300(-150)m explosion radius, 85(+14) m/sec explosion velocity, 1.5(-4.5)s flight time, 6000(+4500) m/s velocity Cruise Missile GǪ 325(-5)m explosion radius, 75(+6) m/sec explosion velocity, 10.0(-4)s flight time, 4700 m/s I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
682
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 20:58:00 -
[149] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:Adding a low slot weapon upgrade called Missile Guidance System with scripts for explosion radius and explosion velocity should be the first step in fixing larger missiles. It probably isn't the only thing that needs to be done, but webs, TPs, and rigs as the only options for damage application is extremely gimped versus the options for turrets. Except it needs to be mid-slot, since lows are already at a premium. If they introduce a ballistics tracking computer, guaranteed you're going to see it affected by tracking disruptors. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
683
|
Posted - 2013.11.28 01:23:00 -
[150] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:That pretty much completely negates their purpose. You can already use mid slots to improve missile damage application. Turrets have Tracking Enhancers and these would basically be the missile version of those. Besides most missile ships are shield tanks so mid slots are at more of a premium than lows.
A mid slot option on par with Tracking Computers would be a good move too though. I'm in complete agreement. What I recall from the last time a brief mention of missile 'ballistics' module came up (this was back around Odyssey) was a comment or two that eluded to tracking disruptors having some sort of effect on missiles in conjunction. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
685
|
Posted - 2013.11.28 11:02:00 -
[151] - Quote
Astroniomix wrote:No you did not. Afraid so (the NPCs did get in some damage as well, but I was in the middle of a mission when he jumped me). Note "Caldari Navy Heavy Scourge Missile". http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=20657877 I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
685
|
Posted - 2013.11.29 07:23:00 -
[152] - Quote
Why not just first introduce a new Ballistics Enhancer module that would (T2 version):
GÇó Increase explosion velocity 20% GÇó Decrease explosion radius 10% GÇó Increase missile velocity by 10%
This would be a low-slot passive module similar to the Tracking Enhancer module for gunnery. Tracking computers/scripts and tracking disruptors would still be exclusively (and separate) to turrets. We still need a 20-second and 30-second reload time on RLMLs and RHMLs, respectively - as well as small tweaks to damage application to HAMs and HMs:
GÇó Heavy missile: explosion radius 125(-15), explosion velocity 100(+19) GÇó Heavy assault missile: explosion radius 100(-25), explosion velocity 125(+24) I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
685
|
Posted - 2013.11.29 11:12:00 -
[153] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:Not always. Because of fitting stats and stacking penalties sometimes is more reasonable to add T2 Flare than a T1 Rigor. There aren't any stacking penalties for rigors or flares, just CPU penalties. And I don't have the link handy (the discussion is somewhere at the beginning of the original RHML thread), but the way missile mechanics work is that an explosion radius smaller than the target signature will also offset target velocity to some extent, whereas flares just apply to target velocity. That's why an explosion radius bonus is worth substantially more than an explosion velocity bonus and one reason RLMLs were so deadly in certain configurations.
The problem with utilizing rigors is that while, yes - you do improve your damage application - this comes at the expense of tank. Again, something a passive/low Ballistic Enhancer would change immeasurably. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
686
|
Posted - 2013.11.29 18:33:00 -
[154] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:There are stacking penalties for multiple rigs (Flare or Rigor) of the same type. No, there aren't. http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Stacking_penalties#What_suffers_stacking_penalties.3F I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
687
|
Posted - 2013.11.30 00:35:00 -
[155] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:Idk, my EFT dares to disagree with you. According to the graphs from earlier Tengu-Executioner example, T1 Rigor is better than a T2 Flare, T2 Rigor & T2 Flare are better than T2 Rigor & T1 Rigor (though difference is only 1dps) and, at the end, 2xT2 Rigor & T2 Flare are better than 2xT2 Rigor & T1 Rigor (4dps difference, ofc you can't fit three T2 Rigor rigs cause it would require 450 calibration points which you don't have). I had assumed we were referring to T1 rigs, since T2 rigs are a tad expensive for PvP. So yes, 2x T2 Rigors and a T2 Flare will be marginally better (albeit expensively more so) than 2x T2 Rigors and a T1 Rigor (400 calibration not being enough to fit 3x T2 Rigors). 3x T1 Rigors will easily outperform 3x T1 Flares or 2x T1 Rigors and a T1 Flare.
So rigor, rigor, rigorGǪ GǪ..
How did this thread manage to get derailed again into a missiles vs. guns debate? Weren't we discussing RLMLsGǪ? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
687
|
Posted - 2013.11.30 01:29:00 -
[156] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Bouh was attempting to convince us that missiles are still OP because he's toeing the party line of missile-hate The problems with missiles isn't just that damage application is abysmal, but that they're almost always tied to a shield tank. Total shield resistances are lower than armor, shield extenders don't offer the same tank as their armor equivalents, penalize signature (making it easier to hit) and don't offer adaptive passive hardeners. There's also no shield 'slave' implant equivalent. So to fit a half decent shield tank means giving up on things like stasis webs and scramblers. And since you really need 2x target painters to be halfway effectiveGǪ
The more I look at RLMLs the more I see the problem is not exclusively the new version. I'm no longer even necessarily convinced that the current stats for HMs and HAMs are inherently flawed, either. So here are a few suggestions (some rehashed, some original):
GÇó Slight tweaks to HM and HAM performance stats (explosion radius, explosion velocity). GÇó Passive, low-slot ballistic enhancer (explosion radius, explosion velocity, missile velocity); this would almost always replace the low-slot that a 4th ballistics module currently does. Target painters are the active tracking computer equivalent. GÇó Change all adaptive shield hardeners to passive (retain passive amplifiers and active fields). GÇó Change the penalty for shield extenders and shield extender rigs from signature radius to sensor strength.
What does all of this yield? 1. Slight better damage application through tweaked stats and the new ballistics module (valuable low-slot means trading damage, damage control or performance modules). 2. Equivalent armor option to utilize rigs for tank or better damage application. 3. Less capacitor-intensive fits that lead to faster ships and more mid-slot configuration options. 4. Reduced signature radius for heavy tank fits at the expense of increased EW vulnerability. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
688
|
Posted - 2013.11.30 01:34:00 -
[157] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Also, I *never* said that HML or HAML are OP. Only that RLML *were*. And I'm only trying to show you that in fact HML and HAML are actually balanced. Only from 100km+. Some of us are legitimately interested in discussing the changes to RLML, so perhaps you could choose to either contribute to the discussion or find a different thread to further the missile vs. guns debate? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
689
|
Posted - 2013.11.30 04:19:00 -
[158] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:Talking about RLMLs and RHMLs in a vacuum is pointless. EVE is a vacuum. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
690
|
Posted - 2013.11.30 06:37:00 -
[159] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:Now, for this comparison... What fits were you using for this comparison? Because with a target moving at 3,000 m/sec I have to seriously question whether rails or Warden sentries would have much luck applying full DPS, either. It also stands to reason that sentries and railguns would also see more than a few misses. There's really not enough information to really draw any conclusions for this, other than frigates are not the best thing to hunt with battleships. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
692
|
Posted - 2013.11.30 17:23:00 -
[160] - Quote
KatanTharkay wrote:One way to make RLML's viable for solo is to make the launchers to have a built in tracking bonus. That will help applying damage to the heavy tanked frigates but will not help much against bigger ships as they already have a much larger signature radius. Also the tracking bonus will not help gangs as they already have the DPS to kill anything. As for the T3's being OP, I guess that will be fixed when they are going to get balanced. RLMLs are viable for solo play (at least the first 50 seconds, anyway). Tracking isn't the problem: it's the combination of ammunition capacity and 40-second reload time. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
692
|
Posted - 2013.11.30 18:41:00 -
[161] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:Does that answer your question? Not really. Ravens only have 6 missile slots... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
692
|
Posted - 2013.11.30 22:25:00 -
[162] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:Is the point I was making clear now that I have expanded it? I guess I'm understandably curious why you wouldn't just use the new RHMLs with 3 rigors. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
692
|
Posted - 2013.11.30 23:21:00 -
[163] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:My understanding is that Kenshi is showing the vast disparity in the application of damage of 3 different battleships in a best case scenario against a smaller target to highlight to problems underlying missiles as a whole and not just RLMLs. The test shows the reason that Caldari pilots are often exasperated and told to cross-train to be useful outside of PVE, missiles don't aren't as flexible as they appear (or as Bouh would have us believe). But since I am not Kenshi, I could easily be wrong about the full intent of the test and am not trying to speak for Kenshi. Best-case scenario is I'd use RHMLs with precision heavies and rigors on a Raven. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
692
|
Posted - 2013.12.01 00:01:00 -
[164] - Quote
Astroniomix wrote:Because that's 3 rig slots you could use for something else, why fly a raven at that point? a Dominix would do everything better and still not need to sacrifice all 3 of it's rig slots (2 riggor 1 flare is supperior btw) to apply any reasonable amount of damage to a frigate. Yeah, you could use rigors to improve damage application. If you can't hit sh*t any kind of tank is pointless anyway. No, three T1 rigors are superior to two T1 rigors and a T1 flare. You're going to have a tough time convincing me that players are going to dump enough in T2 rigs equivalent to (or exceeding) the T1 Raven hull cost. That's like throwing good money after bad...
1. If you're using anything other than RHMLs or RLMLs on a Raven for smaller targets, you're doing in wrong. 2. If you're running uber-expensive T2 rigs on a Raven for PvP, you're doing it wrong. 3. If you choose a battleship to hunt frigates, you're doing it wrong.
Basically you're doing it wrong. GǪ..
If I was going to hunt in a Raven, I'd be running RHMLs with three T1 hydraulic rigs to extend my range out to almost 100km. Assuming I made it past the gate camps, interceptors and everything else that can basically turn me into a floating pile of cinders long before I reach my destination. In other words, I'd take my Tengu. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
692
|
Posted - 2013.12.01 00:27:00 -
[165] - Quote
Astroniomix wrote:I'm not even sure what you're trying to say at this point, you just keep saying stupid ****. Maybe you'll figure out that this is a RLML/RHML thread and really has no bearings on cruise missiles... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
692
|
Posted - 2013.12.01 02:57:00 -
[166] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Maybe we have a different idea of what constitutes a well designed test then. That was my point as well. In reality, even with hybrid rigs, tracking enhancers and scripted tracking computers one will be extremely hard-pressed to hit an ultra-fast frigate unless it's moving towards it in a straight line. Sentry drones will fare a bit better depending on the type (but not much), but only missiles will actually hit regardless of speed and angle for at least some damage. Which is better? None if you're in a battleship caught-out with only heavy weaponry (regardless of type).
Yes, guns have additional tracking modules. But they don't generally have the same range as missiles, only projectiles can apply all damage types (mixed, mind you), there's no counter to ECM (unlike FoF missiles) and while they can critical hit - they can also miss as well. There's a big difference between paper DPS and live DPS, and any number of criteria can greatly influence the outcome - the least of which is timing. GǪ..
I took out a Hawk with my Tengu using nothing more than Faction scourge heavy missiles. That wasn't my preferred method of choice, but you don't always get to pick your battles. After that I refit and drove off several attacks from frigates using a pair of the new RLMLs in combination with HMLs, and it wasn't until the odds were became stacked against me that I chose an exit strategy. As previously indicated, they're a great deterrent against frigates - but you can't use them solely as a primary weapon.
You can do a lot of paper DPS with a Tengu, but the 6th launcher means sacrificing a lot of other capabilities - so for all intents and purposes actual DPS is about 20% less. A Raven or Navy Raven will out-DPS a HML-equipped Tengu by almost double (with drones either of the Ravens will put out over 1000 DPS with faction ammunition). That's before rigors or flares if one opted for those. Battleships also have the option of dropping a flight of 5 light drones to help deal with frigates.
With the new warp mechanics it's even harder for battleships than ever, so while I love the concept in practice they're bigger ducks than ever. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
692
|
Posted - 2013.12.01 03:28:00 -
[167] - Quote
KatanTharkay wrote:That's not true m8. AB and sig bonused frigates will tank you whit ease. Had this discussion earlier on the thread already. And yet, in my last 3 engagementsGǪ they didn't. But I'll let you know how my next engagement turns out. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
692
|
Posted - 2013.12.01 07:04:00 -
[168] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:To which of your last 3 engagements would you be referring? The RML Tengu, RHML Raven or the Rocket Hawk?
Maybe you could fit RLML to your tengu and give it a try, using HML and faction ammo is not really fitting the criteria for commenting on RLML. Please fit RLML's to your tengu for purposes of testing, I would really like to see how they perform. I mean other than how they perform in EFT.
For interests sake how did the RHML Raven go against the cruiser gang you bumped into? I know facing a T3 gang in a solo RHML fit Raven is not something that would happen every day (or is it) but were you able to get an idea how it would perform in the right situation, or did you just die too fast? The last three where I lived, of course. The Rocket Hawk actually had a RLML on it just for sh*ts and giggles, so along with two Navy Hookbills we almost took out a Vexor (they certainly weren't expecting RLMLs on a frigate). The RHML, oh manGǪ RIP Raven. We stumbled into a 25+ ship gate camp, and I don't think I got more than a half dozen volleys off before biting it. My personal opinion of RHMLs is that they're awesome - but along with battleships, not really suited for solo PvP anymore unfortunately.
The three engagements I was referring to were in the Tengu. I had a 5x HML fit when I got intercepted by a Hawk. He wasn't expecting me to have a +3 scram, and thus wasn't able to disengage. I took him down with Faction scourge, but I probably should've switched to Mjolnir as the battle took far too long for comfort. After that, I fit a pair of RLMLs in addition to the three HMLs and went out again. I got nailed by a Firetail as I was landing/aligning at a mission acceleration gate, and just used the HMLs to throw him off. When he closed to within 10km I hit him with the scram - killing his MWD - and then lit him up with overheated RLMLs. They chewed through his shields and armor in a matter of volleys in combination with the HMLs. Unfortunately, I didn't have a stasis web - so he was able to maneuver outside scram range and warp out with about 40% hull remaining. He came back with a buddy in a Federation Comet, but I was deep in the mission and had range advantage - and alternated on both ships driving them both off. They came back a few minutes later with a Cyclone and I figured I was probably pushing my luck.
I should also give credit where credit is due. The Federation Navy NPCs did a great job of firing on practically everything - including me - but as I was prepared for this in-advance, it didn't really phase me. The Federation NPCs were also running a lot of sensor dampening, which limited engagements somewhat to under 50km.
I'm be heading out roaming again with the Tengu shortly, and I've managed to tweak and otherwise improve the fit so I should be able to get a bit better damage application from the HMLs. As I've previously stated, unless you're hunting frigates exclusively - I don't think RLMLs are powerful enough to take on opponents of comparable size, ie: cruisers - hence why I'm relying on the HMLs to give me both range and constant DPS while the pair of RLMLs reload.
Win, lose or draw - I'll certainly post any more "live" feedback on RLMLs here. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
692
|
Posted - 2013.12.01 07:06:00 -
[169] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:Raven - T2 CMLs (6) first test Precision Scourge T2 CMs, Second test Precision Mjolnir T2 CMs. No Drones I'm just curious why you chose cruise missiles for your comparison when Ravens can utilize (6) RHMLs with the ROF bonus as well. Range is 60km-ish, so probably somewhat comparable to the other weapon systems as well. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
694
|
Posted - 2013.12.01 16:20:00 -
[170] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:It's laughable to think this module is an improvement. I do wish CCP Rise would give it to us as a choice - so those that think its great can go off and use it somewhere, while the rest of us get back a module we used and loved, and use ships like this to truly gank stuff, and other ships that kill frigates far better without the reload. I wouldn't say it's an improvement, either. It really only shines as a secondary offensive weapons system in combination with something else. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
694
|
Posted - 2013.12.01 17:03:00 -
[171] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:I didn't use the RHMLs for the reason that it doesn't fire a large-sized ammunition. It fires a medium (cruiser) sized ammo. Regardless of ammunition, RHMLs are a battleship-class weapon. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
696
|
Posted - 2013.12.01 23:50:00 -
[172] - Quote
Battleships are completely worthless, period. I'm not really sure why we're discussing them. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
696
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 04:18:00 -
[173] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:Because Battleships are the intended recipients of the new RHML. Furthermore, Arthur, you were the one that asked about the effectiveness of the RHML in terms of a DPS graph. If you need a reminder I can quote your remark. There was a comparison of battleships vs. frigates, with a Raven using cruise missiles. My query was simply why we weren't using RHMLs in the comparison since a) this is a RHML thread and b) RHML are battleship-class weapons. Battleships were already neutered prior; the warp mechanics in Rubicon were merely the final snip. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
698
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 08:17:00 -
[174] - Quote
RIP RLML. RIP RHML.
I really (really) tried, but these new missile systems are completely pointless outside of blobs. If anything, they give blobs an advantage by allowing them to boost initial DPS. If we want to eliminate solo play, this is the surest way to do it. I had three brief engagements today vs. a Loki, a Proteus and a mixed fleet (I had equipped full RLMLs in the hopes I'd happen upon a frigate, but we play the cards we're givenGǪ)
In the first engagement with the Loki, he managed to get a point on me with an overheated warp disruptor, so I decided to use my MWD to keep him out of weapons range. I was only able to knock his shields down about 20% before exhausting my supply of RLMLs, whereby the 40-second "reload of death" kicked in. We were both overheating our MWDs and traveling in a straight pursuit path, but as he was overheating both his MWD and disruptor - he wasn't able to keep pace and had to drop back. This gave me a window of opportunity to get clear of his point and warp to out (I clearly wasn't going to make any progress).
In the second, I was able to keep well clear of the Proteus and use the range advantage of the RLMLs to hit him. Damage was negligible, and as he couldn't get close to me (and I didn't stand a chance in a close-range battle) - we both disengaged.
The third engagement saw me jumped by several ships which immediately ECM'd me. With the additional sensor damps from the Federation NPCs, this basically shut me down so I loaded FoF missiles (it should be noted that this 40-second switch was rather nerve-racking, as several additional ships jumped in and joined pursuit). I couldn't lock anything, so I have no idea what if any damage I did (but I imagine it was practically non-existent since they continued pursuit). After exhausting a full volley and expecting even more reinforcements (local was lighting up like a Christmas tree), I aligned and got the heck out of dodge. GǪ..
So that's it for the grand experiment. The damage application with HMLs is practically non-existent, and the range advantage is easily mitigated with sensor dampeners. ECM shuts down target painters, leaving you with FoF missiles. If you have to resort to FoF missiles, you're dead already (you just don't realize it yet). RLMLs are pointless for all the aforementioned reasons and one more: their only saving grace was the fitting requirements, and now you run them at the expense of tank, too. RHMLs would be interesting if they knocked the power requirements down 5-fold, but again - "40 second death" awaits. So I'm left with HAMs, because they're the only missile system left. I lose range, gain fitting over HMLs (slightly over RLMLs), greatly increased damage application and massive sustained DPS boost (400-ish on a Covert configuration; around 600 or so non-Covert). Faction launchers also hold 75 rounds of ammunition, so even with a 2.25-second ROF - that's a lot of shooting. GǪ..
My proposal: 1. Reinstate RLMLs to pre-Rubicon specs. 2. Revise RHMLs to the first iteration (they're about as useful on battleships as a screen door right now). 3. Implement some adjustments to LMs, HAMs and HMs (see previous posts for specifics). 4. Implement a passive ballistic enhancement module, similar to the tracking enhancement module for guns. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
701
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 15:51:00 -
[175] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:So after trying to convince yourself that they weren't that bad you've now come full circle? Well kudos for giving it a try. More than I'm willing to do (I did try RHMLs in PVE unfortunately). These things on paper tell me all I need to know. They suck. Honestly, I wish I knew which direction to go in now. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
701
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 16:33:00 -
[176] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Yes, but this aspect was allowed by the fact RLML obsoleted all other medium missiles in most cases ; in other words, this aspect was possible because RLML were OP. Well, now they're junk. Not sure what we've achieved. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
701
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 16:51:00 -
[177] - Quote
RIP Caldari. Phoenix is deadGǪ Drake is deadGǪ Caracal is deadGǪ Tengu will soon be joining them. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
701
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 17:21:00 -
[178] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:They're not dead. They're just very situational, niche support weapons. "My mommy always said there were no monsters - no real ones - but there are." "What kind of spaceship? Something with reclining leather seats, that goes really fast, and gets really sh*tty gas mileage!" "So immoral, working on the thing can drive you mad. That's what happened to this friend of mine. So he had a lobotomy. Now he's well again." I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
701
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 17:37:00 -
[179] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:What if short range missiles were very good at applying damage to small targets but weak vs fast targets and if long range missiles were very good at hitting fast targets but poor at hitting small targets. Honestly, the whole conversation surrounding missiles is just depressing. Every update they get worse, and there's not really any light at the end of the tunnel. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
702
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 17:58:00 -
[180] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:Well, you can smartbomb them and reduce the dps of an entire missile fleet to 0 with a single ship. I feel soooo much better now. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
702
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 18:24:00 -
[181] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS I found an exploit to get around the 40 second reload timer! ... You should find, if you are lucky, that your RLML have been completely burnt out before the last missile fires. Good one. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
702
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 18:54:00 -
[182] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:And finaly... And finally, can you please shut the h*ll up? You have less than zero to offer in this thread, and your arguments are completely transparent to those of us who actually fly these things. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
704
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 19:40:00 -
[183] - Quote
In the interest of science, I'm trying another experiment with RLMLs. Pray for me... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
704
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 19:47:00 -
[184] - Quote
faggorz wrote:That is terrible I would rather have a slower fire rate then have a 40sec reload time this is not efficient for running missions or ratting. For missions and ratting, you do have other choices (since NPCs don't pose the same threat as in PvP). HML would probably be my recommendation, just for the range. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
704
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 20:36:00 -
[185] - Quote
Fun times. This is an interesting RLML update... I equipped a "suicide Tengu" and went looking for a fight. Took me 20 jumps through low-sec to finally find one (go figure). I ran 5x Arbalest RLMLs with no missile rigs, modules or other enhancements. I got into an engagement with a Incursus, Keres, Navy Comet, Thrasher and Malediction. Wasted the Incursus in no-time flat, put the Keres into hull twice (driving it off twice) and mauled the Thrasher and Malediction. Long story short: the frigates and destroyers all tucked tail and ran as soon as they realized they were screwed. Even the cruisers were wary.
They tried scrambling me - nope. Tried web'ing - nope. Tried neuts - nope. Then they called in the big guns. I finally went down to the combined firepower from a Thorax, Rupture, Navy Brutix and Typhoon. Before perishing in a glorious fireball, I peeled the shields completely off the Brutix and Rupture - and knocked about 10% armor off each (best I could do; RMLs just don't have staying power). I died to a combination of Neutron Blasters, Hammerheads and Mjolnir Rage Torpedos (Tengus do have a pretty big EM hole).
If I'd been in a Caracal I'd have been dead long before the heavies showed up, though. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
704
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 20:39:00 -
[186] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Why only five? You were using the capacitor regen matrix, weren't you. Yeah, for the extra slot so I could run another shield power relay. Not that the 6th would've made any difference in the grand scheme of things. Off to test RHMLs next... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
704
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 20:59:00 -
[187] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Could you perhaps post these kills to evekill or battleclinic? I only got the single kill, as I didn't have a disruptor or scrambler to pin anything. http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=20741668 I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
705
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 21:17:00 -
[188] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:It wasn't long ago, that Drakes once ruled the vacuum, so its fair to say, it wouldn't take to much to make Caldari decent again. It would take the desire. That seems insurmountable at the moment... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
705
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 21:41:00 -
[189] - Quote
So much for RHMLs as well. Took a Rattlesnake out with RHMLs and drones and got absolutely massacred. Thorax, Arbitrator, Vexor, Navy Vexor, Navy Slicer, Harpy, Hawk, Republic Firetail, Elite Matara, Tristan and a Drake for good measure (there were a few Thorax and Vexors). Could not kill a single ship with RHMLs. Not a one. I put the Vexor about 50% into armor, but that was a close as I got. I think the drones fared the best (used a combination of Wardens, Gardes and Hornets). I'd post the kill-mail, but what's the point. You can't hit anything with heavy missiles, regardless of rate of fire.
RIP missiles. RIP... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
706
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 23:03:00 -
[190] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:haha I saw you in that solo Tengu sitting outside a plex for ages with a whole gang of shiny stuff huddled up inside, I knew I recognized the name from somewhere. RSPT Haha. What is it with Tengus that frigates seem to find so appealing? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
717
|
Posted - 2013.12.03 01:57:00 -
[191] - Quote
Well, there goes 3.25-million SP down the drain. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
718
|
Posted - 2013.12.03 02:30:00 -
[192] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:I'm pretty sure the batshit crazy idea to make all missile launchers take 75% longer to reload wasn't part of the original RLML... It's in the right bat channel, though. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
719
|
Posted - 2013.12.03 03:38:00 -
[193] - Quote
Hybrids. 10km range with antimatter, 80-round capacity, dual thermic-kinetic damage and best of all: 5-second reload time. Yeah, only 5 seconds to either reload -or- swap ammo out for a different range. And it weighs next to nothing; 10,000 rounds of medium hybrid ammunition takes up 100 m3 of cargo space. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
719
|
Posted - 2013.12.03 04:08:00 -
[194] - Quote
CCP Rise, when you have a moment - could you outfit a Caracal for solo PvP using RLMLs and post the killmail results? I'd love to see your fit to get an idea of where I'm going wrong. Thanks. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
723
|
Posted - 2013.12.03 13:42:00 -
[195] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Oh, and nobody ever answered the question of the overlap between old RLML and HML : with old RLML, what role HML would fit ? They need to first fix HML so it actually has a role outside of missioning.
Mike Whiite wrote:...for now, finish ballancing the ships. Except rebalancing will never be done, and in the interim missiles continue to be pushed to the back burner. And with each ship rebalance and update missile-based hulls continue to be severely unbalanced. What we need is a specific focus and push to get missile systems finally fixed in the next update. It wouldn't require anything earth shattering: just the desire and will to make a few minor tweaks.
Cardano Firesnake wrote:When you create something whatever it is, you must think about one thing: GÇ£What will I do with this?GÇ¥ RLML and RHML have a mission: Destroy smaller ships. Except they don't even excel at that. At least with the other weapon systems you're dealing 2-3/4 damage types. With missiles, if you've guessed wrong - the battle is lost before it's even begun. And unless you can extract yourself, you're finished. The issue is first and foremost the excessive reload/swap time, because it completely eliminates all your tactical options. Right now the rapid launchers are so niche that they're not even effective for a specific role; they can't even be utilized as a primary weapons system, let alone a secondary or tertiary.
Sgt Ocker wrote:Hate to be harsh here BUT in a 600mil very specifically fit ship, you managed to kill 1 frigate who could not shoot back, while a comet had him scrammed and pointed?? I'm sorry but that is not a really glowing "RLML are good" showing is it? ** Looks like it was a fun fight though Actually, he wasn't scrammed - he just had the misfortune to be the first ship that tried to engage me - and I was able to finish him off before he could align and jump out. After that, since I didn't have any point or scram - the other ships immediately started warping off as soon as they dropped into armor. So it was kind of a "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" scenario with a rather quick learning curve. Yes, it was fairly intense. If I'd had an EM ward amplifier it would've dragged on even longer. And if I'd chosen a location where I could actually dock or jump, I could've ended the engagement within 60 seconds (picking a fight outside an undockable station was probably not the best choice, lol). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
723
|
Posted - 2013.12.03 14:04:00 -
[196] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:That is plain wrong. Overall and over a 90s period they do 20% less dps. But during the first half of this period, they do about 50% more dps. Not actually double, but quite interesting. And if you can't kill the frigate in this time with this dps, you would have taken about 2 minutes with old RLML to kill it. In fact, the burst dps will often be a lot better to kill active tanked frigate, as active tank is less and less effective as dps increase. This is completely false. The "50% more DPS" statement is a myth, as it presumes you're utilizing the most effective ammunition in every engagement. Since the 40-second swap precludes any tactical changes once battle has commenced, you have a 1:4 chance of being correct; less if you hedge your bets with different damage types. As most Caldari ships get a kinetic bonus, it's also very easy for opponents to negate this. With the old RLMLs, you could swap ammo out in 10 seconds (more than enough time to influence the outcome) - so all your opponent need do now is survive the initial 50-second onslaught, point you and bat phone support.
Addendum: I really think we should start ignoring Bouh. Either he's trolling for his own entertainment or he has some seriously misguided and hard fast notions about missile mechanics. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
723
|
Posted - 2013.12.03 20:38:00 -
[197] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:That is fascinating. But it also interesting given how high the Tengu use is (although it can use Blasters).
Regarding what I said about improving Heavy Missiles and nerfing the Tengu, I'm talking about tweaking the bonuses it would get with missiles. If the missiles themselves hit better - which is the fundamental issue with Heavy Missiles - then sure it makes sense that the Tengu would still be just as powerful, even with a tweak to its bonuses? So in fairness, its not a nerf that would stop their use, but just keep it where it is at.
So essentially what I'm suggesting is that Heavy Missiles are improved for all missile ships (because they are woeful at present), vs. stopping the Tengu becoming even more powerful.
This is the heart of what makes good balancing, surely? Those are probably fleet railgun Tengus. The Tengu bonuses aren't that out of balance when you look at the new Cerberus:
Tengu: 5% kinetic damage, 7.5% ROF, 10% HM/HAM velocity (only) Cerberus: 5% kinetic damage, 5% ROF, 10% velocity (all), 10% flight time (all)
Cerberus will run 6 launchers (10 equivalent with bonuses) vs either 5 launchers (10 equivalent) or 6 launchers (12 equivalent) on the Tengu. Since running a 6th launcher on aTengu is really only for PvE, you're basically at the same DPS for a Tengu. So why exactly does it need to be nerfed into the ground again? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
730
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 00:43:00 -
[198] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:I must have missed where he suggested it should be nerfed into the ground. I only saw him saying it should be adjusted down a bit to compensate for a heavy missile buff, basically keeping it at the same level while buffing all the other heavy missile ships. Though I personally don't think it's necessary I get where he's coming from. I believe the exact quote was something to the effect of "...while T3s won't be nerfed to the point of uselessness..." Well, since Tengus are now pretty much useless outside of PvE with the RLML change and previous HM nerf, that translates into dead. Any further nerf equates to burying them 6 feet under. So when I said "nerfed into the ground", I really did mean dead and buried. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
730
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 03:26:00 -
[199] - Quote
Possible RLML Solution? I spent the afternoon crunching some numbers, and I think I may (emphasis on "may") have arrived at a RLML solution (hat's off to Jayne Filion for providing his handy missile calculation spreadsheet, which helped immensely). TL;DR - RLML fix.
This remedy addresses the following: GÇó The OP status of light missiles in the previous RLMLs against, well - virtual everything GÇó The lack of ballistic damage application modules and the limited number of slots on light ship classes GÇó The new RLML "burst" launchers and 40-second reload time
RLML Launcher Changes RLMLs are revised to their original (Odyssey) specs, with the exception of the new grid/CPU requirements and a reduction in ammo capacity by 1/3 (this places capacity between heavy and heavy assault missiles). GÇó T2 RLML ... 9.6s ROF, 0.80m3 capacity (53 rounds)
Light Missile Changes Light missiles get a nerf... and a buff. GÇó Damage is reduced by 11% (before anyone peaks and freaks, light missiles were buffed 10% back when heavy missiles got nerfed - so this effectively puts them back to where they were; this is where the problems all started, so I'm returning to the scene of the crime...) GÇó Explosion radius is reduced 12%, so this is a buff (explosion velocity remains unchanged)
What does this achieve? While doing less "paper DPS", light missiles actually do more applied damage to smaller targets without the need for stasis webs and target painters. This benefits light class vessels in solo or small-gang PvP. Light missiles do become less effective against cruisers (by about 10%), which was one concern with the original RLMLs if I recall correctly.
The first thing we need to look at is damage application (and not DPS) vs. various targets, and is listed as a % of total applied damage possible. There were eight (8) different types of targets compared: the first % number is Odyssey (O) with the second % number the proposed (P); I'm not even listing the Rubicon % because the burst/40-second reload totally skews it (suffice it to say, when you factor-in the 40-second reload of the Rubicon version damage application is actually the worst - but no surprises there).
GÇó Interceptor ... 80m signature, 4500m/sec velocity ... 20.8% (O) ... 20.2% (P) GÇó AB Frigate ... 40m signature, 1000m/sec velocity ... 33.9% (O) ... 32.9% (P) GÇó MWD Assault Frigate ... 135m signature, 2200m/sec velocity ... 43.9% (O) ... 42.6% (P) GÇó MWD Frigate ... 235m signature, 2800m/sec velocity ... 53.1% (O) ... 51.5% (P) GÇó MWD Destroyer ... 400m signature, 1800m/sec velocity ... 95.6% (O) ... 88.5% (P) GÇó AB Cruiser ... 175m signature, 600m/sec velocity ... 99.9% (O) ... 88.5% (P) GÇó MWD AHAC ... 500m signature, 1500m/sec velocity ... 99.9% (O) ... 88.5% (P) GÇó MWD Cruiser ... 800m signature, 1500m/sec velocity ... 99.9% (O) ... 88.5% (P)
As you can see, there's virtually no change from interceptors to frigates. It's only when you get to destroyers and higher that the "nerf" kicks in. Damage application drops 7.1% against destroyers and 11.4% against cruisers. Battlecruisers and battleships aren't in the mix, but the degree of damage applicable to those classes starts to fall into the law of diminishing returns.
Comments welcome.
PS. CCP Rise, if you're still following this - I have all the data/spreadsheets (so drop me a line and I'll be happy to forward them to you). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
730
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 04:29:00 -
[200] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:I hope for the sake of any progeny you might have that you were not being serious with that. Let's hope. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
733
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 07:48:00 -
[201] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Funny, prior to Rubicon I was getting 229 DPS with RLML, post Rubicon I get 260 DPS for 48 seconds. That unless my math is really worse than I thought not a 50% increase. Over a 90 second period I actually get 147 DPs or there abouts closer to 40% less. It's not just you. I ran the numbers and it's worse. About 23% approximately. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
733
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 11:59:00 -
[202] - Quote
No comments on my proposed RLML rebalance? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
736
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 13:01:00 -
[203] - Quote
I give up... Switching over to guns and not looking back. Trying to get CCP to recognize and acknowledge that they've made some critical mistakes with respect to missiles is like trying to convince conspiracy theorists that we really did land on the moon. I'm not waiting around for the next update (let alone another year or more) for another set of half thought-out changes that seem to be introduced on a whim.
We've basically seen Drakes and now Caracals eliminated as viable PvP options. Tengus have been relegated to the sidelines by being banned from most FW and DED complexes since Odyssey, and with the recent RLML change in Rubicon they're more or less useless in PvP as well. Even the Cerberus - which was shaping up to be a decent PvP ship - has all but disappeared. It's only a matter of time before Tengus get nerfed to the point where they're no longer viable in PvE, either.
Ironically, I think the new Marauder actually influenced the changes to RLMLs because a few enterprising individuals were conceiving it as the ultimate frigate-gank platform.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
736
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 13:12:00 -
[204] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Give it time M8, CCP need to analyse the incoming data and decide whether they will make missiles usable or just fudge the numbers and say "everything is working as intended" I've been waiting since I started EVE in April. I'm sure there are even more disappointed players who suffered through the first heavy missile nerf. I've lost faith that CCP even knows what they're doing anymore - and not just with missiles. There are so many broken mechanics in this game, but we have time to waste on market scams, renaming auto cannons, introducing another lame and uninspired ship (Nestor), turning the Jita undock into the Indy 500 and other token features.
There's no substance - there's no content. There's no turning back, alright; it's quite apparent to some of us that the direction EVE is taking is akin to a pack of lemmings being driven off a cliff. Except most are going willingly.
CCP Rise, CCP Fozzie - you both get a lump of coal in your stocking this year. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
736
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 13:23:00 -
[205] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:That's interesting, but why are you not considering the numbers without prop mod, like when a ship is scramed ; and numbers with scram+web ? Since you specifically asked, I'll reply (even though the answer is obvious). This is about damage application, and how RLMLs were perceived as "OP" and basically able to hit anything. The numbers clearly show that light missiles only apply about 20-50% of their damage against fast-moving targets. If you apply scrams, stasis webs and target painters damage application only increases. So it seemed a moot point.
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Everyone here says that turrets are far better than missiles because they can apply damage to a far away target or to an immobile target, yet missiles seems to need the target to move as fast as possible to be fired ? This is certainly honestyGǪ I honestly don't understand this at all.
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Your Light missiles suggestions are good IMO eventhough I doubt light missile need any damage application buff as this one have been buffed already in the HML nerf and LM hit frigates perfectly fine in almost all cases.
In fact, I would more leave the damage alone and nerf damage application to leave high potential dps possible if you sacrifice enough for damage application ; but that's only my opinion everyone don't care anyway. The whole point of the damage nerf and damage application buff was to continue to make light missiles as effective as they are against smaller ships (frigates, destroyers) but less effective against cruisers and larger targets. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
736
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 13:32:00 -
[206] - Quote
Gorski Car wrote:Tried the new rlmls. All I have 2 say is top lel way 2 ruin a weapon system ccp. All I can say is that I hope you only tried it out in PvE... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
744
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 15:27:00 -
[207] - Quote
// ignore I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
750
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 17:12:00 -
[208] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:As we know too well, CCP cares what Eve players DO, much less what they SAY (leaked email) therefore adapting whenever devs fix something that wasn't broken by switching over to FOTM sounds like an appropriate feedback to me. Excellent! If all missile users switch over to hybrids maybe we can get those nerfed tooGǪ I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
758
|
Posted - 2013.12.05 01:11:00 -
[209] - Quote
Here's another suggestion... change the fitting requirements such that RLMLs become a light weapons system and RHMLs become a medium-based weapons system. Then the burst and 40-second reload make more sense on a frigate and cruiser hull, because they suck on cruiser and battleship hulls. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
764
|
Posted - 2013.12.05 11:33:00 -
[210] - Quote
Silverbackyererse wrote:My tin-foil-hattery says this is happening to reduce server loading. I recall a CCP examination of server loading a while back and launcher based weapons are server resource hungry.
Less launcher ships flying around = big win for CCP. Tell me I'm wrong. ;) Assuming we're both wearing our tinfoil hats and are tuned into the same frequencyGǪ
GÇó Stealth bombers are right up near the top in terms of missile use (torpedoes and bombs) GÇó All of the mission NPCs in PvE use missiles to some extent (usually the slow-moving variety) GÇó POS and structure grinding typically sees missiles utilized (and to a lesser degree, POS defenses)
So I'm not entirely sure how you could eliminate missile use per say, but one solution would be to exchange flight time for missile velocity so that missile objects don't last as long. It does seem odd that we introduced 2 new rapid fire "burst" launchers that have the potential to dump a lot of new objects in a relatively short period of time.
Therefore, I see your conspiracy theory and raise you one: the 40-second reload time is intended to reduce server load. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
767
|
Posted - 2013.12.05 17:22:00 -
[211] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Is anyone keeping track of the last Dev update on what's going on in this "closely followed" thread? Or is CCP still trying the silent treatment for missile and Caldari pilots? There's not much to keep track of - nothing's changed. Priorities have been a) margin trading scams, b) contemplating nerfing Serpentis webs and c) the new uninspired SoE Nestor battleship. They're probably just waiting for this thread to lose interest so they can go "See? People have embraced the new changes." I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
768
|
Posted - 2013.12.05 17:59:00 -
[212] - Quote
Every Problem With Rapid Light Launchers In Point Form TL;DR - If you agree, please "like" this post. We need to continue to get the word out to players and keep this thread active. GǪ..
GÇó These were released on a whim, without any advance notice, testing or consultation with players. GÇó When factoring in reloads, overall DPS (including Caldari kinetic bonuses where applicable) has dropped a staggering 23%! Contrary to what's been stated, in addition to being a completely radical change - this was also a massive nerf. GÇó Ammunition capacity has been reduced by 77.75% and fitting requirements have increased almost 100%, which means in addition to the DPS loss - ships now have less configuration for tank or other modules. GÇó Missiles have the advantage of applying any damage type, which is removed with the inability to quickly switch ammunition. Pre-loading multiple damage types only waters down DPS and prevents adaptation to targets with different resistances. Even an instant ammo swap still wouldn't address the 40-second reload time (because 18 rounds doesn't last long). GÇó All tactical skill is lost since opponents now need only survive for 45 seconds. The 40-second reload window affords them enough time to repair whatever damage was incurred, reload ancillary boosters/repairers and call in reinforcements. GÇó Eliminates missile-based ships from solo PvP, because the damage application with heavy assault and heavy missiles is still abysmal. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
769
|
Posted - 2013.12.05 18:06:00 -
[213] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:The key is using your speed as tank. I killed a daredevil with the belli. Got me down to half armor but was able to alpha his reps. So HMs are usable.. but your fit tends to be extreme with minimal tank. If they're able to intercept and scram you though, you're dead - because you've sacrificed all your tank for target painters and rigors. Range is your only advantage, and if they sensor dampen you you'll either have to close to mitigate that or switch to FoF missiles and hope for the best (but this also prevents the use of target painters). I do applaud your efforts though. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
779
|
Posted - 2013.12.05 22:30:00 -
[214] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:Can we all agree with this or not? Yes, but that still doesn't fix RLMLs unfortunately... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
780
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 02:54:00 -
[215] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Ok, so i fit up a caracal and compared. Just so I have this straight... we're down to fitting cruisers to effectively take on frigates? I'm just going to raise the obvious question here: What happens when you run into a cruiser with a drastically slashed EHP? I appreciate the examples, and I'm not trying to be critical... but you do see the problem here, yes? RLMLs gave players the ability to fend off both without sacrificing tank. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
781
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 03:47:00 -
[216] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Understood. However, the goal here is to try and pick your fights if you're solo. In a gang, use your speed to your advantage and "Snipe" with missiles.
I also was not saying we should use heavy missiles, but to show that Heavies are not incapable of killing frigs or smaller targets, just that you need to fit for it. Its aimed at the people that complain that heavies apply for ****, but then don't create fits similar to these (maybe not as extreme because you're looking for cruisers to fight, so you can drop some of the application and add more tank since your targets will be larger.
Pretty much i'm saying, missiles rely more off application then dps, but you have to fit for it to be effective, as I would consider it more as damage over time effect, the damage can't be dodged if in range. So to counter, they updated the RLML to have a break, so the other person fighting (typically a frigate) a chance to survive. Theres a player in the other ship, and they want to have fun too, and not just be steamrolled (unless active tanked) if theres a RLML on field in its older version. If you're flying solo in a Caracal, I would say the chances of picking fights on your terms are going to be slim to none. In a gang, you are the weakest link... Sure, if you have the time without distractions, and your target is pointed - you can eventually kill everything. The problem is that if you can't kill them quickly, you usually can't disengage, either. And that's typically when uninvited guests tend to show up...
Zvaarian the Red wrote:Sorry but even with rigors heavy missiles blow against frigates with afterburners. A Caracal with three rigors and precision heavy missiles deals 25% damage to a Kestrel with an afterburner or around ~63 DPS. With faction ammo that drops to 16.5% or ~47 DPS. That's utter garbage. There is no arguing otherwise. And keep in mind that's with perfect damage application skills. It gets worse if you don't have those. I tend to agree. Better, but not great. Heavy assaults benefit the most from rigors and flares. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
786
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 06:50:00 -
[217] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:[quote=Gorski Car]I had to reload the damn things almost ten times to kill the fing repair station. No one (well, no one but all of us) stopped to think about the NPC repair that would happen in the 40-second reload interval. Gee, how could we possibly have foreseen this... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
786
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 06:56:00 -
[218] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Shield ships cant seem to tank as much as armor, add to that the sig penatly that blooms your ship so that everyone does perfect damge to you. Yes, my EVE kingdom for an armor-based Caldari missile ship... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
786
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 07:31:00 -
[219] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Armor based caldari missile ship? I was just stating that shield cruisers cant tank as much as armor ones. A problem with caldari cruisers which generally means a standard tank with sub-par dps with prop and no point --or-- sub-par dps + sub-par tank with point and propmod. Yeah, imagine a Cerebus with 6 low slots. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
788
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 17:45:00 -
[220] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Blob warfare (although generally bloody terrible for those involved due to TIDI) is just so good for advertising.
2 huge fleets numbering over 4000 met in TIDI-DIE. These massive fleets were using the newly released RLML & RHML on Cruisers and Battleships. The fight was one to behold and if you signup for a 30 day trial today you can soon be a part of this new and exciting game, EVE TIDI DIE, a 1 hour battle will last 4 hours due to the TIDI (how's that for value for money, pay for 1 hour get 3 for free) Yes, because watching paint dry between issuing commands, dying and then waiting an hour to get back into the battle is so exciting... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
788
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 20:23:00 -
[221] - Quote
I've switched over to HAMs while I train guns. How's everyone else faring? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
789
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 21:02:00 -
[222] - Quote
Marcus Walkuris wrote:You can switch over to gunnery and including support skills train up a gun type and loose no speed over finishing missile skills past 70% or more percent completed. Missiles are THAT fubar and skill intensive to boot. I noticed that the gunnery stuff seems to train a lot quicker. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
792
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 21:13:00 -
[223] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:I will say that I do at least have some liking for your chaff-launcher idea. Only if we get a passive low-slot Ballistic Enhancer... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
792
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 21:21:00 -
[224] - Quote
Between CCP-Rush and CCP-Fizzle, it's been a pretty crappy year for Caldari players. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
793
|
Posted - 2013.12.07 16:55:00 -
[225] - Quote
Empeached wrote:So is there any chance we could get an update on this CCP? The update I'm fully expecting is to the effect of "GǪwhile we were initially concerned with the 40-second reload/ammunition swap time, players seem to have adapted and are now utilizing the rapid launchers in numerous new tactical scenariosGǪ therefore, we have decided to leave rapid launchers for now and continue evaluating them."
YeahGǪ not holding my breath. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
801
|
Posted - 2013.12.08 00:05:00 -
[226] - Quote
Marcus Walkuris wrote:Although I share your cynicism due to a complete lack of CCP interest for a topic which seems to have a serious presence in almost every forum. We shouldn't let it pour over or we get thread-locked. One of the links I gave earlier shows the CSM is taking interest. (Malcanis).
Also I think it will be: "Focussing on more pressing matters". It was cynicism midway through the threadGǪ It's probably borderline narcissism at this point. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
801
|
Posted - 2013.12.08 01:24:00 -
[227] - Quote
What players don't seem to realize is that you get more armor resistances and passive tank through armor setups than you do with shield setups, often requiring more slots for comparably less tank. So it's easy to say "dual-web" except more often than not you've only got one slot to point or web - let alone dual webs and a point. And then there's the whole damage application aspect, which sees armor setups using their rigs and slave implants to improve tank while shield ships are relegated to running rigors and flares because they don't even have a spare slot for a target painter.
A passive low-slot Ballistic Enhancer that offered 20% explosion velocity, 10% explosion radius and 10% missile velocity (or some combination thereof) would probably balance things out nicely - maybe even offsetting the original heavy missile and Drake nerfs. It's not like missile-based hulls have a wealth of low slots to really make this offensive, and stacking penalties would be in effect just as they are for Tracking Enhancers. I could see many Caldari ships running a Ballistic Enhancer in place of a third or fourth Ballistic Control instead - so it's not like this won't come with a tradeoff, either.
The main issue is that instead of slowly making improvements to missiles it's been a steady series of nerfs while continuing to ignore the fundamental problems. As I've previously stated, it's not hard to fix missiles: you just need to have the actual desire to do so. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
802
|
Posted - 2013.12.08 02:11:00 -
[228] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:Exactly the problem, turret pilots have 3-4 luxury medium slots they can put what they want in, we have one before it becomes necessary to start stripping tank. Missile boats were not designed to operate in scram range, we don't have the tank and we certainly don't have the dps even with our lows filled with damage mod's. Telling us to fill our medium slots with scrams, webs and target painters to apply that dps shows how little some people understand missile tactics. It should also be pointed out that shield extender modules and rigs increase signature radius, while armor plating and rigs simply reduces AB and MWD speed. It makes it a lot harder for Caldari ships to mitigate damage (both missile and turret). One of the other suggestions I made was to have shield extenders penalize sensor strength as opposed to signature radius to balance things out a bit. Heck, what I'd really like is an armor-based Tengu with 6-7 low slots and armor bonuses and resistances. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
802
|
Posted - 2013.12.08 03:35:00 -
[229] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:1 post from someone enjoying them and the thousands of others who no longer use them don't count. Nice balancing. (NB; I think if you read on, the guy who stated he was enjoying them has modified / retracted this statement, to state they are a niche weapon with little to no solo application) Actually, that was me. I said they were "interesting", which shouldn't be taken as an glowing endorsement. I've since had 2 weeks to try and kill things with them, and the short version is you can - but it requires more luck than skill. In anything than a 1:1 against a lower-classed ship you're really outmatched.
Quote:Would it be possible to have some of the positive feedback from your friends passed on to us?? I would like to know how they are using them, I am unable as a solo player to find a role for them. I've asked for this as well. Still waiting...
Quote:Again, how about some links. I'd really be interested to hear from CSM. Even a killboard link showing their success would be nice, 50 most recent solo kills on Zkill, 1 using rockets, 2 with light missiles, 2 using HML precisions, 1 using Hams with faction ammo. None using RHML or RLML. You can obtain kills against inferior ships. You cannot win a pitched 1:1 battle against a comparable opponent.
Quote:Not sure which ships you are referring to here. Caracal, no kinetic bonus Cerberus, no kinetic bonus Bellicose, no kinetic bonus Navy Caracal, no kinetic bonus Navy Osprey, NO bonus to light missiles,10% kinetic, 5% EM EXP Therm (and actually 1 of 2 to have a damage bonus) Navy Sythe, no kinetic bonus (10% damage bonus) Gila, no kinetic bonus Cerberus, 25% kinetic bonus Drake, 50% kinetic bonus Osprey Navy, 50% kinetic bonus Tengu, 25% kinetic bonus
Quote:NB; I do understand as a primarily solo player i don't count for much in the scheme of things. How many more like me are out there? More than people realize. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
803
|
Posted - 2013.12.08 04:37:00 -
[230] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:Drake's bonus does not apply to light missiles so that one is moot. The point was a lot more ships are still relegated to a kinetic bonus, regardless of weapon type. As for the Drake, heavy missiles are useless and it doesn't get any light missile bonuses - so it's effectively worthless outside of PvE. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
803
|
Posted - 2013.12.08 10:55:00 -
[231] - Quote
Tengu or Drake? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
820
|
Posted - 2013.12.08 20:38:00 -
[232] - Quote
Marcus Walkuris wrote:I am following 5 threads regarding Missiles some quite lengthy at that and they still get snowed under by "My cat ran across my keyboard". Touche'. I can has cheezeburger?
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:None of it seems to matter because 40sec and Fizzle have been ignoring us for over 2 weeks, and the CSM popped in to tell us to deal with it about 50 pages ago. I'm glad to see the new nicknames catching on. They seem more appropriate. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
820
|
Posted - 2013.12.08 21:01:00 -
[233] - Quote
I think we need another Burn Jita. Just with missiles this time. Cruise missile-equipped battleships @ 250km range would make for an interesting display. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
828
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 05:21:00 -
[234] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:RLML was the go to weapon system for Caracal and Cerberus pilots, but after the changes it's no longer viable in most circumstances, it leaves a vacuum that needs to be filled by either HAM's or HML's and neither are fit for purpose as things stand, that's why we are discussing them and the general state of the Caldari line up in an RLML thread. The solution to any perceived problems with the rapid light launchers is to first address damage application with heavy and heavy assault missiles. The heavy missile nerf is what primarily drove people to light missiles, and to a lesser degree - heavy assault missiles. The range and damage application for light missiles is far superior to heavy assault missiles, such that even with less DPS the higher ammunition capacity and ability to apply damage is often superior with light missiles. This is because it's a medium-strength weapon that utilizes and typically receives bonuses to light ammunition.
And herein lies an interesting question: Why is it that CCP continues to pigeonhole us into specific weapon types for each class of ship? Why not simply have certain bonuses that are applicable to any light, medium or heavy weapon? Case in-point: why shouldn't a Navy Raven receive a missile velocity and explosion radius to all missile types? Because it would make it more powerful against cruisers or frigates, right? And what's necessarily wrong with that? After all, it's going to make it comparably weaker against another battleship, so it's not like the decision doesn't entail some risk. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
828
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 05:22:00 -
[235] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:Jita will just speed tank them. Fortunately for us, they don't allow the Phoeix into high-sec - so we're good to go. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
828
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 09:33:00 -
[236] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Its pathetic. I felt that I would be better armed with T1 small guns. It wouldn't be so pathetic if it weren't trueGǪ I'm pretty sure even standard light launchers out-DPS the rapids simply due to increased capacity. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
830
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 15:50:00 -
[237] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:As a quick tidbit of metrics for you: Over the last week the number of characters using RLMLs each day was 6.5% lower than the pre-Rubicon average. We were actually expecting the decrease to be a bit more significant at this point, and this easily falls within acceptable ranges. Called it. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
831
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 16:53:00 -
[238] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Many good points have been raised in this thread without comment and it only serves to reinforce the feeling amongst missile pilots that we are the red-headed step-children of Eve. More like children of the corn... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
831
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 17:23:00 -
[239] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:I understand that missile mechanics are not something that can be fixed overnight, and that there are a lot of projects in-work right now. I get that. But some kind of time table, some sort of organized plan, would be nice to see. We're not asking for missiles to be amazing, or to act like turrets. We simply want them to work the way they should. It's been a steady descent for the last year, with no end in sight. It's long overdue that this trend was reversed. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
831
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 17:36:00 -
[240] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:How about instead of nerfing the launchers or missiles, a module is released to help reduce application? How about not, since the current damage application for missiles suck. Why would we want to make it worse? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
833
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 18:53:00 -
[241] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Did u read the rest where I said buff HM then release module? Yes, but I don't think you appreciate how the current missile mechanics work (or more specifically, how they don't). If you buff heavy missiles only to introduce another countermeasure, you not only end up basically where we are now - but potentially worse. It's not the damage, but the damage application. GǪ..
To fix heavy missiles, you need only adjust the explosion radius and velocity to make them more effective against cruisers. This will have almost no effect on smaller vessels. To fix light missiles, you just need to roll the damage back to the pre-Odyssey level and increase damage application. This will ensure light missiles are just as effective against smaller vessels but diminish their effectiveness against cruisers and larger targets by upwards of 10%. Then roll the rapid light and rapid heavy launchers back to their original destinations.
Problem solved with a minimum of adjustments, and everyone's happy. Except turret players, because they're not happy unless they're seeing missiles nerfed into oblivion. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
833
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 19:06:00 -
[242] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Nailed it. I feel a Charlie Sheen quote coming along.
"I am on a drug. It's called Charlie Sheen." - Charlie Sheen
PS. I'm not against the Burst modules and CCP Rise's Idea - I'm against having NO choice in having to use them. I'd like the choice. PPS. My choice would not be to use them - but hey, they are there for the folks who want to use them, instead of a 900 DPS Vexor. Nobody is perfect I guess. "You can't process me with a normal brain." - Charlie Sheen (that's how I feel trying to get RLMLs to workGǪ) I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
834
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 19:13:00 -
[243] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:On the grand list of weapons that people are actually using it pales in comparison to Blasters, Rails and Auto Cannons. On the grand list of weapons, light missile launchers appear twice - in the #19 and #20 positions, respectively. You'll note the complete absence of rockets, rapid light missile launchers, heavy missile launchers, heavy assault missile launchers, rapid heavy missile launchers and cruise missile launchers. I think that's telling, don't you? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
835
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 19:26:00 -
[244] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:not really, since it's always the missile that shows up on the kill, rather than the missile launcher, and I'm guessing eve-kill have filtered those out like they have with drones. I'm just going off the list you cited, where it lists the top 20 kill weapons. So if the missile was in fact showing up on the kill, we'd see heavy and heavy assault launchers in this list (among others). We don't - that speaks volumes. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
835
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 22:59:00 -
[245] - Quote
Wayward Hero wrote:What should nominally be a +33% DPS increase from a full 5 levels of +5% RoF skill equates to an actual bonus of 18% when using rapid launchers and factoring reload times. No, it's actually a 23% DPS hit when using rapid light launchers over the previous version - even with the burst. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
835
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 23:05:00 -
[246] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:Point being he used a navy battleship with a weapon system designed for killing cruisers to kill an apparently pve fitted rlml caracal. Colour me completely shocked and surprised Touche'. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
836
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 00:02:00 -
[247] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Sal Landry wrote:Point being he used a navy battleship with a weapon system designed for killing cruisers to kill an apparently pve fitted rlml caracal. Colour me completely shocked and surprised Regular Typhoon, not faction. And the weapons system designed for killing cruisers was... good at killing a cruiser. That's the point I was making. I'm not trying to pretend this was an awesomely l33t kill or anything like that. Just that the weapon applied damage well. I wasn't able to find better targets to test it out on before I bit off more than I could chew and ended up dying to the logi+BC+cruiser triple-boxer. I might have even won that fight if I had, for example, started by shooting the Augoror, neuting the Harbinger, and jamming the Vexor. The first iteration of the rapid heavy missile launcher was decent; this one is absolute garbage. You can't even use these in PvE, so what's the point? The only way these work is as a secondary weapon, but the whole "burst" effect is then marginalized. You'd almost be further ahead running standard heavy missile launchers. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
836
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 00:16:00 -
[248] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:But if ever something was over nerfed, the Heavy Missile was it. Its useless. Utterly useless. And anything that fires them, whether they be a Heavy Launcher or a RHML is therefore utterly useless. Which basically leaves us with HAMs. So we lose any range advantage in exchange for marginally better damage application and improved DPS. If I could run six cruise missile launchers on my Tengu, I know what I'd be running... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
836
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 00:34:00 -
[249] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Epic. Just Epic. Epic fail on the devs part, perhaps. "But they look so perty..." Since when did missiles become a primarily PvE skill? Maybe there should be a pop-up disclaimer when you go to train them: "This skill is entirely USELESS outside of missioning. Proceed? [Yes] [No] [Hell No]" I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
838
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 01:09:00 -
[250] - Quote
XvXTeacherVxV wrote:There's no way to justify these systems if it's accurate. It is. Now you know why most of us are incensed. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
839
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 01:32:00 -
[251] - Quote
The only ship that's halfway decent with HAMs is a Tengu and some +5% implants (heavy missiles, rapid launch, guided missile precision and target navigation prediction). And the required Faction and Deadspace modules.
Moonaura wrote:The Cruise missiles have a lot of alpha, so surprise people when they hit. As I said, if I could run cruise launchers on my Tengu (well, more than one) I'd be in 7th heaven. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
839
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 01:50:00 -
[252] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:This is a Raven I would try Careful, you might give Rise ideas on what to nerf next... (like the fit though). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
840
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 02:20:00 -
[253] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:I kid you not, I have kept it back before now for this very reason lol Apparently 250mm rails are doing well on the Tengu. Guess those will be nerfed next... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
842
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 03:06:00 -
[254] - Quote
Another consideration is to run a Signal Amplifier II in a low slot, thus freeing up a mid slot for something else. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
843
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 06:07:00 -
[255] - Quote
Cardano Firesnake wrote:40s reload time is fine No, the 40-second reload is not fine. It doesn't work in PvE and you only have to last 40-50 seconds against an opponent that uses RLMLs or RHMLs in PvP. After that, if he can't disengage or call in reinforcements in - he's dead.
Stitch Kaneland wrote:I've killed scorp navy issues with that phoon. Still got 300 dps in drones to wittle them down between reloads. Stop acting like time stops when you reload and you're stuck twiddling your thumbs. In a BS you should be using an active tank with RHML for surviving the reloads. That fit is capable on fill tilt (overheat, ogres and rage) to put out 1441 paper dps. Do you know how fast I can bring damage down to a workable level for my tank with that? Most bcs will die within the reload. Or 1-2 hacs. So don't tell me my fights won't be interesting. Its about target management and ship specialization. Its meant to kill hacs, and it does. It's an interesting fit, to be sure - so kudos on the creativity. I'd love to have a friendly dual with you sometime - I'll bring a Navy Raven with cruise missiles and we can put your RHMLs to the test. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
844
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 12:38:00 -
[256] - Quote
Comprehensive Medium Missile Analysis Following is a medium missile damage application analysis. The test case was a base Tengu with 3x Ballistic Control II modules on a V-skilled toon and no implants. Weapons compared were T2 versions of rapid light missile launchers, heavy assault missile launchers and heavy missile launchers - all utilizing standard Caldari Faction Scourge ammunition. Both ammunition capacity and reloading time were factored into potential damage. Damage enhancement options were i) base (no rigs) and ii) rigs (2x T2 Rigor, 1x T2 Flare). These were further enhanced as follows: a) no electronic warfare, b) a single 60% stasis web and c) a single 37.5% target painter.
The results were graphed as a % of maximum damage application, using rapid light missile launchers as the baseline. When you see any bar "plateau", that means you're doing 100% damage application for that configuration (this doesn't necessarily translate into 100% DPS, however - since I'm not factoring in shield, armor or hull resistances).
Note: The spreadsheet utilizes the exact in-game missile formulas from EVE, so the results are fairly accurate.
Tengu Missile Comparison, Base First up, a base Tengu with no electronic warfare. You can instantly see the difference rigs make, although for RLMLs there's almost no benefit if you're hunting anything larger than frigates. For HAMLs and HMLs, rigs benefit damage application to all ships smaller than battlecruisers. The damage application bump from using HAMs with rigs is just insane, and it's pretty-clear that HAMs are ideal for taking on anything from frigates to cruisers. No surprises with HMLs, other than RLMLs actually outperform them against cruisers (even with the 40-second reload). It's not until you start utilizing HMs against battlecruisers and battleships that they begin to truly shine. The effects of CCP Fozzie's HML nerf are fairly apparent.
Tengu Missile Comparison, Stasis Web Next up, we add a single 60% stasis web to the fit. Again, this has almost no benefit for RLMLs except against interceptors - but a single web with rigs puts HAM damage application to 100% for anything destroyer size or larger. Since HAMs typically have shorter range, this is actually a good pairing. A similarly-rigged HML setup also achieves 100% damage application starting with cruisers, although you sacrifice your range advantage.
Tengu Missile Comparison, Target Painter Finally, we swap the stasis web out for a single T2 target painter. The big winners here are RLMLs and HMLs, especially considering the extra range on target painters (although the increase in damage application with target painters is still less than with stasis webs). While HAMs also benefit from target painters, damage application is more pronounced with stasis webs.
Conclusions: GÇó RLMLs: You get about as much benefit from a single stasis web or target painter, so you might as well use your rigs for tank. GÇó HMLs: They still suck, man do they suck. The fact that you need full rigors and flares to do 100% damage to battlecruisers speaks volumes. GÇó HAMLs: The clear winner in all of this, as they have some incredible potential when combined with rigs and webs/target painters (which probably means they're going to get nerfed next).
Comments welcome. Thanks. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
846
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 16:09:00 -
[257] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:HMLs - you say you need rig/tackle support for full damage from HMs to a BC, but I think this only applies to an ABing one. Do you think that's unreasonable? I think we all agree that HMs need fixing, but it's not clear which of more base damage or more precision they need. I lean towards more base damage, although some combination of the two would also likely work. Correct, it's the same effectiveness against an AB Battleship as well as an AB Battlecruiser (89.9%). Is that unreasonable? Yes and no, as base HAMs are 100% effective against the same class of ships. For HMs, I don't think switching to either Fury or Precision ammunition will make any difference - although I'm going to throw those options up in a specific HML comparison later just to see how effective they are (my suspicion is that Faction and Precision will be a wash, with Fury under performing).
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I think the word "suck" is a little emotive compared to the rest of the analysis :) but I generally agree. When discussing fits with corp mates I argue for either HAMs or Cruise. HMLs fall in the middle of the two, and not in a good way. To be sure. I was actually surprised with where HMLs came in at, as I always assumed they were a bit better. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
847
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 17:03:00 -
[258] - Quote
I revised the original comparison with a 4th graph showing base damage application (no rigs or electronic warfare). I've included the amended portion here. The results areGǪ intriguing, but I'll let viewers draw their own conclusions. GǪ..
Tengu Missile Comparison, T2 Missiles As an added bonus, I've included a comparison with T2 ammunition (no rigs or electronic warfare). It's kind of an interesting graph, because it really shows under which scenarios Precision, Fury, Javelin or Rage really shine. I was actually surprised to see how well Fury LMs outperformed both Precision and Fury HMs on cruisers (truly scaryGǪ) HAMs seem to benefit most from Rage ammunition against battlecruisers and battleships. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
848
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 17:18:00 -
[259] - Quote
Wayward Hero wrote:To address the "fun" factor of Rapid launchers, and ignoring (for now) corrections that should be made to base missile damage and precision;
The implementation of the rapid launcher change is not fun. Players (myself) do not like 40sec reload times, nor the inability to effectively utilize the advantage of ammo selection that is a large draw to missile use. Down time is not fun (see: primary complaint of ECM mechanics)
The "burst" mechanic of rapid launchers is very interesting (personal opinion). It's current implementation does not highlight it effectively. Turning rapid launchers into pseudo-alpha weapons is really cool. If the missiles were fired even more rapidly (2x), from an even smaller clip, with a reasonable reload time (10 - 20 seconds) and with rate of fire skills applied to reload times, it would be more fun (they would feel more like an alpha-type weapon system).
A slight reduction in DPS potential from rapid launchers was reasonable. Turning these weapons systems into an extreme headache to manage was not.
And I cannot stress enough, with the fact that nearly 50% of the engagement time with rapid launchers is dictated by reload time (as the damage potential from a clip of rapids is insufficient to destroy more than a single target, if that), rate of fire bonuses from the missile skill tree and hull bonuses lose nearly half of their potency. This is extremely disheartening. The problem now is that if we adjust the damage on light missiles, RLMLs become even less effective. But as you aptly point out, they're simply "not fun". I have a few twisted ideas which I'm going to run through my spreadsheet to see what kind of alternatives we might have... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
849
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 17:51:00 -
[260] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:I'm happy for the space rich who can fly around in Tengu's, but spare a thought for those who have to make do with t1 caracals because we just lost our primary weapon system, Tengu's have other options. I used the Tengu because it's on the extreme end of cruisers. I could do an analysis with the Caracal, but as I'm only comparing a single launcher I'm not sure the 12.5% rate of fire difference is going to make a huge difference. In fact, a slightly slower rate of fire might actually translate into better damage application. But I'll have a peek... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
850
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 18:22:00 -
[261] - Quote
Here's a new comparison chart between the Caracal, Navy Caracal and Tengu. Again, I'm only using a single launcher in the analysis - so the Navy Caracal and Tengu will have 20% more damage potential. As you can see, this affirms what Caracal players have been saying since Rubicon was released: RLMLs are far less effective against cruiser-sized targets (the fact that HMLs are on par with or exceed damage application for RLMLs speaks for itself). These are of course without rigs or electronic warfare, but the previous charts give a good idea of what one can expect for performance improvements.
Cruiser RLML-HML Comparison I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
850
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 18:36:00 -
[262] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:No the graphs are great, but you said HAM's are 100% effective against ships in the same class... certain people will sieze on that and run with it, when it isn't strictly true. Your own graphs show that they are not 100% effective against all cruisers, maybe some "Battle"cruisers but not all. Other than that I do appreciate the work your putting in with the graphs, really helps get a good idea of what weapons are useful for which jobs. This is correct. HAMs don't reach 100% of unbonused damage application (rigs, electronic warfare) until you hit AB Battlecruisers. However, if we're comparing RLML and HAML damage application using RLMLs as a baseline: GÇó HAMs are 99% effective against MWD Destroyers GÇó HAMs are 126% effective against AB Cruisers GÇó HAMs are 142% effective against MWD AHACs GÇó HAMs are 215% effective against MWD Cruisers GÇó HAMs are 244% effective (max) against all Battlecruisers and Battleships
Basically this means you could go either way for destroyers, but HAMs will always outperform RLMLs against cruisers by a factor of 126-215%. With rigors and flares, the difference is even more obscene - because RLMLs essentially gain nothing beyond Frigates: GÇó HAMs are 173% effective against MWD Destroyers GÇó HAMs are 219% effective against AB Cruisers GÇó HAMs are 244% (max) effective against everything else
Webs offer the most benefit for increasing damage application, and they tend to lend themselves more to short-range weapons. A HAM setup with rigors, flares and a stasis web will truly be a force to be reckoned with - particularly on the Navy Caracal which receives an additional +25% explosion radius bonus to heavy assault missiles. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
850
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 19:08:00 -
[263] - Quote
Here's one more interesting chart that compares a RLML Caracal to HAM Navy Caracal and HAM Tengu (no rigs or electronic warfare). Ammunition is Faction vs. T2 Fury/Rage. One might initially think that HAM Rage ammunition would be OPGǪ but you'd be wrong. The reason for that is a hidden variable called the Damage Reduction Factor (DRF). It's 4.5 for Faction heavy assault missiles but 4.8 for T2 heavy assault missiles. Combined with lower damage application (explosion radius, explosion velocity) - you are almost always better utilizing Faction ammunition unless you're planning to take on Battlecruisers or Battleships (then and only then Rage wins).
Cruiser Ammo Comparison I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
850
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 19:12:00 -
[264] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:Buffing the raw DPS of heavy missiles will have a major effect on their damage against large, slow targets, while having very minimal effect against smaller, faster targets (30 DPS to 33 DPS yay!). It would not fix the current situation. It would merely make them more popular against structures, battleships, and capitals (which is already what they are best at) while leaving them near useless for all other situations. The only problem is that this potentially skews the new rapid heavy missile launchers, because they benefit most from damage - not rate of fire. Torpedoes are now effectively useless. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
850
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 19:58:00 -
[265] - Quote
Last chart for a bitGǪ promise.
Caracal RHML-HAM Comparison
This one is specifically for Caracal users. I didn't include the original RLMLs because, well - it's depressing - and you've already been kicked enough with the last update...
I've highlighted the ideal choice (bright red and bright blue) depending on application, ie: frigates - RLML Precision; cruisers - HAM Javelin. Rigs were a T1 hydraulic, T1 rigor and T1 flare for both. With Precision LMs, you gain almost 100% damage application without the use of electronic warfare, but at the expense of range (36.4km); Faction will give you less damage application but 72.8km range (and you could probably swap-out the hydraulic for an EM shield rig instead). For HAMs, Javelin all the way. Less damage application than Faction, but you get a really decent 52.4km range (which compares favorably to the unmodified 63.3km Faction RLMLs).
If you opt for RLMLs I wouldn't even bother with a target painter or web. A single TP is a definite must for HAMs though, as this will greatly improve damage application against everything (particularly small targets). A web for HAM Javelins defeats the purpose of clawing back any range loss from switching from RLMLs. Just for kicks I included HAM Rage, but these really only shine against battlecruisers and battleships. You could probably improve this with rigors, flares and some electronic warfare component - but this will greatly weaken your tank and basically place you at point-blank firing range for turrets. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
850
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 20:07:00 -
[266] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:I'm confused. I'm arguing against a raw DPS buff. Heavy missile damage application is what needs to be addressed not raw damage. Sorry, I'm agreeing with you - a straight DPS buff solves nothing for heavy missiles - and has the potential put rapid heavy launchers over the top. Unfortunately, we're looking at the same scenario for improving damage application to heavy missiles, because this potentially turns battleships into cruiser killers and frigate maulers. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing (hey, I'm not objectingGǪ), but this will lead to another round of missile vs. turret discussions - and there's already growing resentment with having a cruiser-class (bonused) weapons platform for a battleship.
I have a sneaky suspicion that the revised RLML/RHMLs with reduced ammunition capacity and 40-second reload were to pacify the growing turret animosity towards RLMLs and to prevent same with the first iteration of RHMLs. Not that I agree; I think both should've been shelved for a January update where we could've explored other options. They're now such a mess and have wrought such havoc with players that I'm not sure either are salvageable.
Fourteen Maken wrote:Here I am with my fully loaded RLML Caracal and I just calculated that even with faction ammo I have a total of 9,680 potential scourge dps in the tubes before I need to reload. Not impressed Javelin HAMs could be your new friend... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
851
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 21:36:00 -
[267] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Really Arthur, the turret users in this thread have been nothing but supportive. Oh wait... Look, dronesGǪ
Zvaarian the Red wrote:Isn't that the idea behind RHMLs? To be a cruiser killer? Right now they really aren't. With the first iteration, I thought so. Now, I'm not entirely sure. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
852
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 23:25:00 -
[268] - Quote
Dr Sraggles wrote:Arthur, we need Javelin Faction Missiles on the graphs for a complete discussion please. Thx so much for your fine work so far.
Been thinking about a more detailed response to what the graphs show and would love to have the final piece of the puzzle displayed. Ask and ye shall receive... Here are three (3) updated charts. Since the Caracal has been the most affected, I focused this last effort solely on it. I stuck with RLMLs and HAMLs, because I don't think we'll be happy with HML performance:
GÇó T2 RLML with Faction ammunition GÇó T2 RLML with Precision ammunition GÇó T2 RLML with Fury ammunition GÇó Faction RLML with Faction ammunition GÇó T2 HAML with Javelin ammunition GÇó Faction HAML with Faction ammunition
Then I applied this to three different graphs:
1. Base (3x T2 Ballistic Control) 2. Base + rigs (3x T2 Ballistic Control, 2x T1 Rigor, 1x T1 Flare) 3. Base + rigs + painter (3x T2 Ballistic Control, 2x T1 Rigor, 1x T1 Flare, 1x T2 Target Painter)
Caracal, RLML-HAML Comparison (Base) Caracal, RLML-HAML Comparison (Base + Rigs) Caracal, RLML-HAML Comparison (Base + Rigs + EW)
I'll let viewers draw their own conclusions, but just a few quick observations:
GÇó vs. Interceptors: T2 RLML/Precision ammo = win (rigs or otherwise) GÇó vs. Frigates: Faction RLML/Faction ammo w/rigs > T2 RLML/Faction-Precision-Rage ammo w/rigs GÇó vs. Destroyers: T2 HAML/Javelin ammo w/rigs ~ T2 RLML/Rage ammo w/rigs (Rage has slight edge) GÇó vs. Cruisers and up: T2 HAML/Javelin ammo w/rigs > T2 RLML/Faction-Precision-Rage ammo w/rigs
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
855
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 23:28:00 -
[269] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:Awesome. I have a lot of skills to level up first but I think your right; looks like Javelin HAM's are the way forward for Caracals now, I can see them being useful defending medium plexes, pity the fittings are so tight I really need near perfect skills to get the best out of them. and thanks, at least now I know what to train towards The numbers certainly seem to bear it out. You're losing a bit of range with Javelins over light missiles (a hydraulic rig will compensate to some degree), but you do more volley damage - and you have over four times the ammunition.
TrouserDeagle wrote:if you're going in with the intention of using jav hams, you may as well be using hmls instead. The only reason to use HMLs would be for the extreme range. The problem then becomes damage application at that range, because you need two target painters to get the same benefit of a single target painter. And Javelin HAMs exceed the DPS and damage application of a Faction HM without the need for a target painter. HMLs are so bad in PvP that with outside of rare exceptions they're almost exclusively limited to PvE activities. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
857
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 00:07:00 -
[270] - Quote
Caracal Build 2x Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Precision light missiles 3x Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Javelin heavy assault missiles 2x Hornet II light drones 10MN Microwarpdrive II Medium Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 100 Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Medium Shield Extender II Cap Recharger II 3x Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II 2x Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst I 1x Medium Semiconductor Memory Cell I .....
3m 20s capacitor 14.7k EHP (38.8%, 51.0%, 63.3%, 69.4% shield resistance) 339 DPS (35.9 drone DPS), 758 alpha 31.6km/45.6km range 1881 m/s speed (132/792 signature) I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
858
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 00:41:00 -
[271] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:you're pretty awful Be nice. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
859
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 00:59:00 -
[272] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Just so my pleb brain can absorb this correctly, the graphs are based on DPS yes / no. If yes, is it DPS over a period of time to allow for reloads. If no, how much would reloads affect the damage application Yes, based on DPS - but it's applied/effective damage (not paper DPS). Yes, both ammunition capacity and reloads are factored into the equation (hence why you'll see slight variations between Faction and T2 where applicable). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
859
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 01:12:00 -
[273] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:There is an interesting irony though here as well. The old RLML wouldn't have been even close to troubling an Incursus like that. Its peak DPS wouldn't push the tank anything like as hard, and this Incursus fit means once its shifted, the Caracal DPS drops significantly. It really is a cool little module since they buffed it. I wanted to ponder this a bit more and check some numbers before replying... In actuality, when you factor in reload times the old RLMLs out-DPS the new RLMLs by about 25% (25.6%, if we want to get technical). What we got was a nerf masquerading as a burst. So no, while it wouldn't have initially hammered the Incursus - slow and steady wins the race here. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
859
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 02:07:00 -
[274] - Quote
Caracal Frigate Massacre (aka "Catch me if you can!") 5x T2 RLML, Faction light missiles 2x Hornet II light drones Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Cap Recharger II 2x Target Painter II 3x Ballistic Control System II Capacitor Power Relay II 2x Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst I 1x Medium Semiconductor Memory Cell I
Cap stable (31.7%). 1881 m/s speed 335 DPS (371 DPS w/drones), 63.3km range .....
Orbit at a comfortable range and shoot. GÇó Faction light missiles are 94.9% effective against AB frigates (which you can outrun) GÇó Faction light missiles are 100% effective against MWD frigates and assault frigates GÇó Even though MWD frigates are faster, they have to catch-up first (did I mention 63.3km range?) I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
859
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 02:10:00 -
[275] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Thanks for the reply to my earlier post. I was finding it a bit hard to get my head around RLML Fury being so effective vs AHAC or even AB cruiser. But it is a tengu and I would expect a 600mil mini battle ship to perform.
I know this is probably a big ask after all the work you have already done. Would you mind doing a comparison using a rail fit tengu vs missiles. Maybe using faction antimatter and the 2 T2 variants.
I will understand if you don't and appreciate all the information you've put out there for us. Np. One thing I should point out: I'm not factoring range into any of these comparisons, just noting it in my comments as to what will probably work best to enhance damage application, ie: rigs, target painters, stasis webs or some combination thereof.
I should be able to come up with something. Let me plug away at it... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
859
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 02:58:00 -
[276] - Quote
Tengu Analysis Tengus are kind of a tricky ship to do a comparative analysis with. For starters, it's a $350-million+ ISK pocket battleship plus whatever you value the loss of 4-5 days of skill training at. Since Tengus shine particularly well (see what I did there?) with Deadspace modules, more often than not the $350-million ISK sticker price represents the base model that almost no one flies. As such, it tends to attract a lot of unwanted attention from small groups seeking fame and fortune. Very rarely will you find yourself engaged by a lone opponent (in every instance where a frigate has engaged me, it was merely to establish point until reinforcements could arrive).
The stated design of the Tengu is to fulfill multiple roles, just not necessarily excel at them beyond their T2 or faction counterparts. That being said, it's a difficult juggling act to get the fit right when you're potentially facing a group of everything from interceptors to other strategic cruisers.
I had a close look at three Tengu setups: one with rapid light launchers, another with heavy assault launchers and the last with 250mm railguns. On paper, if we exclude reload times and damage types - DSP is very similar (603, 557 and 578 respectively). Range is also comparable with 42.2km for LMs, 45.6km for HAMs and 36km+15km for rails. The ability to hit targets is also fairly consistent among the three, that is until the target angle changes - and where the importance of tracking enhancers or computers comes into play.
And therein lies the rub. With a rail setup, Tengus only have a sole low slot reserved for damage control - so if you want a passive tracking enhancer you're giving up about 10% DPS or the damage control. Otherwise, you're relegated to running 1 or more tracking computers in mid slots. Since there are only five free slots after a propulsion mod, this starts to chew up real estate relatively quickly. If you get into a short-range engagement (a definite possibility if jumped by multiple opponents), nothing short of dual-webs is going to allow you to hit anything. Rail Tengus work great in fleet doctrines because they basically apply instant damage, and compared to heavy missiles this is night and day.
The unfortunate reality is that in anything but a missile fit, the Tengu is extremely vulnerable. The only thing working for it is the range advantages of missiles and the ability to hit moving targets regardless of angle. At close-range, it's easily neuted by a Legion, webbed by a Loki or scrammed by a Proteus. There might be some interesting armor Tengu fits, so I'm going to take a look at those.
(sorry, no chart) I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
859
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 03:01:00 -
[277] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:I know you understand that for anyone with less than perfect skills, EFT fits are a distant dream? T2's specialization to 4, missile supports to 4. The numbers are very different, like 290dps @ 47k and with meta 4 TP's you get 48% cap stable for no loss in effectiveness.
The fit is still viable but 47k is a lot easier to close on than 63. 1 mistake you die. Yeah, I'm too lazy to change my settings in pyfa... I'm mostly IV, with a few scatterings of V here and there. I'd probably be further ahead with missiles if certain people stopped screwing around with them and diverting my training... Oh, without a doubt that fit can be improved upon. This is one of the challenges we have with Caldari ships: juggling both missiles -and- shields. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
859
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 09:24:00 -
[278] - Quote
Caught a Dramiel last night and he died to the combined efforts of a) 5x Arbalest RHMLs, b) 2 stasis webs and a scram and 3) a medium neut. I went with an armor fit on my Tengu, which suffice it to say he was not expecting. I would've got another frigate but got caught reloading my RLMLs, whereby reinforcements arrived and led to my untimely demise. GǪ..
I later went out with another "ship" fitted with RLMLs, and drove everything up to and including a Tengu off. This fit shows a lot more promise (wasn't a Tengu). Still loathing the 40-second reload...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
859
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 11:58:00 -
[279] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:Was it a Bellicose by any chance? That's the ship I enjoy fittings these weapons to the most. Nope.
Kagura Nikon wrote:You mean a stupid tengu? because even 2 cerberuses with rapids cannot even get to half shields of a tengu before they run of of chrages and the tengu kill one of them before turnign awy and leaving with plenety of time before you reload. Stupid might be a bit harsh; let's call it "ambitious" (it was running a HAM setup). I hit him with something else in addition to the RLMLsGǪ
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
859
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 12:08:00 -
[280] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:Is this still the case? Are all medium missiles going to be reviewed because I haven't seen a single player with any credibility try to say that HML's are working, or even close to it. I think most of the open hostility towards RLML really comes from the fact that a lot of people were not just using RLML for killing frigates but as the last plausible weapon against other small cruisers as well. The original RLMLs were not only effective against anything from frigates to cruisers, but they did so without the assistance of rigs or any electronic warfare. Range was really decent (60km+), upwards of 80 rounds in terms of capacity, a 10-second reload and - probably the most important aspect - <50 power grid fitting per launcher. This last element cannot be appreciate enough, as it allowed Caracals to allocate more to tank.
So it's not just that the new RLMLs resulted in a 25.4% DPS hit or that the 40-second reload killed tactical ammo swaps, but just to continue to run them you lost a considerable portion of your tank. Had the fitting requirements remained unchanged, I suspect their use would be more prevalent than it is. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
860
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 13:35:00 -
[281] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Seeing then Arthur's numbers, I think missile balance is rather good between themselves : even when factoring reload, RLML are the goto weapon to shoot at frigates ; HAML are the best overall and HML are for long range.
Details might need some tweeks but the relative power between all of them is good I think. Yes, this is why all of the charts I posted have comparisons with HMLsGǪ oh, waitGǪ I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
861
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 15:10:00 -
[282] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:I've filled it full of target painters - for which it gets a bonus. Just FYI, there's more to be gained with a pair of dual webs than another pair of target painters (although this does entirely defeat the whole range advantage with heavy missiles):
GÇó 3x Target Painters = 37.5% + (86.9% x 37.5% = 32.58) + (57.1% x 37.5% = 21.41) = +91.5% signature GÇó 2x T2 Webs = 40% + (86.9% x 40% = 34.76) = -74.76% velocity I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
862
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 20:50:00 -
[283] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:That is NOT how it works. This is what happens when sleep deprivation sets inGǪ my point still stands, though: 3 target painters and 2 webs will be more effective than 5 target painters (even if the target painters receive bonuses).
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I would encourage die-hard missile fans who are disappointed with HMs to try cruise missile fitted ships if possible. I think you'll be really pleased. I keep asking them to lower the power grid requirement so I can run them on my Tengu, but to no availGǪ
Moonaura wrote:I've earlier today posted that a Bellicose with five Target Painters on can't do the job - and explained that for Heavy Missiles - you should not expect to be in webbing range. Agreed. If you find yourself in web range with HMLs, you're already dead... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
869
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 00:05:00 -
[284] - Quote
Updated Comparison I's time get the discussion back on-track, it's chart time again! Target vessels have been sorted according to applied damage, and each line on the graph represents 20 applied DPS. First, the disclaimers...
Target Vessels: I revised the values for all ships up to and including strategic cruisers, utilizing the "worst-case scenario", ie: the fastest Minmatar ships with the lowest signature radius. Opposing ship fittings consisted of an applicable T2 propulsion module with V skills. As these do not reflect a signature increase or velocity decrease due to shield extenders, armor plating, associated rigs, implants (-¦) or the wide range of variations one will experience with different races - these should be taken with a grain of salt.
Missile Test Platform: This was a base Tengu with V skills and subsystems. A single T2 launcher with Faction Scourge ammunition was fitted along with 3x T2 Ballistic Control Systems. For the rig comparison, 2x T2 Medium Warhead Rigors and 1x T2 Medium Warhead Flare rigs were utilized. Electronic warfare was a single T2 Target Painter. DPS reflects both reload times and ammunition capacity.
Missile Comparison (with and without rigs) Missile Comparison (electronic warfare, with and without rigs) RLMLs - as has been previously stated, there's almost no benefit to running rigs against cruisers, and a single target painter is more effective against destroyers than full rigs. HAMLs - a single target painter makes HAMs more effective against cruisers than LMs. With rigs, these are insane. HMLs - these really need rigs and target painters to shine.
Missile Comparison, HML Fix (with and without rigs) Missiles Comparison, HML Fix (electronic warfare, with and without rigs) Oh, and I fixed medium HMs. Completely. The change takes all of modifying 2 lines of code. I'll let the results speak for themselvesGǪ I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
870
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 00:41:00 -
[285] - Quote
HML fix, see above. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
873
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 01:00:00 -
[286] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Forgive me Arthur, what do you mean by "fix"? Are you proposing a fix to HMLs, or have you fixed the spreadsheet that generated the charts? I was able to fix the non-modified damage application of HAMLs and HMLs against smaller vessels, and the second series of graphs show the results with and without rigs, and with and without rigs while using electronic warfare. As an example, against the MWD Interceptor HAMs previously did 4.55 DPS - they now do 9.37 DPS; HMs previously did 5.42 DPS - they now do 6.29. The benefit is more pronounced for HAMs, less so for HMs. The bottom line is that an unmodified original HML does 5.42 DPS against a MWD Interceptor; a modified HML (rigs, EW) now does 11.57. For comparison, the new RLML does 26.7 DPS similarly configured.
What's most important is that this particular fix doesn't alter the damage application of HAMs and HMs against cruisers and larger targets, so it won't skew damage application for the new rapid heavy missile launchers against large targets (they will be marginally more effective against smaller targets, however). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
873
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 01:41:00 -
[287] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:I gotta say that is a nice change. CCP, hire this man to repair all the chaos and destruction that CCP 40sec and CCP Fizzle create. Thanks! I'd settle for a trip to FanFest. Next on the list: torpedoes and capital missilesGǪ I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
873
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 01:43:00 -
[288] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:So basically, you just altered the explosion radius and or explosion velocity correct? Or did you use a ship bonus for that? I am curious how exactly you thought to do that fix. Nope. If we can get a dev response in this thread, I'll be happy to post all my source data. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
874
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 03:10:00 -
[289] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:Edit: never mind I figured it out HAM's seemed to get a good improvement but HML is still not right, I'm sorry. Actually, heavy missiles are right on the money. When factoring in reload time, pfya says the Tengu comes in at 481 DPS, which is 80.17 DPS per launcher (my numbers actually show 80.24, so the variance with my adjustments is .0008). With T2 rigs and a single target painter, the "revised" heavy missile launchers show:
GÇó 100% damage application against a MWD Loki strategic cruiser GÇó 82.2% damage application against a MWD Stabber cruiser GÇó 67.6% damage application against a MWD Thrasher destroyer GÇó 63.3% damage application against a MWD Vagabond HAC GÇó 48.4% damage application against a AB Stabber cruiser
Using rigs means less tank, but it also means you get to apply the range advantage of HMLs against fast-moving targets. If you want to forego that in lieu of close quarters combat, the "revised" heavy assault missile launchers are far deadlier. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
874
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 03:43:00 -
[290] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:Why do you need a dev in the thread to share your fix with us? I know for a fact that they are reading this thread (via direct correspondence), so they will see it. Expecting them to post to ask for it is kind of strange to me. Hell if you don't want to share it with the non-developers for some reason but are sure it fixes the issue, mail it directly to Rise. I was hoping to get them actively involved in a discussion to address these shortfalls, but here's the fix:
GÇó The missile formula contains a variable called dry (damage reduction factor). This is set to 2.8 for light missiles, 3.2 for heavy missiles and 4.5 for heavy assault missiles. GÇó I changed this to 3.0 for heavy missiles and 3.2 for heavy assault missiles. That's it.
It looks great on paper (which is all I have to test from, unfortunately), but if it bears out I think it holds promise. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
875
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 04:57:00 -
[291] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:As I mentioned in the other thread you started it looks like a hefty buff for HAMs and a tiny buff for HMs. Now that I know the numbers involved I can see why. You reduced the value for HAMs by 28.9% and the value for HMs by a mere 6.25%. Looking at your graph all I see is a tiny nudge up for HMs and a very real possibility that HAMs may become overpowered against medium and smaller targets.
Now all that said, I think your change to HMs is something worth looking at. I've never seen anyone really break down what damage reduction factor really does. To me though it seems like a variable that makes the whole thing unstable and overly complex. Perhaps uniformity across all missiles with this value and adjustments to damage values across the board to compensate is an avenue that could be approached. It would certainly seem that the damage reduction factor is a major factor in why larger missiles seem to often have ridiculously low damage against smaller targets, and why the problem seems to get worse and worse as the size of the missile goes up. Light missiles have a drf value of 2.8, rockets 3, heavy missiles 3.2 and heavy assault missiles 4.5. If we agree that light missiles have excellent damage application, but that both heavy and heavy assault missiles suck - we have a little wiggle room (more for heavy assault missiles). Thus, I changed the value to 3 for heavy missiles and 3.2 for heavy assault missiles, to bring it more in-line with the difference between light missiles and rockets. So yes, it might seem like I buffed HAMs more than HMs, but it only seems that wayGǪ Drf isn't broken per say, it just needs a few minor adjustments.
There's another interesting variable called Detonation Proximity that might be fun to play with. I don't think it would have any bearing on the actual missile mechanics (at least I couldn't find any link), but it might be cool from a visual standpoint seeing cruise missiles and torpedoes exploding 100m or more from the target.
I don't think that HAMs will necessarily become OP against medium and smaller targets, for the sole reason that it takes full T2 rigs and a target painter to fully realize their potential. On the scale of tank to glass cannon, it's leaning more towards the latter. Also note that this is on a Tengu (not Caracals or Drakes), and T3s are slated for a rebalanceGǪ Also note that even though I don't necessarily like the mechanics of the rapid light and rapid heavy missile launchers, I can't ignore the fact that they exist. Buffing heavy missiles more than what I adjusted them would turn the Raven and Typhoon into absolute nightmares and thus unbalance another weapon system.
Heavy missiles become better against smaller targets, as they should. Against medium targets, they need rigs or target painters to achieve higher their full potential - which isn't necessarily any different than rails needing tracking enhancers or tracking computers. Heavy missiles still have a huge range advantage. Yes, a ballistic enhancer would be nice - but chances are missiles would then be subject to tracking disruptors. And once Pandora's Box is opened... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
875
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 05:22:00 -
[292] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:...the only thing we'll have left is hope. But hope for what? Also, since you're playing around with various missile values I want to ask what you're using to do this. Is this a Pyfa thing? Hope that we'll yet redeem the SP we trained for missile skillsGǪ I've actually got a separate spreadsheet for the calculations; I'm just using pyfa for the ship and module stats. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
878
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 12:38:00 -
[293] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:First of all HAMs are not even close to being at the same level of need as HMs. As it is they are presently usable, which HMs really are not outside of PVE. Are HAMs a bit underpowered? Probably. But not at all compared to HMs. Also you said it may look like you buffed HAMs more than HMs when you actually didn't, but your chart clearly indicates you did. I have both charts on tabs in my browser and the HAM bars jump a massive amount when I switch them while the HMs only move slightly. Finally, RHMLs can be adjusted down if need be. Holding HMs back for such a niche (read mostly crap) weapon system is the wrong way to go. If as you say, HAMs are usable - then why aren't they the medium of choice for PvP? The answer is damage application, and to a lesser degree the fact that Caldari cruisers aren't necessarily setup for brawling. Assuming you could even engage a MWD Interceptor with HAMs, the current damage application compared to RLMLs is 14.8%. After the proposed "fix" it's 31.2%. Also bear in mind that this is with a Tengu - and not a Caracal, so you're losing 25% kinetic damage, 12.5% ROF and a further 16.7% in overall damage (5 launchers). As I previously mentioned, T3s are getting rebalanced - so this should be viewed as the optimal scenario and subject to change in the near future. If you want, I'll be happy to do up a chart with a Caracal instead (it's not as impressive, though).
Fourteen Maken wrote:I'm sorry but I have to be honest and the more I look at this proposal the less I like it, true they are far from OP against medium targets, in fact whatever you've done has hardly changed the application against other cruisers, but yet more than doubled their effectiveness against small targets. Doing it so that the changes are disproportionately impacting small fast ships like interceptors whilst barely changing their application against other cruisers is just the opposite of what needs to be done. I think using a blinged out ganky HAM Tengu is probably the wrong way to go about it, T2 rigors are not an option for most of the ships that use HAM's nobody will really use them on anything other than a Tengu for pvp. But now I've seen the numbers I'd rather leave them alone than have HAM Tengu's chewing up interceptors and ab frigates with such ease. For me personally it's a better argument against buffing HAM's than anything the turret fanboys managed in the whole thread lol. I think if you look at it again you'll feel the same, a slight tweak is all HAM's need so they do more damage against other cruisers, not ~100% damage application buff against interceptors and the like, and HML is still useless even after the changes. so it's not doing it for me. I hope you don't take this the wrong way because your on the right track and I do appreciate all your efforts. Not at all. The graph looks skewed because what you're seeing for RLMLs factors in reloads. So it looks like HAMs got an extreme buff, when in actuality they're only marginally better. I think to allow a fair comparison, I'll do another chart up with a Caracal. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
878
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 13:10:00 -
[294] - Quote
Here's a revised HML proposal for consideration. Heavy Missile Fix I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
882
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 17:46:00 -
[295] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Again, the problem with your numbers is that they only show worse case scenarios here (the fastest and smallest ships with prop mod running). I'm afraid your HM will apply full damage to evrything else without efforts... I'm going to update the graph for a Caracal, so stay tuned. If you're willing to provide me with some fits for the aforementioned target ships, I'll gladly revise the stats. I just need a short list of anything that would affect speed and signature. Feel free to suggest some alternatives (Amarr, Gallente, Minmatar and even Caldari). I don't fly most of those ships, so any input is appreciated. Thanks. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
882
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 18:07:00 -
[296] - Quote
Dr Sraggles wrote:Thanks for all you efforts on this. I am sorry I haven't posted for a few days. Thanks again for adding Faction HAMs to the Graphs.
However, this discussion is not complete unless we have Faction Heavy Missiles displayed on your graphs. These are the default HML for those in pvp and the discussion would benefit greatly from a look at their performance against frigs/dessies/cruisers. Np. Right now I'm just focusing on a RHML -+ HML comparisons as the consensus seems to be that HAMs are ok for the moment. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
882
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 18:14:00 -
[297] - Quote
Updated Heavy Missiles From the Caracal perspective. T2 launchers, Faction ammunition and T1 rigs. Old numbers in light blue - new numbers in light grey. Maximum DPS is 53.91 per launcher, which is only achieved against MWD Cruiser and MWD Strategic (and then, only with rigs). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
882
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 18:18:00 -
[298] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:Those people are wrong - HAMs need 10-20% better damage application to be ok. The previous adjustment I made gave HAMs a 60-100% buff against smaller ships (only), and about 10-20% against cruiser-size vessels. I don't think it was that well-received... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
882
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 18:27:00 -
[299] - Quote
Caracal RHML-HAM-HML Comparison Existing RHMLs, existing HAMLs (no buff) and the new proposed HMLs (slight buff). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
883
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 21:33:00 -
[300] - Quote
Dr Sraggles wrote:Sorry for the misunderstanding, what I mean is we need Faction HML missiles, not the PvE (T2) ones to talk about. This is the overwhelmingly more popular choice for PvP, as I understand others preferences as well as my own. The configurations all reflect T2 launchers (RLML, HAML and HML) with Faction missiles, 3x T2 Ballistic Controls and T1 rigs. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
885
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 05:09:00 -
[301] - Quote
So I went out with a T1 RHML-fitted Raven tonight to see what I could see... First, forget about damage application to Interceptors - those things can outrun heavy missiles. I found myself in a scrap with a Malediction that pointed me, then a Thorax which I switched to after watching my heavy missiles spiral around endlessly. I came close - but not quite - to killing it before encountering the dreaded 40-second reload. That's when I really got the screws stuck to me... I was joined by a Harbinger, Vexor and Tormentor. Heck, even a Guristas frigate wandered over to get in on the action. I died, but it was a T1/T2 insured fit - so not unlike losing a frigate any other day in Faction Warfare. I put the Thorax into 16% hull before burning out my RHMLs and having my cap drained, which allowed him to escape.
The 40-second reload really needs to go. 20-seconds, tops. They're still not going to be "OP", but they'll be better than they are now. I think I'll have better luck with cruise (at least the interceptors can't outrun them).
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
885
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 05:53:00 -
[302] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:Who knows, maybe if and when HMs get buffed RHMLs will actually be able to kill a cruiser before the reload hits. RLMLs on the other hand just feel hopeless in their current because I simply do not believe CCP will do anything that improves their sustained DPS, and increasing clip size would definitely do that (I'm assuming the x2 suggestion was a joke). I should've mentioned that the Thorax was webbed, neuted, painted and scrammed... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
885
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 08:17:00 -
[303] - Quote
Claud Tiberius wrote:So much fail. I'm not sure where to start. - You should always have fleet support in PvP/FW. In most combat situations, you will not be able to solo the battle and it is never certain what you will be up against. Anything can warp into the battle. - Hvy missiles are not for destroying Frigates. They are too slow, the explosion radius is too slow, and they cannot turn fast enough (i.e. they are not accurate). If you want to hit Frigates, use LM or Rockets. - The Raven is designed for killing BC's, Battle Ships and Capital Ships (and anything in between the 3). Anything else, you need to change the weapon system to something that is non-native (ie. fitting a med or low weapon system). eg: if you are building a BS that is for destroying Destroyers, Crusiers and BC's, you would fit RHML. If you were making a BS for destroying Destroyers, Frigates, Drones, you would fit RLML. You could fit regular Heavy/Light missile launchers, but they are not as effective as the Rapid versions. The natural native weapon system for Ravens are Cruisers and Torpedoes. NOTE: It isn't advisable to fit non-native weapon systems, just because you can. Ship bonuses have a huge effect on the efficiency of weapons. For example, a Raven can fit RLML and be just fine. But so can a Caracal, and the Caracal will deal so much more damage then the Raven, due to its light missile bonuses. If in doubt, always look up the missile ammunition statistics. Their velocity, explosion radius, explosion velocity, and maneuverability should all be considered, in combination to the payload (damage and damage type). A Thorax isn't a Frigate, it's a cruiser. And I'm saying the Raven couldn't kill a dual-webbed, neutralized and scrammed Thorax if its life depended on it (which it did, and lost). So if it can't even kill a cruiser @ 400m that's moving <50m/s, how the heck is it possibly supposed to damage battlecruisers or battleships? I even went back out in another Raven fit with three rigors, went head-to-head with a Deimos and couldn't even get him past armor before being forced to reload. Went through 2 complete clips to no avail. In fact, they just waited until I was forced to reload to hit the armor repair.
Zvaarian the Red wrote:I'm really having a hard time understanding why CCP put the time and effort into putting a new weapon system into the game without making sure it didn't completely suck at its intended job. I just don't get it. I mean adding a new missile weapon system seems to say they want missiles to flourish and be effective, but then its released almost completely useless and I'm left thinking "maybe this is just a sick joke". Missiles are a complete disaster. I'm actually thinking smart bombs would be more effectiveGǪ
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:The poster above me seems to have somewhat missed the point. You noticed that tooGǪ RHMLs vs. THORAX (CRUISER) Yes, the rapid burst version of those supposedly 'superior' medium missiles we've been talking about... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
885
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 11:14:00 -
[304] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Your critical error here was wasting ammo shooting an interceptor that you knew you couldn't hit. Had you saved the RHML volleys for the Thorax, you'd have killed it. The math said I had a better than even chance, but it's also possible they just might have hit the ancillaries earlier too. It was an RHML testing roam, so I shot at every target that presented itself. I tried to take out a Deimos later and put it 35% into hull, but he just waited until the reloads kicked in to light his ancillaries. You really get the screws turned to you during that timeframe... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
885
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 11:25:00 -
[305] - Quote
RLML and RHML observation: Rate of fire bonuses really hurt these weapons, because it's an artificial DPS increase (you're not really doing any more damage, you're just doing it faster). This penalizes Ravens, Typhoons and Navy Scorpions; the only ships that benefit are the Fleet Typhoon and Navy Raven - but you're paying a premium for that.
The first RHML iteration was more like the original RLML in terms of how it performed, and it made a lot more sense to exclude certain bonuses. However, with the burst mechanic - RHMLs really suffer by excluding the missile velocity, explosion velocity and explosion radius bonuses. That's one aspect that could be addressed, but I think the better solution for RLMLs and RHMLs is to go back to the original weapon designs for both.
I think it's been clearly demonstrated that: 1. RLMLs and RHMLs only offer any benefit in small and large gangs, and minimal at best. 2. RLMLs and RHMLs are absolutely untenable for solo PvP and PvE play. 3. Heavy missiles just plain suck outside of PvE. 4. "Houston, we have a missile problem."
Addendum: I think I figured out the best Caldari missile boat - a Navy Scorpion with auto cannons... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
886
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 15:54:00 -
[306] - Quote
Viceorvirtue wrote:It appears he started by shooting the interceptor. He failed to kill it and had to swap to the thorax when t landed on field and became the bigger threat. Sadly because he had shot at the interceptor he did not have enough missiles in the clip to kill the thorax before the 40 second reload. 40 seconds of not shooting was apparently enough to have the rest of the ships land and get secondary tackle.
He lost the fight because he shot at the interceptor, once the thorax landed there really wasn't anything he could have done apart from deagressing that would have saved his ship. Unlike you he obviously did not use rhmls in the only case where they were good (full clip vs single ship) and I have a feeling that is why he died. Also theres also the potential he had the wrong ammotype loaded as well since he would want percisions vs the inty and those might not be able to kill the thorax without an ammo switch anyway. Failed to kill it is a mild understatementGǪ failed to even hit the Interceptor would be more accurate. After switching from the Malediction, I emptied the remainder of the clip into the Thorax, reloaded and emptied another full clip. I even had the launchers overheated. Despite being dual-webbed, neutralized and scrammed - I was only able to put the Thorax to 16% hull. While waiting for the second reload I burned the launchers out while overheating the neutralizer and that was the end of that. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
887
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 16:38:00 -
[307] - Quote
Why Rapid Launchers Suck This next essay is titled: "Why Rapid Launchers Suck".
That Slow, Sucking Sound
Case 1: A Caracal fit with LMLs, RLMLs and HAMs. Despite not receiving any launcher bonuses for standard LMLs, they are 71.9% effective as RLMLs. RLMLs preclude the ability to do a tactical ammo swap, so unless you lucked out with the correct ammunition choice - you're hooped. Then there's the grid requirements, with LMLs being a fraction of RLMLs - so that opens up a ton of configuration options.
Case 2: A Raven fit with HMLs, RHMLs and HAMs. This one's almost as absurdGǪ Despite receiving zero bonuses, HAMsL are between 78-94% as effective as RHMLs on the Raven. I haven't run the number for battlecruisers and battleships, but the graph seems to indicate HAMs will win out for anything above cruisers. Then there's the insane low grid requirements for HAMLs compared to RHMLs.
Conclusion I have a really hard time believing any serious testing and analysis went into RLMLs and RHMLs. I mean, these are supposed to be cruiser-class and battle-ship class weapons, respectively - yet the frigate-class and cruiser-class versions are almost as effective, without any of the tactical drawbacks and limitations. Not too mention the fact that this opens up a wealth of possibilities for expanding tank on both ships. My own PvP excursions with both would seem to further confirm this, as I've been unable to kill cruisers in a single magazine with either RLMLs or RHMLs. Those that have run PvE have indicated missions take 2-3x as long (or even longer), so they're definitely not designed with that in-mind.
It's time to reinstate the old launchers. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
887
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 16:57:00 -
[308] - Quote
Unsucking Rapid Launchers And there was much rejoicing!
"Herman, set the Wayback machine!"
Were the old RLMLs "Op"? No - far from it. They were actually operating just fine. What about the 1st iteration of RHMLs? Again, only marginally better than what we got in Rubicon, and still borderline useless at hitting anything smaller than cruisers.
It's time for this experiment to end. Reinstate the original RLML and RHMLs. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
887
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 17:49:00 -
[309] - Quote
[quote=Stitch KanelandThis isn't a post about how wrong about missiles arthur is, but stating that the fit is what killed him. Not rhml.[/quote] Let's see if we can get some killmails with RLML and RHMLs. Solo engagements, not in a gang. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
887
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 18:22:00 -
[310] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Why does the weapon have to be good for solo ? Where have you been for the last 160 or so odd pagesGǪ? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
897
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 04:50:00 -
[311] - Quote
Just a quick note for those of you still attempting to use RLMLs...
3x T1 Medium Warhead Rigors ($8.4m ISK) is almost as effective as 2x T2 Medium Warhead Rigors and 1x T2 Medium Flare ($86m ISK). With T2 rigs and a Federation Navy Target Painter you will hit 100% damage application against MWD Assault Frigates and higher. By dropping to T1 rigs (and saving yourself $78m ISK in the process), you lose 6% efficiency. Note that this was a real-world comparison using my own IV and V missiles skills, so in all likelihood when you hit V in certain categories or run the odd implant (don't bother with explosion velocity, only explosion radius) this will most likely vanish.
If anyone would like to get together with their RLML Caracals (etc.) for a small gang roam, drop me an email (maybe we can do some more testing). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
897
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 05:00:00 -
[312] - Quote
TL;DR - Petition to have RLML/RHML reload time reduced to 20 seconds. If you agree, "Like". .....
Official Petition to CCP After having spent weeks testing RLMLs and RHMLs, this is my official petition for a change to the reload time. 40-seconds is simply too easy to counter in PvP, prolongs PvE missions by allowing NPCs to easily recover and effectively eliminates the only advantage with missiles in the ability to switch to different damage types. I would like to see all stats retained, but the reload time reduced to a maximum of 20 seconds. Thanks for your consideration. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
899
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 06:30:00 -
[313] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:There's no chance of that happening. That would actually result in greater dps on the RLML than with its pre-nerfed version. If they drop the reload to 20 seconds they will also nerf the rate of fire by ~40%. Mark my words on that one. It'd actually be comparable to the old version. Or they could just put the old version back. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
899
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 07:08:00 -
[314] - Quote
Ransu Asanari wrote:-edit- I don't like having specific solutions really in a petition though, since we can always debate about whether 15 seconds or 20 seconds is sufficient, or if there's a better solution altogether. Would rather the petition just be for getting numbers to show the people who are dissatisfied with the current iteration. What I really want is the old RLMLs back and the first iteration for RHMLs. They weren't "op", and the above example is just one of many we'll be hearing in the coming weeks and months. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
902
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 13:42:00 -
[315] - Quote
Bouth, just stopGǪ Until you actually start flying the ships and missile systems we're talking about, you're just trolling. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
903
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 14:51:00 -
[316] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:This thread has hit a dead end, CCP are obviously not going to do anything for missile users as long as the person in charge of balancing them relies on metrics which show, the already low missile usage prior to Rubicon has not changed.
5.5 mil SP in medium missiles and support skills and 4 mil + SP in caldari ship skills - pretty much useless. I'd like to see the raw data/stats for RLML usage for three months prior to Rubicon and month following. I suspect there was a huge drop in usage about a week prior to Rubicon, and that it's been in steady decline since. I also wouldn't mind seeing the number of kills from RLMLs prior to Rubicon and after Rubicon. I think both would be extremely insightfulGǪ
Come on CCP, where's this transparency you're always talking aboutGǪ?
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Maybe when this cycle of stupid begins to affect turrets there will be enough of an outcry for an exodus from Eve until they fix themselves. Maybe. Until then my sub runs out in a month or so and I'm done. I've half-joked that the next release should be called "Exodus"... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
903
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 16:07:00 -
[317] - Quote
I'd suggest a RLML/RHML 'Burn Jita' in protest, but it would take us forever to destroy that thing with the 40-second reloadGǪ I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
903
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 17:15:00 -
[318] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Actually I'd advise you to read his posts carefully. Until I see some kill mails, it's all B.S. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
903
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 18:54:00 -
[319] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Learn to fit, or skill up. Let's see your RLML and HML fits...
Quote:Nobody here understand anything about balancing and is only whining for their precious missiles, yet they talk with your blessing... The problem is that you are asking things for missiles by comparing them only in the worst case scenario for missiles vs best case scenarios for turrets When have I ever made a comparison with missiles to any other weapon? All the arguments I've made for RLMLs, HMLs and RHMLs have been on their own merits (or lack thereof). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
905
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 20:25:00 -
[320] - Quote
Well, I hate to let this thread lapse - but I think we've more or less said all we can say on the new rapid light and rapid heavy missile launchers (at least I have, anyway). I guess we can further the continuing turrets vs. missiles debate (although to be honest, I'm not sure how we got on that topic), but in the absence of any further dev updates - it looks like the majority are moving on to heavy assault missile launchers. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
908
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 22:15:00 -
[321] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Seems like minmatar shoot missiles better than caldari. Again, damage bonus is far better than RoF for the Rapid Launchers. I think you nailed it right there. I was looking at some Scythe fits the other day and man are those things fast. Damage definitely trumps rate-of-fire when using any of the rapid launchers. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
910
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 01:18:00 -
[322] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:I personally would rather see the rapid launchers function more Like This (0m47s) & 2m24s 0.5 second rate of fire with a 40-second reload, sure. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
910
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 03:03:00 -
[323] - Quote
Maxor Swift wrote:But hey on the bright side maybe this is the push i needed to unsub. Speaking of effective launchers and ammunition... I got beaned several times with a volley of snowballs from an unbelievable distance today. Scared the crap out of me on the undock! Why is it that we can ensure the launchers are effective for Christmas - just not the rest of the time.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
917
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 18:59:00 -
[324] - Quote
You shall not pass! (I may not have much to contribute, but I'll be damned if I'm going to lead this thread die...) I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
917
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 20:14:00 -
[325] - Quote
Torpedoes are fine... That's why everyone uses them. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
917
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 20:24:00 -
[326] - Quote
On frigates you say...? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
919
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 00:22:00 -
[327] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Missiles are great, just not on caldari ships. I assume I'm not the only one the irony is lost on...? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
919
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 00:41:00 -
[328] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:It's a tricky one really. Caldari ships tend to have range bonuses rather than brawling bonuses. Of course ranged combat implies fleet combat. So Caldari ships lend themselves more towards fleet combat... except no-one is using them in fleets. I guess that makes the Caldari the token PvE race then... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
921
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 01:45:00 -
[329] - Quote
Chrom Shakiel wrote:Give stealth bombers individual decrease in tracking for torps so they can keep their current tracking for torps then torps will bee free . I'll go you one better... Stealth bombers should get the new Rapid Heavy Missile Launchers instead, and then they can finally address torpedoes for battleships. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
923
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 02:14:00 -
[330] - Quote
Thinking there might have been a hidden use for the new rapid heavy missile launchers, I ran a few L4s this weekend.
FML... These can't even be used as a tertiary weapon - let alone a secondary one. The rate of fire is even faster than the rapid light missile launchers, which means you deplete the magazine in no-time flat. A MJD should come standard with your purchase of RHMLs to enable you to jump to safety while you reload. These aren't even a good fit for brawling, since at least with torpedoes you're putting our excessive damage to compensate for the increased NPC weapons fire. And you're not attempting to vainly orbit for nearly a minute while your minions fumble and generally f**k around trying to figure out how to reload these things. I got more excitement pulling out the toy from the Cracker Jack box while I waited.
This shouldn't necessarily come as any great surprise, though...
Anyone @ CCP paying attention? If so, follow this link. (Hint: Rise and Fozzie, that's the two of you in the middle frame) I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
923
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 02:16:00 -
[331] - Quote
Chrom Shakiel wrote:Haha Even better, let the Stelth Bomers fell the love of 40 seconds reloads It'll be fun, amiright?!
"This would provide new strategic gameplay for < insert weapon to be f**cked over here > users as well as their opponents." -CCP Rise I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
923
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 03:34:00 -
[332] - Quote
Streya Jormagdnir wrote:You mean doing things like warping from one perch to a next after runs so you can reload? How very revolutionary a concept for bomber pilots to envision. Why not? I think we should all share the rapid launcher love with null-sec... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
923
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 03:54:00 -
[333] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:You do know that bomb launchers have, IIRC, 60+ second reload times, right?
And before you scream "Butbut we were talking bout torps!", the vast, vast majority of bombers will not sit on-grid for an entire launcher dump. If you haven't killed the target in 2-3 salvos, you GTFO grid.
So yeah, 40 second reload, no biggy. It'll be done by the time the bomber pilot off-grids, then resettles and reorients on a new perch. But... but... I was talking about torpedoes! Rapid heavy missile launchers to Stealth Bombers. It's the Christmas gift that keeps on giving!!
Mr Gojira wrote:So can we make the assumption that you have never used a bomber? Or are you just being funny? You'd have to ask the devs (they've obviously never flown a Drake, Tengu or Caracal, either). So I'd say there's a better than even chance Stealth Bombers get hit with the nerf bat aka "Office Space" style. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
924
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 04:54:00 -
[334] - Quote
Mr Gojira wrote:It's great that you have a 168 page thread of you explaining why your mad something changed. The game obviously isn't what you want it to be anymore so just unsub. That's the greatest way you can express your anger towards CCP. trolling every forum post like Danika all day doesn't make you more relevant. It's not just that it was a bad change, but one that was literally dumped on us less than a week prior to Rubicon being released. It wasn't like we had a 3-month 'Marauder' thread in which to express any concerns, reservations or misgivings.
If we don't express our dissatisfaction, nothing will change. Unsub'ing is just an easy way to let CCP off the hook. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
924
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 08:53:00 -
[335] - Quote
Coyote Laughing wrote:I'd like to register of my disapproval of the pathetic ammunition capacity and reload times for the rapid fire light launcher.
This goes beyond nerf, into making them completely useless - I'm pulling them out of all my fits and having to retrain for heavy missiles - or are you going to mess with them next? Expect to be severely, severely disappointed with heavy missile launchers.. You're probably better off going heavy assault missiles. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
934
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 15:52:00 -
[336] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Point of order Mr Chairman, one doesn't so much "fly" a Drake as loll about in it. 100% of a Drake's combat functions can be achieved by gluing some food to the F1 key and placing a pigeon in front of the keyboard. I took one of the "flying pancakes" out last night and couldn't get over how unbelievably bad the flight mechanics on those are. When running a 100MN microwarpdrive the speed actually *dropped* when I went to overheat it. It seems to have a really tough time figuring out what an "orbit" is, too.
Wolf Aideron wrote:Personally, I don't think there is anything really wrong with the RLML's. They do exactly what they are intended to do, they launch large missiles... Rapidly. I'm getting the feeling that people are simply bummed they aren't ridiculously over-powered as per their expectations. Think about it, if a large missile did X, then MORE large missiles is only going to do X time X. It's not exponential. You would be in the minorityGǪ They launch small (light) missiles that are great for frigates (but not much else). And entirely useless even in PvE with the 40-second reload. I took my Tengu out with two Caracals to run an L4 and the Caracal pilots spent most of the time orbiting and reloading their RLMLs. So while each Caracal can take out about 2-3 frigates, it's then purely defensive while it reloads. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
934
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 16:58:00 -
[337] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:If missiles were a little bit smarter and would change targets if the primary is destroyed. That's an interesting idea, but I wonder if it wouldn't be better-suited to the FoF variants? Here's another twist on rapid launchers: return the ammunition capacity to the pre-Odyssey levels, leave the 40-second reload time and add a big activation cost (GJ). So fire until your heart's content (or your capacitor drains). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
934
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 17:48:00 -
[338] - Quote
Hehe, touched a nerve - did I? I can't help but think that the only change we really needed for the original RLMLs and first iteration of RHMLs was to simply reduce the ammunition capacity by 1/3. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
934
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 18:28:00 -
[339] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Reducing clip size does induce an overall DPS nerf. I admit I was impressed that my T2 RLMLs could hold 80 missiles. Maybe only holding 60 would have been better than this 16-and-slowload business we now have instead. Anything would be better at this point... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
934
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 21:59:00 -
[340] - Quote
Can everyone please stop quoting B---? I have block on for a reason... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
934
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 22:24:00 -
[341] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Can everyone please stop quoting B---? I have block on for a reason... You want him to talk unchallenged so he can twist the truth and the meaning of things as he pleases, spreading his lies undisturbed until they become the truth for all those lazy minded? Ignore him and he'll eventually leave. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
934
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 00:31:00 -
[342] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:As far as on topic..... I got nothing. Mostly because it doesn't matter what I type because we are in a forgotten corner at the top of the forum list. Oh I got one... I just came up with the most twisted RHML/RLML fit you could possibly imagine. When I'm done it'll be pushing 800 DPS (out-DPS'ing a HML Tengu by about 25%). Even managed to fit a MWD, medium shield booster/amplifier and remote shield assist. Plus it's got salvage drones, room for 2x mobile tractor units and a whack of storage for salvaging. Going to be an awesome L4 mission runner! Can you guess what I am?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
934
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 01:17:00 -
[343] - Quote
^ We're not going away quietly... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
934
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 01:54:00 -
[344] - Quote
Ultimate L4 RHML/RLML Mission Fit You'll need the following for this fit: CPU Management V, Power Grid Management V, Weapon Upgrades V and preferably Advanced Weapon Upgrades IV or V (you may also need a +5 power grid or +5 CPU implant in slot 6).
Gnosis Mauler 3x Dread Guristas Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher 2x Dread Guristas Rapid Light Missile Launcher Gistii A-Type Remote Shield Booster (or Drone Link Augmentor II)
Gistum C-Type Microwarpdrive (or Gistum C-Type Afterburner) Gistum C-Type Medium Shield Booster Gistum C-Type Shield Booster Amplifier 3x Gistum C-Type Passive Amplifiers (mission-specific)
3x True Sansha Reactor Control 3x Dread Guristas Ballistic Control System
2x Medium Ancillary Current Router II 1x Medium Ancillary Current Router I
2x Caldari Navy Warden Sentry Drones 5x Salvage Drones 1-2x Mobile Tractor Unit
If your CPU/power grid allow, substitute where you deem fit. These are great to run in a pair, as you can use the remote shield boosters to augment the other's shields if need be. A Damage Control can also be beneficial, but you'll probably be trading off some DPS in the form of a Ballistics Control. The Gnosis is *insanely* cheap to repair for some reason, so if you take any armor or hull hits it's simple to just dock-up at a nearby station (and quickly reload, too).
Expensive? Somewhat. Cheaper than a fully-blinged Tengu or Navy Drake. The Dread Guristas stuff is all fairly reasonable (way cheaper than Caldari Navy), and it's mainly Faction to get the fitting. With my III-IV skills it's pushing 600 DPS (more overheated). The best part about this is the massive 900m3 cargo hold, so with a pair of these you can basically salvage as you go! Comments welcome!
Addendum: Just watch... the power grid requirements will get "conveniently" increased without so much as a peep... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
934
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 05:07:00 -
[345] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:1. 687 DPS with all 5s and 5% dmg/rof implants. 2. File -> Preferences -> Include reload time in DPS. DPS drops to 469. Sounds about right, yep. A RHML Raven setup just breaks 800 DPS (more with implants), and you're looking at a lot more ISK. Plus the maneuverability and warp speed pale in comparison to the Gnosis. The thing I can't get over about the Gnosis is how cheap it is to repair the armor and hull. Like 20k ISK for 50% armor or hull damage!
I like to think of this Gnosis fit as an "armed Noctis", but with better survivability and the ability to participate in combat. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
935
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 16:23:00 -
[346] - Quote
It means they're completely useless. Raw damage bonuses simply trump rate of fire ones, and there's no getting around that no matter how much we want or wish it so. This is what happens when you introduce a sweeping change less than a week prior to a release simply on a whim, with no testing or consideration as to how this will effect gameplay other than 'it sounds cool'.
We've gone from a weapon that applied consistent DPS to one who's performance can vary significantly simply based on which race of hull you place it on. If you look at missiles as a whole, they receive a rate of fire specialization bonus as opposed to a damage one. Since RLMLs and RHMLs are lumped in with light and heavy missiles respectively, you can't change this without potentially unbalancing other weapons (although arguably HMLs are so screwed up at this point it probably wouldn't matter).
I know the devs are hard at work at addressing this problem, so take heart. Oh wait... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
935
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 16:57:00 -
[347] - Quote
CaracalGǪ +25% ROF, +50% range; nope Caracal NavyGǪ +25% ROF; nope Osprey NavyGǪ +25-50% damage bonus; so-so Scythe FleetGǪ +50% damage bonus; rocks
TenguGǪ +25% kinetic damage bonus, +37.5% ROF; expensive so-so LokiGǪ +37.5% ROF; nope
Let me know if I missed anything, but we're basically relegated to one hull that can maximize on the limited potential of RLMLs. The Scythe Fleet Issue also has speed and signature radius going for it over all the other hulls. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
940
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 19:18:00 -
[348] - Quote
Post hidden, post hidden, post hiddenGǪ I'm really enjoying this. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
941
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 19:29:00 -
[349] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:Yeh, tell that to CCP! When you right click your ONI (if you have one) - show info, what you get is this: 10% bonus to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile velocity pyfa does not say that, neither does EVE - and the actual ship does not reflect any change - so I'm not sure why this is being discussed. None of this changes the practical applications for RLMLs... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
944
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 00:14:00 -
[350] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:What do you mean? EFT and EVE both are saying the same - 10% bonus to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile velocity. Yes, I'm in agreement - there's no velocity or range bonus for light missiles on the ONI.
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:To bypass that 40sec crap, here is what I would suggestGǪ I'm not sure that switching to a frigate-class weapon system is an improvement. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
945
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 03:20:00 -
[351] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:BLOCKED, I'm tired of wasting my time as you simply twist what is said to suit your own agenda. Welcome to the "enlightened" side of the discussion. I think it's time to get back on-track and discuss the best ways that we can utilize the new RLMLs and RHMLs. All this turret vs. launcher or drone vs. laser vs. hybrid vs. missile is just a distraction. Since the devs don't seem to have any genuine interest (or perhaps time) to respond to any of our concerns, we're on our own. Since we can't get reimbursed for the SP we put into training, and because I suspect some of us still run missions and actually like missiles and Caldari ships - let's turn this on its head and figure out how we can exploit it to our advantage. Donning my "thinking cap"... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
945
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 06:05:00 -
[352] - Quote
Just a brief PvE blurb on RHMLs... If you can fit a few of these to a cruiser or battlecruiser that gives damage bonuses, these are worthwhile considering. Faction launchers hold 26 rounds, and without a ROF bonus to more rapidly diminish these do come in handy for an initial mission "burst". I was able to comfortably fit 2 of these on a pair of Gnosis with only a single Medium Ancillary rig, and still have room for another pair of HMLs. I like the Gnosis because you can fit 5 launchers and you get a +25% heavy missile bonus without having to train anything. Any damage to hull or armor is super cheap (<50k ISK!), so it's great for mission running. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
945
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 07:33:00 -
[353] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:Mission "burst" LOL. You can try whatever but 40 seconds reload will never be good for missioning. Unless you can clear the room and reload while hitting the gate and warping to a next pocket, you are losing time and in any serious mission running business time is everything. If you want cheap and effective fit Rigors and TP on a Cruise missile Raven and you are good to go. 40 seconds with small clip will never work, no matter what you do. On the Gnosis it's an improvement. But yes, generally-speaking - 100% rapid launchers of any kind just doesn't work. You need to augment these with another weapon system so you have some sustained DPS while reloading. Hey, I tried... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
946
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 16:18:00 -
[354] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Are people seriously implying that all missiles are bad, or just the new terrible rapid launchers? Heavy missiles need improved damage application and torpedoes could stand to see a bit of a damage buff. The new rapid launchers are just junk, contrary to the one or two dissenting opinions. Otherwise, they're fine. A passive low-slot Ballistic Enhancer would go a long way towards addressing any minor shortcomings.
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:Whenever you use return to drone bay command you get 40sec timer, preventing you to launch new drones, basically to play with them back and forth as you please. What HAML, you not done with insinuations? Come to SiSi if you think I'm just empty talking the way you do. You don't even need a 40-second reload to make drone users cryGǪ Just remove Drone Assist. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
946
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 16:40:00 -
[355] - Quote
Ballistic Enhancer Let's see if we can get some interest goingGǪ This would actually address all the issues for heavy missiles and torpedoes (namely, damage application for heavy missiles and slightly extended range for torpedoes). Rapid launchers are still a lost cause at this point, but maybe we could get this module implemented to salvage the rest. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4016368#post4016368 I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
947
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 17:14:00 -
[356] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Why are you guys so mad about missiles being bad at fleets? So are combat drones, so are blasters, so are entire classes of ships. Missiles are bad at fleets because of time to impact (it's simply too long). While you're correct about combat drones, this is not the same for sentry drones and drone assist. That's instant damage and massive alpha on a huge scale.
Stitch Kaneland wrote:So because my play style is not "preferred", it makes the weapon system useless? So.. i'm killing frigates, using a weapon system designed to kill frigates, but thats not how i should be using it.. because someone wants their constant stream of missiles that frigates have no defense over? At least the RLML, they have a chance to overpower and kill the target through the reload. Yes, i did mention that RLML are hilariously overpowered, until the reload, which then gives frigate pilots a chance to kill RLML boats. That means, your tactics must change (by being fast, and warping off if things get hectic) so you can continue killing frigates, but avoid being taken out yourself. It's useless outside of a very limited scope on very specific hulls. Let's see these killmails you're talking about... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
947
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 17:49:00 -
[357] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:We're all well aware that sentry drones are broken with omnidirectionals and drone assist. I was just saying that it's not like there's an entire race who only uses missiles. The only people who are only trained to use missiles are very bad people.
A nice suggestion I saw once was to make turrets do damage at the end of their cycle, rather than at the start, which would be cool in many ways, both to balance high-alpha weapons and to make missiles and combat drones less bad relatively. Obviously, logistics would need some of the nerfs they've needed for years if this was to happen. Not entirely, but the Caldari are largely missile-based. If you made a short-list of the top 3 missile ships and the top 3 hybrid ships, Caldari would dominate the former but probably be large absent from the latter. I think if we addressed sentry drones and drone assist you might see fleet doctrines change a bit. I'm not entirely optimistic this will happen at the rate CCP seems to be pumping out drone-based ships, thoughGǪ
That is an interesting suggestion, to be sure. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
948
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 18:08:00 -
[358] - Quote
I love block. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
949
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 18:33:00 -
[359] - Quote
^ Please stop quoting the troll, thank-you. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
950
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 21:39:00 -
[360] - Quote
Turk MacRumien wrote:Besides, you guys should stop looking at caldari ships to put this on as a main weapon system. That's easy to say when you haven't trained the requisite Caldari cruiser and light missile skills to V. What options are left? A hybrid MOA or train up to a Tengu. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
950
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 21:41:00 -
[361] - Quote
Turk MacRumien wrote:Besides, you guys should stop looking at caldari ships to put this on as a main weapon system. That's easy to say when you haven't trained the requisite Caldari cruiser and light missile skills to V. What options are left? A hybrid MOA or train up to a Tengu.
Turk MacRumien wrote:Sure it's a weird, niche system now, but rapid launchers are in a weird, niche place anyway. Every other system has 2 versions, while missiles now have 3. That's not to say that it's perfect , just that its no longer "do this or you're dumb". Every other weapon system has 2-3 variants; 4-6 when you consider short and long-range versions. Light missiles have 2, medium missiles have 3 and large missiles have 3 (including short, long and bastardized rapids). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
951
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 22:01:00 -
[362] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:First, it will be even more niche then before and second, it will be useful more on Minmatar ships than Caldari one's which means Caldari pilots have every right to protest. Damn right! Enjoy your Tengu until Rise f**ks it up too...! I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
951
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 23:06:00 -
[363] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Killmails you say? Yes, and I wasn't trying to imply anything - just curiosity.
Quote:Yes, its the same guy in both kills (he didn't learn the first time i guess). I was harassing a solar gate camp. I'll keep adding to the KM's, don't worry. RLML are nice change of pace from brawling. Fun to separate people from their gang and obliterate them away from their friends. Let us know when you kill someone other than the same idiot twice (preferably in an engagement with at least 2 frigates). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
951
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 23:52:00 -
[364] - Quote
^ Not welcome here. Shoe troll, shoe. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
951
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 00:38:00 -
[365] - Quote
Kills were from a Scythe Fleet Issue (+50% missile damage) and Bellicose (+37.5% target painter), so I'm not really sure what bearing this has on the sad fate that has befallen Caldari cruisers such as the Caracal. How about some kill mails from Caldari cruisers? I know I got one or two in a Tengu... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
951
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 01:03:00 -
[366] - Quote
I'm not holding my breath on heavy missiles or torpedoes. And if the RLML becomes the new gank weapon of choice for the Scythe Fleet Issue, that's all the justification Fall and Fizzle will need to say the new rapid launcher mechanic is working as advertised. Oh how I'm so looking forward to the T3 rebalance next year... I really feel for all the Caracal owners out there, because this has put a serious crimp in PvE and PvP. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
952
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 02:05:00 -
[367] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Back to the discussion. Indeed. I've grudgingly given up trying to make either of the rapids work and switch back to heavies. Three rigors and a target painter should put them close to on par with the old lights, especially if I utilize Precision ammunition. I think the Caracal Navy has some interesting unrealized potential in that it has a built-in 25% explosion radius, so with three rigors you can probably dispense with the target painter altogether. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
953
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 03:21:00 -
[368] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: You wouldn't believe (then again, you probably would) the flak I got for simply proposing a Ballistic Enhancer. "Sure, if tracking disruptors will effect missiles." Yeah, because a Corax has so many low slots to play with anyway... I'm really starting to harbour some serious animosity towards turret players. They know missiles are fundamentally broken, and they know damage application from the "always hit" mechanic is near-zero. They also know that FoF missiles are extremely easy to counter. Yet they're still on the anti-missile pilgrimage to completely wreck this system if they can. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
954
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 05:20:00 -
[369] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:I have no problem with TDs working against missiles once base damage application on half the missiles in the game isn't totally putrid. Until then I think it would probably be one step forward and one step back. Therein lies the problem, which turret players don't seem to be able to fathom. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
955
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 06:30:00 -
[370] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:The animosity and misunderstanding between the two groups really could've been avoided if they had simply designed every hull to use turrets and/or missiles (with bonuses to both), and had made missiles the cross-race weapon they seem to have originally intended them to be. Then everyone would understand how bad most missiles are and there would much less resistance to them being halfway decent.
But alas that was a mistake that was made by CCP long ago, and now we live under the tyranny of turret users who quite simply outnumber us. I don't have any animosity towards turret players; my resentment is reserved for the jackasses that insist on continually stirring the pot by trolling threads such as these. I use missiles and turrets, I just happen to prefer Caldari ships. These tend to have a predisposition towards missile setups, so there's not a lot I can do about that. I expect most Caldari players are in a similar situation. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
962
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 17:34:00 -
[371] - Quote
I'm fairly certain a RLML-fit cruiser will fall well short of the 600+ DPS a Catalyst can put out, not to mention being substantially more expensive. I can't see this being cost-effective for suicide ganking, but someone feel free to prove otherwise... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
962
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 18:21:00 -
[372] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Hm.. so i provide solo KM's like you mentioned, but now suddenly, they aren't good enough. You never specified exactly what these should be achieving. Just that you're not really seeing any KM's. Where did I say that exactly? (I think you're quoting me out-of-sequence)
Quote:Interesting... so you agree with me that damage trumps RoF bonus. You have an ONI that provides 25%-50% damage bonus to missiles, but now you're not interested because the ScyFI gets 50% bonus for all missile types. True, but like i previously pointed out, the ONI has much better tank/utility than ScyFI. There is always a trade-off. But, i mean, a 10% kinetic bonus is nice.. i mean there just aren't wolfs/claws/stilletos/drams/daredevils or any other variation of frigate that doesn't have a massive kinetic hole. Except for gallente frigs.. which oh no, guess you should just pack up now, i mean its not like you're getting a 25% dmg bonus regardless to your other missiles. When did I not agree that with respect to the rapid launchers damage trumps rate of fire? Feel free to scroll back through a few pages and you'll see that I'm in complete agreement. The ONI might have a better tank, but the ScyFI has more speed and a smaller signature radius. So in a dual between the two, my money's on the ScyFI.
Quote:Everyone's implied insults about turret users is pretty funny though, such poor thought put into some of the responses. I started as a turret user, but i'm training into missiles.. yet it seems people think that i somehow want missiles nerfed into the ground. Just to be clear, that is not the case. Why would i want a weapon system that i'm training into be nerfed? However, once people started mouthing off about RLML/RHML, i started doing my own testing, and found them to be useable, as long as you build your fit around them. So did my doing my own research and building up fits that actually work strike a nerve? It's only an implied insult if you're easily offended and overly sensitive. Glad you're enjoying the rapid launchers. I would say you're in the minority, however.
Quote:Let me ask everyone here something. Lets just use my vagabond as an example, or hell a stabber. Stabber is a lightly tanked ship a majority of the time. You jump a gate, to find a 10-15man frigate gang. You know you're faster than most of them. What would you do? Start spamming "D"... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
962
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 20:02:00 -
[373] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:What if it's a RoF-bonused (maybe damage bonus would be better) cruiser with 3x BCU I and you set your RLMLs on overheat before you begin firing? I mean, I could probably answer that myself in EFT, but I wanted to publicly suggest the notion as well. Well, suicide ganking is profitable using Catalysts - because I think you can do the complete fit for under $2m (just going off memory from one of Gevlon's articles). Since they also revised the fitting requirements for RLMLs, this effectively eliminates any possibility of utilizing anything smaller than a cruiser. However, provided cost wasn't an issue - you could gank fit a Caracal for ~$17.5m that when overheated would do 462 DPS (891 per volley) with Faction ammunition; 564 DPS (1088 per volley) if you use Fury ammunition. This requires V skills and the two +5 missile implants, but no rigs.
Or you could have 8-10 Catalysts, because I'm not sure that the Caracal will survive significantly longer than the Catalyst to justify the price. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
968
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 02:46:00 -
[374] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:So basically the point is that RLMLs might be good for more than just a few specific situations, but if they are then none of those situations have been found yet and therefore probably don't occur often enough for serious consideration.
Right? PvE is out, suicide ganking is probably a losing proposition - and we've only seen very limited success in PvP. I can't imagine these would fare any better in wormholes, and since missiles aren't used in fleet actions anywayGǪ
Astroniomix wrote:The survival bit is irrelevant, both ships are going to have the same amount of time to blow up whatever they are trying to kill (once CONCORD targets you, you get permajamed also the battleships can oneshot anything)
But the point remains that as far as I can tell there is no RLML using setup that can beat a catalyst for ganking things, The only thing the missiles have going for them is their range. The whole concept of ganking with cruisers is irrelevant, because you're either going to use Catalysts (cheap) or Tornados if it's a really expensive target. In ganking you either lock them down or alpha them, so neither the lead time or range work for you. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
973
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 07:04:00 -
[375] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:RLML is now a ganking tool only for anything else it is just not viable. I'm still not convinced that RLMLs are viable for banking.
Hasikan Miallok wrote:- people with these things already fitted to a ship are likely to keep using them for a fair bit, its a bit early to judge the effect of the changes With all due respect, most of us have been using and continually testing them for the past month. They are simply not feasible as a primary weapon system, nor will they work for PvE (missions will take an order of magnitude longer). PvP applications are extremely limited as well. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
979
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 14:35:00 -
[376] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:If you walk into a bank with a RLML, I suspect they're going to comply with your demands. @#$%@#$'ing auto-correct... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
979
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 14:43:00 -
[377] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:We can help them. Which features did you like LEAST in the Rubicon expansion? RLML Oh, every opportunity there was a box to expand onGǪ I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
985
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 17:23:00 -
[378] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Arthur, after your very carefully researched analysis of missile systems I am surprised to see a disingenuous statement like this from you. Not at all. As I mentioned, I referenced Gevlon's Catalyst ganking guide. In it he actually alludes to 700+ DPS, and with implants he shows how overheated it can hit 730 DPS. I'm not an expert in suicide ganking, but Gevlon's made a career out of it - so I'll let his numbers and guide stand on their own merits. http://greedygoblin.blogspot.ca/2013/08/catalyst-ganking-guide.html
So 308 DPS with the Corax (let's assume 350 with implants) is about half of what you can get with a Catalyst, which makes sense - because the Catalyst is the gank medium of choice for AFK miners. Not that you couldn't bank with a Corax, but I suspect you'd need two of them to achieve the same results. As for the Caracal, again - you're looking at twice the cost (or more) of a Catalyst to achieve the same result. Again, not saying you couldn't gank with a Catalyst - just not sure it's cost effective. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
985
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 17:26:00 -
[379] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Personally, I've never been keen on the Bellicose as an anti-frigate platform. It lacks missile damage and projection, and the lack of a missile velocity bonus makes it very difficult to use Precisions against an unwebbed target. Explosion velocity is overrated. Explosion radius trumps explosion velocity and then some. Ditto for rigors vs. flares - a T1 rigor is more effective than a T2 flare. This is because explosion radius helps offset speed while explosion velocity doesn't help offset signature. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
985
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 17:32:00 -
[380] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:That's sadly very telling. Don't ask, don't tellGǪ
"We didn't include it because RLMLs are still widely in-useGǪ" "We didn't include it because the % drop in RLML use was less than expectedGǪ" "We didn't include it because this change was endorsed as an alternative to a nerfGǪ" "We didn't include it because we haven't received any overall negative feedback on the new RLMLsGǪ" "We didn't include it because there was hardly any discussion with the RLML changesGǪ" I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
992
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 22:59:00 -
[381] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I completely agree. bang for buck, where the target is helpless and not shooting back the catalyst is the gank platform of choice. However, this thread is about RLMLs and their suitability for task. As I was under the impression we were only talking about this one distinct aspect: suicide ganking, I think we could agree that cruisers and RLMLs are not an ideal candidate for suicide ganking (even for more expensive targets).
And my position is that RLMLs have been invented in error because there was already a weapons system suitable for the job - that of destroying frigates. Namely, the destroyer.
Quote:If you *really* want to destroy frigates the tool of choice is the destroyer (or some of them). Using RLMLs on a cruiser should not be as effective. It seems to me, all things considered, that the weapon system is working as intended. I honestly have no idea then what the purpose of RLMLs areGǪ
TrouserDeagle wrote:Coraxes are awful in every way except looks. Even the overpoweredness of light missiles does not make up for the corax's badness. Yep, way too slow.
Fourteen Maken wrote:myabe off topic but the Talwar is better than the Corax in nearly every way, yet the Thrasher is still far more popular than the Talwar, that says a lot about where the Corax stands in the over all scheme of things. I think we've again touched on an overall theme: missiles are not a competitive weapon system, and Caldari hulls still suck. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
992
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 23:05:00 -
[382] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:[CCP's position is that RLMLs were crowding out HMLs. That is, a missile system designed for killing frigates was being chosen by pilots to kill cruisers over cruiser-specific weapons. That led them to conclude that the RLML weapon system was flawed (in that it was providing opportunities beyond its design).
So they have changed it in order to try to ensure it is good only at its intended function.
If RLMLs are no longer any good at killing cruisers, that is probably as it was intended to be. If they're no good at killing frigates, that's different matter. CCP is the one that killed HMLs to the point where players had no alternative but to switch to RLMLs. Then when more than a few did, they replaced RLMLs with this abomination (effectively killing them). The only thing left at this point is HAMLs, so I guess when it becomes obvious players aren't rekindling their love for HMLs we'll see HAMs get the nerf bat next. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
993
|
Posted - 2013.12.21 01:58:00 -
[383] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:You took on 4 frigates solo and expected to survive? You don't give types etc. If they were ishkurs you'd have been facing 1000dps. How did you expect not to lose your ship? I don't think it's necessarily implied that he took on 4 frigates, but rather - found himself in an engagement with 4 frigates. I'm guessing he wasn't able to kill even one. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
993
|
Posted - 2013.12.21 02:11:00 -
[384] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:ok, but let's take a hypothetical situation in which everyone concerned has skills to V. The frigates are all able to deliver an overheated 250dps (assume gallente gank fit) and the caracal has ~30k ehp. Not in any way a remarkable situation.
If the caracal does not shoot, he's going to die in 30 seconds. If he kills one frigate after 20 seconds, he's going to die in 20 + (30,000 - 20,000) / 750 = 33.3 seconds.
In this situation no matter what weapon system he had fitted, he's dead.
Even if the frigates are pushing out 150dps he's in trouble if they know how to maintain speed to mitigate damage.
It's not quite as simple as the raw numbers, because we don't know how much (or if) any damage he would be able to mitigate. But hypothetically-speaking, he should've been able to kill at least one frigate - possibly two. If he couldn't even manage that, I think that speaks volumes about RLMLs. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
993
|
Posted - 2013.12.21 02:39:00 -
[385] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:It could have been a squad of 4 Ibis's, he fitted rockets and brought LMs and forgot how to hit warp. We don't know. But I think that Arthur has a little bit of a point in saying that a Caracal should be able to take out at least 1 frigate before going down. That was my point, yes.
Respectfully, he might have a point if we had some concrete data and the data led to that conclusion. At the moment all we have is one exasperated guy who lost a ship. We know nothing beyond that. This is not a sufficiently strong position to justify changing game mechanics.[/quote] Respectfully, he does have a point. I took on three frigates with a Tengu not that long ago and only managed to get one of them because I lucked out with the right ammunition choice. Even with the range lmitations, I'd have been further ahead with HAMs. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
994
|
Posted - 2013.12.21 04:31:00 -
[386] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:I think it speaks volumes about the fit. It could have been a triple stabbed caracal with no bcu's for all we know. So no damage bonuses or hull bonus for rlml. Without knowing the details we can't determine if its poor fit, pilot, weapon system or any combination of the 3. I know that some of you are really hoping RLMLs don't suck... I hate to be the one to break it to you, but regardless of fit - they do. The deal-breaker is quite literally the 40-second reload. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
996
|
Posted - 2013.12.21 06:15:00 -
[387] - Quote
Medium Missile Launchers Here's a solution that might address the issue: the introduction of a medium missile launcher and medium missiles. Damage, application and range falls somewhere between the current light and heavy missiles, and we buff heavy missiles by 10% to the pre-nerf values. Fitting requirements would be on par with the rapid light missile launchers. This gives the Drakes a bit more "oomph" (which they're sorely lacking), and provides an alternative to rapid light launchers (these will do less overall DPS, but more consistently). I used a +25% damage bonus, +25% rate of fire bonus, V skills, T2 launchers, Faction ammunition and 3x ballistic controls. Comments welcome.
Medium Missile Launchers I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
999
|
Posted - 2013.12.21 21:23:00 -
[388] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Or are you just pouting because you don't have a 60 charge clip that spews missile death upon frigates? You know what a shill is, right? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
1000
|
Posted - 2013.12.22 01:32:00 -
[389] - Quote
Drake Doe wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Drake Doe wrote:Basically, the only viable long range option was nerfed to uselessness outside of killing frigs that aren't fit for tank. If HM are a problem, tweak them, but don't use this argument to keep an OP weapon system. Basicaly CCP couldn't know about HML balance because RLML took their place in the strategic view of things. Additionaly, it would be very hard to balance HML vs RLML, because most of the time one would obsolete the other, hence why they modified the gameplay of RLML, so they have a dinstinct niche to separate them from HML. Now they will be able to study HML correctly. So one had to be nerfed to the ground to show that another is "OP" (usable) and now that cycle is repeating the inverse, a cycle of nerfs and buffs solves nothing. HMLs were never "OP", but they nerfed them anyway. Then they buffed rails, lasers and artillery. Then they released this abomination. So basically missile players got screwed over 3 times. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
1009
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 17:10:00 -
[390] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:I don't think you are stupid. I think you are intellectually dishonest. I'm opting for the former.
TrouserDeagle wrote:I've not seen a graph yet that says heavy missiles are anything less than fine - not even the ones that don't know what transversal velocity is. I think it's time to stop posting. Heavy missiles are better with rigors and a target painter, but still far from fine. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
1010
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 17:23:00 -
[391] - Quote
Drake Doe wrote:When they fail at doing their job they are worthless, otherwise it was pure chance that he won. That is what I'm trying to get changed, a loss of burst dps for sustained when tougher frigs are the intended target. RLMLs are worthless. Most of us don't need 183 pages to be able to ascertain that while they may be able to finish off a single frigate in an extremely favorable set of circumstances, in a battle against multiple smaller opponents they will be hard-pressed to hold their own. And against a comparable opponent, they will come out on the losing side time and time again. Your best bet for sustained damage is a dual-web HAML setup with rigors as added insurance. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
1010
|
Posted - 2013.12.24 01:32:00 -
[392] - Quote
Maxor Swift wrote:Really does any more need to said other than 40 seconds to reload LOL there is no justification for that even if the damage was 10 times as much RLMLs/RHMLs would still suck like a catholic priest at cub scouts. Nope.
Quote:And as for CCP rise having fun with them all i can say is he must be VERY easy to please Our torment = his pleasure... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
1011
|
Posted - 2013.12.24 06:34:00 -
[393] - Quote
SeriouslyGǪ who's trying to sell who on these? They're just not that good - otherwise most wouldn't need convincing. You'll be further ahead with Javelin HAMs if you need the range or Rage HAMs if you need the extra hitting power. This is a frigate-class weapon on a medium-class ship, and if you run into anything bigger than a frigate and get pointed - you're screwed. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
1011
|
Posted - 2013.12.24 14:06:00 -
[394] - Quote
Oh wellGǪ here's hoping for some improvements to missiles in 2014. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2648
|
Posted - 2013.12.27 10:50:00 -
[395] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:What are the usage stats now? Haven't even undocked a rapid launcher ship since the nerf. Anyone's guessGǪ I've yet to see them in the Top 20 on any of the kill boards, though. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2651
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 00:11:00 -
[396] - Quote
I am disposable wrote:Your mask is slipping. This complete and utter hyperbole shows your real agenda. Maybe you should try using missiles before you act like you know the first thing about them. FEED TROLL AT OWN RISK! (the one you're referring to)
Saul Rogers wrote:-you suck hard There, fixed it for you. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2651
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 00:30:00 -
[397] - Quote
Has anyone tried the RLMLs with Fury ammo - or has it all been with Faction? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2651
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 01:04:00 -
[398] - Quote
I am disposable wrote:Fury is really bad on them as it runs counter to what they are trying to do which is killing frigs. They would be the go to option for fighting cruisers (which you obviously don't want to do with these things but still) except that you can't swap ammo with the 40s reload.
I'm still wondering when we are going to hear about the ammo swapping feature CCP admitted was needed with these things. I think I'm going to be waiting a long time. I know it kills the range, but it also significantly ups the damage - and if you've double-webbed and scrammed your target anyway - I can't imagine that the damage application would be any less. As for the ammo swap issue, if they were sincere - they'd have addressed it by now. If they can't fix it due to technical aspects, then it's incompetence for releasing this change without the proper testing and peer review. "It sounds cool" doesn't cut it. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2651
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 01:23:00 -
[399] - Quote
I am disposable wrote:Yeah if you are tackling frigs fury would be good I suppose. I'm not a huge fan of trying to tackle frigs in cruisers though. And yes, releasing these broken launchers even though they admitted they had issues is a sign of incompetence. Their very existence is a sign of incompetence to be blunt. I think we've established that they have an extremely limited role, that being frigate-killing under ideal conditions. Since most frigates can probably outrun you, your only chance is to scram and dual-web the suckers. It's already been shown that rate of fire bonuses lose out to pure damage bonuses, hence the Fury ammunition suggestion (since this is probably a 10-15% bump over Faction).
Yes, well - someone says "OP" and the missile nerf bat makes a return appearance... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2652
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 01:44:00 -
[400] - Quote
I am disposable wrote:Well I guess if we find a niche within the niche it works. But seriously flying a cruiser that can only effectively kill frigs, and only the ones it can tackle, and only if they aren't tanky or have the wrong resist profile? Ick. Once I get Light Missiles trained to V with IV specialization I'll be able to test it out (January-ish). The only scenario I see these working in is one where you completely overwhelm your opponent(s). A combination of EW is probably required as well (sensor disruptors probably being the most effective). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2653
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 09:31:00 -
[401] - Quote
Mhari Dson wrote:Vs frigs furies have poorer damage application than faction, you get about the same with either. Not necessarily. If you have your target webbed and painted, they should do more damage. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2654
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 17:23:00 -
[402] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Wait.... Are we using metrics to counter CCP's metrics? I like this. :) Now we just need to drag some CCP in here, or if nothing else some CSM for the moment, and make them stare at that and formulate an actual response instead of some formulaic crap. DenialGǪ it's not a river in Egypt. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2654
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 21:04:00 -
[403] - Quote
Liam Inkuras wrote:Welcome to Ishtars Online Got Drones? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2656
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 02:13:00 -
[404] - Quote
Mhari Dson wrote:and RLML's weren't OP, HAM/HML's just sucked worse. But now everything sucks equally! Yay....! I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2656
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 02:55:00 -
[405] - Quote
I'd be happy eliminating drone assist... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2656
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 03:01:00 -
[406] - Quote
Roseline Penshar wrote:can i ask 1 thing? hope there's someone who can answer it, the dps......is it count reload too? It depends on who's quoting the numbers. DPS with reloads factored in is about 55-60% of stated maximum, though. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2657
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 06:54:00 -
[407] - Quote
Mhari Dson wrote:prolly but I really wish the nerfs were evening the playing field instead of shoving missiles off the bottom of the chart. We'll adapt and overcome. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2657
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 08:45:00 -
[408] - Quote
Roseline Penshar wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Roseline Penshar wrote:can i ask 1 thing? hope there's someone who can answer it, the dps......is it count reload too? It depends on who's quoting the numbers. DPS with reloads factored in is about 55-60% of stated maximum, though. if it's the dps number at EFT is it count reload? If it's higher than heavy assault missiles, then probably not. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2658
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 19:39:00 -
[409] - Quote
Markku Laaksonen wrote:When will Rise and Fozzie come back with some comments about RLML usage now that we've had them on TQ for a while? And maybe some medium missile usage in general, and finally some general missile usage across all classes? Oh wait, you were seriousGǪ
I am disposable wrote:Also I think you have to factor reload times into the DPS of a weapon that spends as much time reloading as firing. Call me crazy. Especially if you plan on shooting for more than 50 seconds... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2658
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 20:44:00 -
[410] - Quote
Folks - we're clearly on our own here. CCP is either unwilling (hubris) or unable (ineptitude) to address these shortfalls. If missiles are going to be in our future we're going to have to come up with some abstract and creative solutions for them. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2658
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 21:50:00 -
[411] - Quote
I briefly thought I might have discovered a very limited PvE scenario that RLMLs would excel in. Alas, I was once again proven wrong. It's not just that RLMLs are bizarre - it's that they're entirely useless on any Caldari hull that extends them a rate of fire bonus. Why? They're already fast to begin with, and combined with the limited ammunition capacity (16-18 rounds) this gives a false impression of increased DPS. The reality is that you're just depleting your ammunition faster. With any other missile system an increased rate of fire does translate into more DPS because they all typically hold twice the ammunition supply and there's only a 10-second reload. I actually think you might be further ahead using rockets at this point... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2660
|
Posted - 2013.12.30 01:17:00 -
[412] - Quote
I am disposable wrote:The solution is to stop using them. When something sucks it sucks. Period. Screw that. I've got a sizeable chunk of skill training into them, and I happen to like Caldari hulls. Plus you can't beat the "whoosh" sound for FX. And I refuse to switch over to drones or turrets just to become another lemming... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2660
|
Posted - 2013.12.30 02:06:00 -
[413] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Rapids used to be my prime choice before that (what a surprise...), and so was at last a 100mn rapid-gu for a mere couple weeks before the rapid-change, with the change though rapids have become a thing for gang-anti-frig-work. And gawd they're beasty at that job. The problem is that one rarely encounters just one frigate, and if you find yourself facing off against a comparable cruiser the rapid lights aren't going to cut it. Unless you've had success to the contrary, in which case I'd love to hear more details. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2661
|
Posted - 2013.12.30 04:20:00 -
[414] - Quote
I am disposable wrote:I was referring specifically to RLMLs, not all missile systems. I'm just writing off Light Missiles I-IV... Three days of skill training - not the end of the world. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2663
|
Posted - 2013.12.30 17:12:00 -
[415] - Quote
Mhari Dson wrote:(clipped my own snappy comeback)
Just because I like missiles doesn't mean I won't use other options, in fact nowadays mostly I'm using 200mm rails or tachs. cruiser/BC missile systems are seriously underpowered. Snappy comebacks are totally acceptable for this particular threadGǪ I think it really depends on the scenario, but I'm finding that creative "out-of-the-box" solutions are the best course of action.
Caleb Seremshur wrote:A short memory is the greatest weapon the elite have over the proliteriat masses. Take an inch, take a mile. To be sure. At the end of the day the best alternative to RLMLs is probably T2 HAMLs running Javelin ammunition with a hydraulic rig or two thrown-in for good measure. The increased damage should offset the reduced damage application - particularly if a target painter or rigors are utilized. If we thought the RLML got brutalized - just wait until the tears start flowing when they nerf drone assistGǪ
Silverbackyererse wrote:40 second reload time is too much. 18 is too small a magazine. You went to far with this. Evolution, not revolution. 19 with Faction launchers, but I digressGǪ RLMLs are now really a "fire and forget" weapon. They will pretty much nail everything within firing range for upwards of 50% damage application. These are no longer a primary or even secondary weapon system, and they are absolutely useless for PvE (any form). I think they may excel (and this is a very, very niche role) at quickly dispatching small targets or applying maximum DPS as part of small gangs. This obviously precludes or really limits use in solo play, which I think is the biggest sticking point. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2663
|
Posted - 2013.12.30 21:58:00 -
[416] - Quote
I gotta be honest - I'm just not feeling the turret love. Far too much micromanagement for my liking, and I'm not necessarily keen on the range-damage aspect (nor having to run webs, tracking enhancers and target computers to ensure damage application). Yes, they do critical - but I think there's as many pros as cons. Let's face it: for folks that like to sit and gate camp, turrets offer the best bang for your buck.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2664
|
Posted - 2013.12.31 16:21:00 -
[417] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Unlike earlier, their damage is frontloaded - with obvious situational advantages and disadvantages. The long reload and limited, though near flawlessly applied damage pushes it into the niche of a support-vessel. For example, try your old Caracal - but instead of running it solo in FW / nullbaby-staging, just try it as a supportvessel for a group of ships skirmishing another, slower fleet reliant on fast moving warp-ins. I'm not entirely sure what my dps is for the short terms I need to cycle launchers anyways, it just seems to excel in that particular role better than ever.
It just lost the 29 other applications avaiable before, like the 400dps rapid light 100mn-gu with large SB. Except the cons now seriously outweigh the pros. The problem with losing the other 29 applications is that we really haven't gained any new ones.
Caleb Seremshur wrote:If you're flying HAM always take a web. A painter isn't much good but a web will do wonders. Also don't use rage HAM against frigates.. 300+ sig radius against them? Webs are good, but that kind of defeats the whole range advantage with most missile systems. Rigors and dual target painters are probably more effective.
What we really need is a Ballistic Enhancer to improve explosion radius, explosion velocity and missile velocity (although arguably that still won't help RLMLs). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2664
|
Posted - 2013.12.31 16:34:00 -
[418] - Quote
Rapid Light Missile Launchers If the 40-second reload will remain remain, and the issue of swapping ammo types can't (or won't) be addressed - then the simplest change to balance this weapon system is to increase the ammunition capacity. A quick comparison of light-medium T2 launchers: Rockets (50), Light (53), Rapid Light (18; 80 pre-nerf), Heavy Assault (66), Heavy (40). I think an increase to 30 would solve most if not all of the sticking issues with them. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2664
|
Posted - 2013.12.31 16:37:00 -
[419] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:I would really like to see missiles expanded as a charge, ECM missiles of some sort and such. No damage, but giving a reason to make use of the long range missiles instead of kiting within disruptor range. Tracking disruptor missiles. No damage, but a cumulative -1% tracking penalty per missile that lasts for 10 seconds. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2664
|
Posted - 2013.12.31 17:24:00 -
[420] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Never gonna happen though so I don't know why I bother daydreaming about effective long range missile use against mobile targets. One can always dream... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2665
|
Posted - 2013.12.31 18:44:00 -
[421] - Quote
So after weeks of frustration, I finally found a niche hybrid PvE-PvP role for rapid light missile launchers. It's fairly specialized and requires a very unique (and expensive) setup. ButGǪ It outperforms all other weapon systems (including any kind of missile or turret) as well as extending me options to deal with those uninvited frigates that keep cropping up.
I can't overstate that this is a very specific role, and as such everything with the ship (modules, rigs, implants) conforms to a single theme. I ran several live runs this morning and it performed flawlessly. No kill mails, as this wasn't engineered as a frigate hunter-killer. It's intended to either get you out of a jam or provide a little "incentive" if someone strays too close or launches a flurry of drones at you.
I'm going to train to Light Missiles-V for the extra +5% damage, although I'm sticking with my Faction RLMLs as this gives me an extra volley (or 5.55% more DPS). A lot of the cheaper RLMLs only hold 16 rounds, so Faction actually gives you 18.75% more DPS for the same fitting (albeit more expensive). It's too bad that missile specialization doesn't augment damage, as even with the rate of fire bonuses T2 launchers are still slower than Faction.
For 2014 I'm not holding out much hope that we'll see any changes or improvements with missiles. With the increasing rate of drone use and 'drone assist', I think CCP has opened Pandora's Box. This whole turret vs. launcher debate is moot; drones out-track, out-range and out-alpha anything else. They're not subject to tracking disruption and sentries are almost impervious to ECM. The only thing you can temporarily do is sensor dampen your attackerGǪ that is, until he 'assists' the drones to someone else. Then there's the issue of increasing node load, instability and crashes. So I think that this will have to be urgently dealt with, but with the prevalent usage of drones - expect a lot of tears and opposition that will force this to drag on.
Or maybe they'll just kill Drone Assist a week before the next release. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2669
|
Posted - 2013.12.31 22:04:00 -
[422] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Rapid Drone Assist? That's a scary thought... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2669
|
Posted - 2013.12.31 23:48:00 -
[423] - Quote
I am disposable wrote:HAMs, light missiles, and rockets are decent in PVP. Everything else sucks. Period. HAMs are better than HMLs, but damage application still sucks against anything smaller than a cruiser. Unless you're outfitted with rigors, target painters or webs - you might as well be throwing rocks.
I am disposable wrote:Queue the drone users posting "but drones are easy to kill". Yes, because it's so easy to target swarms of them under drone assist at maximum range. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2669
|
Posted - 2014.01.01 00:10:00 -
[424] - Quote
I am disposable wrote:Notice I said "decent" rather than "good" or "great". The best missile users have is middling weapon systems, and it seems that is the best we can hope for. If by "decent" you mean "suck less", then we're in agreement. The only missile systems that don't suck at this point are light and cruise missiles. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2669
|
Posted - 2014.01.01 00:34:00 -
[425] - Quote
Brief addendum to my RLML update... I ran into a few scenarios where I couldn't complete the task at hand with a single ammunition clip. It did require a reload, but this was preferably to deploying a mobile depot for a 60-second+ refit and sending up a red "here I am" flag. As an interesting side note, it would've taken an extra reload using T2 launchers - or probably an extra two reloads with T1s. Yeah, that extra +1 round with Faction launchers can make a huge difference under the right conditions...
Out of curiosity I wanted to see if you could overheat your rapid launchers and burn them out in a single volley. Turns out you can't (at least with Thermodynamics IV, anyway). 65% and a 500k ISK repair bill was the best I could do. Amazing how much the heat dissipates in 40 seconds. I wonder...
With a bit more ammunition capacity (50% minimum) I think I'd be a happy camper. My preference is to be in and out in under 90 seconds, and forcing a reload or two tends to invite unwanted attention (and mission interruptus). It's always a frigate, one desperately trying to secure point for the slower reinforcements. I even had one sit on a gate last night in a vain attempt to catch me. I still don't like the new RLMLs, but I'm learning to make them work with my particular play style. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2669
|
Posted - 2014.01.01 02:04:00 -
[426] - Quote
RLML use/configuration tips...
GÇó Faction launchers = 19 ammunition (+1) over T2s (and ROF is faster than max T2) GÇó Light Missiles V = extra +5% damage (more important than T2/specialization) GÇó Zainou 'Snapshot' Light Missiles implants = +3/+5 damage (definite must) GÇó A pair of Caldari Navy Ballistic Controllers gives you the same damage as three T2 ballistic controllers (minus the ROF from the third one, which you really don't need anyway). This reduces CPU requirements and frees up a slot, and you can offset the ROF loss if so desired with a Zainou 'Deadeye' Rapud Launch RL-1003 or 1005 implant. GÇó Medium Warhead Calefaction Catalyst II gives you +15% raw damage, which even though stacking penalized still gives you +8.5% overall damage. Perfect for T2 hulls as it leaves enough for a rigor or hydraulic. GÇó Rigors, rigors and rigors. Both T2 and T1 rigors trump T2 flares, so not that light missiles necessarily need them (they still benefit, obviously) - but two T1 flares are only marginally better than a single T1 rigor. This is part of the missile mechanics, but the short version is that when rigors have maxed out the target signature they then reduce the effects of target velocity; flares do not.
I'll add more if I can think of any. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2669
|
Posted - 2014.01.01 04:20:00 -
[427] - Quote
I am disposable wrote:I'm kind of amazed at how hard you are trying to make these things not suck. The thought of buying faction RLMLs fills me with revulsion to be honest. Adapt and overcome. RLMLs have the potential to be a tremendous deterrent against the roving frigate gangs that seem more prevalent now with the warp speed changes. As I said, these are role-specific at this point. My sole purpose with testing them was to see if I could get a decent return on my investment (mainly to see if any of the skill training could be salvaged). Not only did I achieve this, but to my surprise I recouped the entire cost of the Faction launchers in a single evening session. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2673
|
Posted - 2014.01.01 17:14:00 -
[428] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:That's not what your killboard is saying. edit: you are legitimately terrible and I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
And to think you opposed my bomb-launcher marauder idea. Instead we get this ****-weak mini-triage mode that gargles on ass as your ship slams to a halt in 2 AB cycles. Can't even get a mass increase for that sweet drift. Happy New Year to you too.
First, I've never claimed to excel at PvP - so I'm not sure what your point is. I've offered my honest and tested opinions on RLMLs and RHMLs for discussion only, and they should be taken with a grain of salt. At least I've actually tried these weapon systems in different scenarios as opposed to offering blanket criticism.
Second, not that Marauders have any direct bearing on this discussion - but if you read through the Marauder thread you might find that my biggest criticism was not how they turned out, but rather how the core rebalance was predetermined beforehand. The final iteration of Marauders was essentially the first iteration. The only similarity with RLMLs is that we were presented with an idea for 'feedback' when in reality there wasn't going to be any. Unlike Marauders, there was no testing period or recourse for the RLML and RHML changes.
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:So many expensive ships lost in a vague attempt to justify something that cannot be justified. Way to go Arthur It helps to be insured where possible. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2675
|
Posted - 2014.01.01 22:28:00 -
[429] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Back to the core, rapids totally need their reload time tweaked. Exact value is not my concern, but it needs to be *better*. My preference would be more ammunition, ie: 30 capacity for a T2. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2675
|
Posted - 2014.01.02 02:55:00 -
[430] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:I think this would be reasonable, along with a reduced reload time of say 25 seconds. Slight changes overall but would mean you would have the option of engaging the odd T1 cruiser in your T2 Assault cruiser. If it were up to us... missiles would rule the galaxy! I can see more ammunition or a reduced loading time. Probably not both, but who knows what 2014 holds. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2678
|
Posted - 2014.01.02 10:41:00 -
[431] - Quote
I hate to admit it, but I had a lot of fun this evening with the new RLMLs. (yes, I'm half expecting the ground to open up under me any second nowGǪ)
I decided to stop screwing around with PvE for an evening and work on a hardcore PvP fit. Wow. It's amazing how ships flee in terror when you make a point of specifically going after them. I killed two Catalysts, a cyno Reaver, Retriever and Herron. I almost got a Hawk earlier but lacked dual webs so he managed to eek out of jam range. The Retriever even netted me some Russian fan mailGǪ Most of these barely had a chance to establish a lock and fire a volley or two before they exploded. Gate and station guns were actually more of a nuisance.
Now that I have a good idea of what the RLMLs are capable of, I plan to wreak as much havoc as possible. The right fit is key, and good implants certainly don't hurt. It also helps to be fearless. Kill Count: 2 Destroyers, 2 Frigates, 1 Miner GǪ Losses: 0 I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2679
|
Posted - 2014.01.02 16:38:00 -
[432] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Point is.... you could have killed all these same way with standard missile launchers... so no effective gain. If you are in a bellicose with a painter and web HAMS are as good to kill frigates and much superior killign everythign else Unlikely, except for possibly the Retriever. With this particular fit the DPS with RLMLs is about 60% higher than HAMLs and more than double HMLs. Actual damage application with HAMs or HMs would've been further reduced, as I wasn't running any target painters or rigors. All my targets either burned towards the gate or station, so I had a very limited window of opportunity.
I am disposable wrote:On the one kill I see on your KB that fits this story (Catalyst) you only accounted for 21.87% of the damage done to the target while gate guns accounted for the rest. You are also using a 2+billion isk ship to kill a T1 destroyer it should be pointed out. Are you really changing your tune on RLMLs because you can kill a Catalyst with them mounted on a shiny Tengu with the help of gate guns? Really? Yes, the first Catalyst made the mistake of going suspect within range of the gate guns and I finished him off. And actually it was a $650m Tengu (base Tengu is $300-$325m, so it wasn't ridonkuously expensive), but I digress... As for the other 4 kills, I accounted for 100% of the damage.
Just merely sharing my experiences. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2681
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 01:09:00 -
[433] - Quote
Another day, another roam... I took an improved RLML fit out and got into a skirmish with a Thrasher and Executioner around a gate, but they choose discretion as the better part of valour and jumped. One of them later refit to a Vagabond, and I put him halfway through shields in a few volleys before a Vexor jumped in to join the party. I shot all the Vexor's Hobgoblins (which I don't think he was expecting) and with the Vagabond pointed he choose exit stage left. I burned out the gate timer and ended the engagement because I don't think he was interested in a 1:1.
Would've paid good ISK to see the Vexor pilot's face. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2681
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 01:56:00 -
[434] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Could someone from CCP explain to us why this is? Maybe they can't fix or otherwise enhance the legacy code... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2681
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 09:28:00 -
[435] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Would you mind linking the fit you are currently using. Not that I see myself flying a 600mil ship to kill ships worth less than 10mil as exciting. If you fire me an email I'll send you the current fit. It's exciting because you don't have to look for fights in a strategic cruiser - they always seem to find you.
Sgt Ocker wrote:**Is it still PVP when specifically targeting ships you know have no chance of winning? IMO, this is more closely related to a smart bombing battleship on a gate blapping frigates and pods, it has nothing to do with PVP - just pure gang. In fairness, the Cormorant engaged me - as did the Vagabond and Omen. This quote seems appropriate: "If you're in a fair fight, you're doing it wrong. If you find yourself in a fair fight, it's because the other guy's reinforcements haven't arrived yet." I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2682
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 13:52:00 -
[436] - Quote
Gorski Car wrote:you could have fitted blasters to that tengu and still killed a catalyst bro. The whole point was to use RLMLs... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2682
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 17:26:00 -
[437] - Quote
I am disposable wrote:Are you saying you killed a Vexor and a Vagabond with a RLML Tengu? I don't believe that for one second. I don't believe you could kill either solo to be honest. Re-read my original post and answer your own question. I think I'm about done with this threadGǪ I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2702
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 01:59:00 -
[438] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:The thing is: most missile users just want more range. I wouldn't say this is necessarily the case. I'd gladly give up range for speed and I'd trade raw damage on my heavy missiles for improved damage application. The only players that might want more range are torpedo users, but I think given a choice of more range or damage application that exceeds cruise missiles - it's a no brainer. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2707
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 21:23:00 -
[439] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:It's not the size of the dog in the fight... Yes, but you need to know what kind of fight you're in - otherwise it's like bringing your dog to a c o c k fight... (these censors really need to evaluate words in context...) I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2712
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 19:35:00 -
[440] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:HML do in fact work far better on anything not Caldari, mainly due to more relevant bonuses. HML fit; (Using my skills) 3 X BCU HML Damnation = 462Dps @ 70.8k Furies, all damage trypes. 3 X BCU HML Nighthawk = 447Dps @ 47.2k Scourge Furies 325 Dps, other damage types. Damnation, 124k EHP Nighthawk, 117k The problem with HMLs is that the DPS is extremely misleading, regardless of hulls. Great for L1-L4 missions, but beyond that there's not really much application... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2712
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 20:12:00 -
[441] - Quote
Maxemus Payne wrote:Our Problems are now gone! 290DPS with my setup... 2058ms 8.2k shields and 24k EHP. What more could you ask for? Without rigors, flares or target painters your applied DPS against an AB target is going to be a fraction of that. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2713
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 21:11:00 -
[442] - Quote
Maxemus Payne wrote:That is to be expected indeed. I'm just trying to rationalize your HML fit with this comment: "Now you pesky missile spewing demons can stop being greedy and play the game."
Assuming V skills, you'll do between 40-42% of stated DPS. Against a cruiser. So your 290 DPS Caracal actually has applied DPS of around 120. Less than most frigatesGǪ Granted, the Caracal will survive a bit longer - but I'm not sure what the point would be. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2713
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 22:11:00 -
[443] - Quote
Maxemus Payne wrote:Read the very last line of my post. You said "maybe", so I wasn't sure. To non-missile users, on paper it looks good - and therein lies the problem... The solution to addressing any missile shortfalls with the Caracal... is to train the extra SP for a Tengu. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2713
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 00:53:00 -
[444] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:Why? Medium weapons are designed primarily to deal damage to cruisers. Which cruiser has a sig radius of 40m? 40m or 400m - won't matter for HMLs if the target is moving. The only way HMLs have a limited chance of working in PvP is with a 100MN Tengu running nanos and rigors. A target painter wouldn't hurt, either. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2714
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 01:37:00 -
[445] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:hmmm pointing people and time to target, and damage application to consider, while those fleet stabbers are chasing you around like Mary Poppins in a lesbian bar Thanks for that mental imagery.
Moonaura wrote:I know what you're thinking... why oh why didn't I swallow the blue pill... Probably because it was given as a suppository... (at least the last 2 missile changes felt like it anyway). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2714
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 04:12:00 -
[446] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:As I noted. HMLs are ****. There's still nothing functionally wrong with either fit. The rest of the fit can't help that HMLs are in a sorry place right now. From a PvE standpoint neither is functional, either. Try running both in an L4 and see how long you last... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2717
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 10:49:00 -
[447] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Also BS is not the size, its more BC. THey can hit BC easily for full damage.
Also .. why people think they shoudl be able to do high damage to a ship usign the moduile to avoid damage ? ( i.e AB) You need to use at least 1 or more module since he invested in to not take that damage. Somethign like a WEB and a TP. If you only knew how dismal the HML numbers actually wereGǪ
GÇó HML vs. AB Battleship GǪ 92% GÇó HML vs. AB Battlecruiser GǪ 70%; w/3 rigors GǪ 100% GÇó HML vs. AB Cruiser GǪ 26% (not a typo); w/3 rigors GǪ 39%; w/3 rigors +1 TP GǪ 48%
If you completely strip your tank, run $50-million worth of rigs and a single target painter - you too can have a 143 DPS Caracal. What about a second target painter you say? That gets you another 6%... Imagine having 2 tracking enhancers or tracking computers, full turret rigs and still only being able to apply 54% damageGǪ
Outside of L4 missions I just can't see any use for HMLs unless you're part of a gang that webs targets. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2726
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 15:41:00 -
[448] - Quote
Estella Osoka wrote:Your forgetting precision heavy missiles. What you gain in damage application with Precision is offset by lower damage. Plus you're giving up half your effective range. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2729
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 02:52:00 -
[449] - Quote
Maxemus Payne wrote:That is exactly my point. A. You can't brawl with a HAM setup vs another brawler cruiser. No EHP... The HML setup can survive a lot, but the application of damage is abysmal unless you have TPs and rigs to go with it. I have 18+mil SP in missiles... and find them to be pretty useless. Example: Fighting 4-5 cruisers vs my ScyFy(HML) They have a plated AB Exequror that I spend the better part of 10 minutes trying to kill... I thought at the time that it might be slaved and 1600mm because it was dying so slow...but it was 800mm T2. I eventaully killed it and all of its support but they brought in Geddons and I had to leave grid. This should not be the case... Arthur Aihaken- you are exactly right and I appreciate that you're trying to educate others as to the real shame. 26% damage application with heavy missiles against AB cruisers. That's assuming V skills, of course. If you completely strip your tank for rigors and a pair of target painters, you can increase this to 54%. With almost a billion dollars of +5 missile implants and a pair of Caldari Navy Faction ballistic controllers, you can probably break the 60% mark. However, all it takes is a single sensor dampener to ruin your fun - so you almost need to run a sensor booster or signal amplifier just to ensure you're not dropped to heavy assault missile range. What you end up with is a glass cannon - not really suitable for PvP. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2729
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 10:22:00 -
[450] - Quote
RLML Analysis As we've been left to our own devices, I thought it was long overdue for a specific RLML analysis. The test platform is a Tengu with V skills, 3 ballistic controllers (2 faction) and no implants. The first bar (dark blue) represents the average DPS with a T2 launcher/faction ammunition when you factor in reloads. Light blue is T2 with Precision ammunition, light grey T2 with Faction ammunition, dark grey T2 with Fury ammunition and finally red Faction with Faction ammunition.
RLML Comparison
Observations: GÇó Precision ammunition actually fares surprisingly well, delivering 45% damage to MWD Interceptors and peaking at 100% damage against AB Destroyers. The only drawback with Precision is that it's half the range of Faction or T1 ammunition, and even with hydraulic rigs you'll be hard-pressed to extend the speed such that MWD Interceptors can't outrun them. Unless you're in a Caracal or Cerebus there's almost no benefit with Precision outside of PvE, and you'd be further ahead with HAMLs. GÇó Fury ammunition really only starts to pay off against medium-size targets, starting with 79% damage against MWD Heavy Assault Cruisers and peaking at 100% damage against MWD Cruisers. Again, there's a range trade-off compared to Faction or T1 ammunition - but it's only 25% less. Again, with PvE Faction ammunition is probably worth the trade-off in DPS for the extended range. GÇó Faction launchers with Faction ammunition outperform T2 launchers with Precision ammunition against Destroyers and Cruisers, especially when you consider the additional range with Faction ammunition. Aside from the cost, there's a huge SP benefit in not having to also train Light Missile Specialization I through V (most will probably only go to IV).
PvE Considerations: GÇó With the 40-second reload time, RLMLs aren't well-suited as a primary weapon. However, they do shine as a secondary "frigate-clearing" weapon in a pair (leaving 3-4 main launchers for primary use). If you assign HAMLs or HMLs as your primary weapon, you have between 40-66 (or 45-75 with Faction) rounds of ammunition to continue applying DPS while the RLMLs reload as well. GÇó RLMLs only require about 2/3's the power, so in many instances this frees up just enough grid to upgrade your tank. On a Tengu this allows 4x HAMLs and 2x RLMLs using the Augmented Capacitor subsystem, so you can squeeze in more DPS. GÇó RLMLs can be pre-equipped with FoF ammunition such that anything that enters stasis web range will be immediately eliminated with one click (FoF will engage and continue to attack the closet targets), which leaves you more time to focus on the primary targets. I call it "pest control". GÇó Lately we're seeing a lot of mission harassers. These fall into two categories: stupid (those who can't figure out that you're not utilizing drones set to auto-aggres) and devious (those who will go suspect by shooting a tractor module, lure you into a limited engagement, warp out and return with something like a command ship or strategic cruiser). In almost every instance I've seen tanked destroyers utilized, probably with at least one warp core. However, what they're not expecting is to get scrammed. Their only recourse is to then try and run the limited engagement out against your weaker primary weapons, but if you have RLMLs they're effectively screwed - because you can apply full damage in a very short timeframe. One Thrasher just escaped with 5% hull remainingGǪ Since we're going to see more and more of this, it's something to start thinking about when working on PvE mission fits.
Other Considerations: GÇó I've mentioned this previously, but with RLMLs there's almost no benefit with utilizing more than two ballistic controllers. I've used three in this example, but the third is only 57% effective - so you're really only gaining 5.7% damage (since RLMLs are already so fast, another 5.7% ROF isn't going to make a huge difference). A fourth is entirely a waste. This effectively frees up 2 low slots, allowing for a damage control and nanofiber. Nanofibers are the best choice, as inertias blow your signature up and overdrives reduce your cargo capacity. GÇó RLMLs have an amazingly high damage application, so you don't really need to utilize rigors or target painters. I mean, you can - but they're already 61.16% effective against MWD Frigates and 80.08% effective against AB Destroyers. Their whole advantage is range, so I'd forego a target painter that can be dampened in favor of a rigor that can't. When fitting rigs, the order is T2 rigor, T1 rigor and then T2 flare. There is only a marginal difference between a T2 flare and T1 rigor, so forego the additional expense on the T2 flare. Also, the way missile mechanics work is that once you beat the target's signature radius rigors start influencing target velocity.
Addendum: In reviewing my data, I forgot to adjust the DRF for Precision and Fury ammunition - so I went back in and revised the chart (Precision is improved by -0.2 but Fury takes a big +0.4 hit). DRF stands for Damage Reduction Factor, and basically the larger the munition the bigger the value is. This didn't really change the analysis, since Precision basically got better and Fury got worse in their respective applications. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2729
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 11:03:00 -
[451] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Rapid lights were broken, being too powerful. They were damaging the game so they have been replaced by essentially a different experiment. It's for us to work out whether we find that useful and vote with our fits and our kill mails. This will generate data, which CCP will use to guide future modifications. "Different experiment" - that's one way to put it. The data I'd be most interested in is not the usage, but the buy/sell information for RLMLs post-Rubicon. How many RLMLs were firesale'd after Rubicon was released, and what kind of -¦% are we looking at for buy and sell orders?
Right now I'm using RLMLs as "pest control" for those twits who insist on shooting my Mobile Tractor Units for kicks (not all of us run straight PvE fits). The ones that can't figure out that Tengus don't have dronesGǪ What's interesting is prior to this week, I almost never had a visitor in any of my missions. Now, I do in at least one out of every two missions. And here I thought I had to enlist with FW to smack frigates and destroyers aroundGǪ
I'd be ecstatic with a shorter reload (20 to 30-seconds) or increased ammunition capacity, but I don't think either will be forthcoming as it would place the average DPS for the new RLMLs ahead of the original RLMLs - and this was intended as a nerf that wouldn't also screw-up LMLs. I'm still holding out some slim hope that they can address the ammunition swap, but I have a sinking suspicion this will never materialize. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2733
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 15:20:00 -
[452] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Yeh the ammo swap is a problem. Difficult to solve. It seemed like we were being thrown a bone, but it just seemed that way... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2738
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 02:40:00 -
[453] - Quote
Rise, we've been patiently waiting for an update since late November. Since you've indicated you've now returned from holidays and that the Nestor is basically proceeding as is, this should finally give you some time to address many of the concerns raised here. If you're not going to give us the time of day then please just finally indicate the RLML and RHML are set in stone and lock this thread. Thanks. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2738
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 06:24:00 -
[454] - Quote
I am disposable wrote:No, we were being told about a bone that we might be thrown someday, maybe. All I know is it feels like we got bonedGǪ I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2742
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 16:14:00 -
[455] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I wanted to let those of you still paying attention here know that we aren't satisfied with the current state of rapid launchers and are expecting to make changes in coming releases to improve the situation.
For now, I don't have details to give you but I want to let you know what we're looking at.
First, and most importantly, it's important to me that this mechanic feels fun to use. It still hasn't been that long since they hit TQ but a lot of the initial feedback is not great on this aspect. It's likely that for Rubicon 1.1 we will make a small adjustment to both RLML and RHML to either give you more active time or less reload time, I'll let you know when that change is pinned down exactly. Going past 1.1 we want to collect more data and feedback so that if we make a larger change (which we are considering) to the system as a whole it's as informed as possible. That larger change would come either in 1.2 or in summer depending on what it was.
Second, I've been working on the ammo swapping issue and will not be able to get in a change for 1.1. Solutions for this have been messy and we aren't satisfied enough with any of them to try and make them fit in this release. As we iterate after 1.1 I want to solve this issue one way or another.
Last, I'm doing some investigation for getting some kind of reload timer work going. Can't say if and when this would happen but it would have enormous value so I'm looking into it. Thanks for the update. It's definitely comforting to those of us who have stuck with our RLMLs to know that our efforts haven't been in vain.
I just wanted to touch base on the one comment you alluded to with respect to the system as a whole. Might we infer that this could mean an overhaul or review of the entire missile system, or would this just apply to the rapid missile launchers? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2742
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 16:33:00 -
[456] - Quote
RLML Options Since pictures are better than a thousand words, here are some RLML options. RLML Options
The first bar is the original RLML and the second bar is the new RLML. For an accurate comparison, reload time and ammunition capacity has been factored in. The three options I've presented are: a) 20-second reload time, b) 30-second reload time and c) +50% ammunition increase (40-second reload time).
Although my preference is the 20-second reload time, as you can see from the chart this slightly edges out the original RLMLs. And while the 30-second reload time would be an improvement, my personal preference is more ammunition (18 to 30 rounds) since there's almost no difference in reality between 30 and 40 seconds. This would place the new RLMLs closer to the originals, requiring less reloads as a whole - and as Rise has indicated - they're still working on the ammo swap aspect. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2742
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 16:36:00 -
[457] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Really there is no place in the game for rapid lights. If you want an anti-frigate missile system it should be light missile launchers. Just the same as it is for turrets. I's not the same for turrets, because medium turrets can actually hit frigates. So perish the thought and leggo my RLML... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2742
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 16:40:00 -
[458] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:In regards to the Up-time vs. Reload-time disjunction: Are you of the mind that it is an either/or situation? While it would not make the melodramatic posters happy, I could see a very small change to both being beneficial. By small I mean ~5sec less reload and ~5 more units of ammo in the clip for RLML. Personally, I'd simply prefer a bump in ammunition: T2 to 28(+10) and Faction to 30(+11). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2743
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 16:50:00 -
[459] - Quote
And the anti-missile crowd returns with a vengeanceGǪ Sorry guys, RLMLs are here to stay - and if anything, missile systems as a whole are due for a buff. I can almost taste the tears... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2744
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 21:58:00 -
[460] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:I am wondering if you considered playing with the heat statistics of modules instead of playing with reload times and ammo capacity. It is a more natural way to tune things and allow periodic burst damage without having complete damage blackouts. A faster rate of fire when overheated offers zero benefit because it just compresses the DPS into a shorter timeframe. Extending ammunition capacity is the ticket. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2745
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 23:18:00 -
[461] - Quote
Viceorvirtue wrote:Extra ammunition does not help the problem of entering a fight with the wrong ammo loaded, or having to swap ammo because a situation changed. Being able to swap ammo actually lets the pilot make a choice during combat and possibly be rewarded for that choice with more damage or in some cases the ability to deal damage at all. A 40 second reload does not give you a choice, even a 20 second reload would feel punishing to use in combat.
I still maintain that frontloading rlm damage like this is a poor mechanic solely because it makes the fights binary, either frigates die remarkably quickly or they live long enough that you have to question the value of using the ship over any of its equivalents. Polarizing weapon systems for launchers (rlm only good vs frigs, hams and hmls only workable vs cruisers or larger) is unfun because it makes the pilot feel like they undocked the wrong ship when they could've taken an omen or thorax or arty rupture and had the ability to kill both cruisers and frigates decently without having to change its entire fit.
Caracal proliferation in small gang was mostly from the triple lse and lse/xlasb style fits where you had enough tank that you could stay on field almost indefinitely. Dual lse caracals were actually very balanced against other cruisers, thorax could project far enough to outdamage them in point range, omens could also hold their own (single lse omens couldn't stand up well but aar omens would have little issue provided you were in point range).
Currently reloading isn't an interesting and tactical choice, but a punishment intended to create 'tense moments of fun'. Rise indicated they're working on the ammunition swap issue, so that's a separate issue. And yes, that was exactly my point with increased ammunition capacity being more beneficial than a shorter reload time. 20-seconds is never going to happen since this boosts the average DPS beyond the original RLMLs, and 30-seconds is marginally more useful than 40-seconds. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2745
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 23:42:00 -
[462] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:How would it look if you halved the missile capacity but made the reload time 10s? More RLML Options The DPS with 10-round capacity/10-second reload is more powerful than 18-rounds/20-second reload, and both still have a higher DPS than the original RLMLs. Not sure how I'd like 20 seconds of shooting followed by a 10-second reload. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2745
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 00:13:00 -
[463] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:At the point that you drop this module back to a 10 second reload, you have invalidated the fundamental purpose to the change, and may as well slow them back down, revert the ammo capacity to pre-Rubicon, and leave them the way they were originally. Basically, yes. Expand ammunition capacity to 28 rounds (T2), keep the reload at 40-seconds and implement a 10-second ammunition type swap. What I might suggest with respect to the ammunition swap is to only replenish 25% of the ammunition capacity when you switch types thus allowing it to also function as an emergency reload.
Hasikan Miallok wrote:Here is an interesting question. Assuming PvE and missioning (clearly not going to work in PvP) would a mobile depot bypass the 40 second reload problem? It actually works great in PvP if you know how to utilize it properly. But in answer to your question, no - mobile depots force a 40-second reload (first thing everyone probably tried). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2746
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 02:46:00 -
[464] - Quote
Capqu wrote:I think my main issue with RLML right now is RoF bonuses are absolute garbage on them and so many missile ships that used to be good with RLML rely on RoF bonuses for their damage. Yeah, but it's a Caldari thing. More ammunition would fix that on the RLMLs... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2746
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 02:53:00 -
[465] - Quote
I am disposable wrote:You do understand that Tranquility is not the test server yes? This post combined with the way you stubbornly forced the rapid launcher changes into Rubicon despite a lack of proper testing makes me wonder. I think we need to get past this and focus on what we can do to improve the rapid launchers at this point. I'd rather see a small update in Rubicon 1.1 that at least gets us headed in the right direction. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2748
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 04:31:00 -
[466] - Quote
Clean Protagonist wrote:Id rather the test server get used for testing changes, and then released tested and proven changes to the actual server, instead of pushing changes out over 200 pages of posts arguing against it, and then going :oops: What's to test? More ammunition is the way to go... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2753
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:19:00 -
[467] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:That's an awful lot of bandaids to apply to a now fundamentally flawed and broken system. Increasing the ammunition capacity isn't a band-aid; it was probably cut too drastically in the first release. As for the ammunition swap, this is a feature that's been requested (and we have acknowledgement they're working on) - but I don't see a way of preventing abuse unless we limit it to replenishing only 25% with a 10-second reload. Otherwise you could abuse this to go from T2 Scourge Fury to Faction Scourge and back again. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2755
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 09:52:00 -
[468] - Quote
I took the day to consider the feedback and suggestions, and I think I've come up with a solid proposal for RLMLs. It's something that should address the majority of concerns and could be implemented very easily for Rubicon 1.1. While there were a lot of great ideas, I opted for KISS (keep-it-simple-stupid)
RLML Proposal The above chart shows the RLMLs from Odyssey, Rubicon and the proposed fix. I've included overheated values just for comparison even though there were no changes to heat mechanics. In short, we put RLMLs back to the Odyssey stats, retain the increased grid and CPU fittings from Rubicon and slash the ammunition to 28 for T2 launchers (everything else adjusted accordingly).
This allows gameplay to essentially return to normal for RLMLs, with the caveat that players will be reloading approximately 3 times as often. And it solves the ammunition swap dilemma. This works out to an approximate 7% damage nerf for RLMLs, but does not affect light missiles or light missile launchers for frigates and destroyers - something I felt was important. The same premise should be applied to RHMLs as well (return them to the 1st pre-Rubicon iteration, slash the ammunition capacity and reduce the reload time to 10-seconds). GǪ..
HAMLs and HMLs still need to have their damage application addressed, and this proposal is not intended to (nor can it) address any of those shortcomings. Comments and feedback welcome, thanks. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2757
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 17:02:00 -
[469] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Arthur, would you mind looking at my suggestion and comment. I'm not good with math but after playing around with EFT found, increasing firing rate (before skills) from 6.24 to 6.63 reduces DPS by around 8%. This is a fairly substantial drop in Dps but as light missiles have pretty good damage application, combined with my previous suggestion I think it would work well. My numbers seem to indicate it works out to a DPS hit of between 6-9% depending on ammunition capacity. To avoid inadvertently causing grief for frigate and destroyer fits that may use light missile launchers, the solution needs to remain with the rapid light missiles themselves (and not the ammunition). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2757
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 18:17:00 -
[470] - Quote
"I would not eat green eggs and ham. I do not like them, Sam-I-am."
Something a bit different to mull around while we wait for the next RLML updateGǪ Which cruiser-class ship has the best damage application for heavy and heavy assault missiles? What to chooseGǪ You're in for some interesting resultsGǪ
Cruiser, HML Comparison Cruiser, HAML Comparison Notes: V skills, T2 launchers with Faction Scourge ammunition, 3x T2 ballistic controllers and no implants for each setup.
Heavy Missiles It shouldn't come as any surprise that the Tengu dominates with both weapon systems, but what did come as a shock is how well the Caracal Navy performed. Up to AB Battlecruisers, the Caracal Navy is 82% as effective as a pricier Tengu - and only 1% less effective than the Drake Navy. And the standard Drake actually outperforms the Navy Drake for MWD Battlecruisers and up where the Navy Drake actually outperforms the Drake for cruisers and smaller. Bizzare!
Heavy Assault Missiles This chart really blew me awayGǪ When it comes to HAMLs, the Caracal Navy is soundly trumped by everything. To say it sucks is a mild understatement: a Caracal Navy HAML setup is only 38% as effective as a Tengu. The others? 56% for the standard Caracal, 77% for the Drake and 88% for the Drake Navy. Was totally not expecting thisGǪ
For PvE, the clear winner is the Tengu. But for the most cost-effective mission ships, the Caracal Navy and Drake are the best choices for HML setups. For a HAML setup, the standard Caracal or either of the Drakes (don't touch the Caracal Navy with a 100-foot poleGǪ). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2758
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 19:44:00 -
[471] - Quote
Vinyl 41 wrote:a cool comaprison on the hulls but its somehow creating a false belief that HML/ HAMs are "good" could you post the base stats of the tengu HML/HAMs as the base value for comparison especialy when you are using % values
Sure, no problem. Base values for the Tengu are as follows:
Heavy Assault Missile, Heavy Missile Interceptor: 27.29 dps ... 32.52 dps AB Frigate: 34.21 dps ... 38.73 dps MWD Assault Frigate: 64.93 dps ... 63.57 dps MWD Frigate: 69.94 dps ... 67.33 dps AB Destroyer: 103.70 dps ... 91.31 dps AB Cruiser: 143.15 dps ... 117.16 dps MWD HAC: 206.48 dps ... 155.53 dps MWD Destroyer: 226.24 dps ... 166.91 dps MWD Cruiser: 295.26 dps ... 205.08 dps AB Battlecruiser: 551.25 dps ... 332.36 dps MWD Battlecruiser: 663.72 dps (max) ... 481.43 dps (max) AB Battleship: 663.72 dps (max) ... 441.02 dps MWD Battleship: 663.72 dps (max) ... 481.43 dps (max)
Yes, your eyes aren't deceiving you - heavy missiles actually outperform heavy assault missiles against Interceptors and AB Frigates. They're roughly the same for MWD Assault Frigates, MWD Frigates and AB Destroyers. Considering the range advantage with heavy missiles, I certainly wasn't expecting heavy missiles to perform this good... From the numbers you can clearly see why heavy assault missiles are the preferred medium of choice for wormhole Tengus. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2758
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 19:56:00 -
[472] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:so from these numbers we can conclude that HMLs are in an ok place? That depends... Do you want to see the original RLML numbers for comparison? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2758
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 20:04:00 -
[473] - Quote
Rapid Light Missiles (original) Interceptor: 115.71 dps AB Frigate: 135.08 dps MWD Assault Frigate: 209.46 dps MWD Frigate: 220.41 dps AB Destroyer: 288.62 dps AB Cruiser: 359.87 dps MWD HAC and up: 377.98 dps (max)
So yeah, you can certainly see the appeal of applying a minimum of 31% base damage and pretty much the maximum against medium-sized targets. Basically even though they do less overall damage, RLMLs apply 2.5x more damage to cruisers than HMLs. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2758
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 20:13:00 -
[474] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:What would be the damage when using a railgun to shoot at the same target travelling across the guns at optimal range? This is an equivalent situation.
Optimal conditions, the rails will outperform the missiles. Not too mention the instant applied damage. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2758
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 20:31:00 -
[475] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Shall we prove that with some numbers? A ship travelling across the guns is in no way optimal.
There's so much that can influence this... Do we use rigors, flares or target painters for missiles? Tracking enhancers, tracking computers and tracking rigs for rails? I'm not entirely sure where we're going with this... Under ideal conditions rails, even against a moving target - rails can still apply 100%+ damage. Even with full rigors and a pair of target painters - missiles will barely break the 50% mark. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2759
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 20:51:00 -
[476] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:No, but before we argue that missile should or should not be buffed, we need a baseline. If people are happy with guns let's use that as the baseline.
We can calculate the average damage when the frigate/cruiser etc is travelling at any angle to the guns by taking the integral of the damage formula between the limits 0 and 2 PI radians.
You have specified a rational tengu fit, so lets also do it with rational proteus 250mm railguns, legion beam lasers and loki 720mm artillery. I think players are more or less happy with guns and drones - although I think there's a bit of overall "drone envy" in terms of damage application. But I digress... Missiles can more or less hit anything (regardless of conditions), just that the damage usually sucks. The reality is that missiles should really receive an explosion velocity bonus if the target is on an intercept angle. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2759
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 22:19:00 -
[477] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:All these numbers against different sized targets don't really contribute to anything (no offense) I include them for frame of reference as there can be a large variation in performance between different hull/weapon types depending on the target size. Case in point, the example above that demonstrates how brutally horrible the Caracal Navy is in a heavy assault missile setup.
Quote:Whats important is the relation between the different launchers. Since the Cerberus already has been redesigned and the tengu hasn't, plus it supports all bonuses for all 3 weapon systems, i've chosen the Cerberus as a comparison platform, with T2 High damage (scourge) ammo. To-mato, toh-mato... The relationship is fairly straight-forward: heavy assault missiles are short-range, rapid light missiles are mid-range and heavy missiles are long-range. HAMLs lend themselves towards stasis webs, RLMLs don't really need anything and HMLs basically need rigors and target painters.
As for ammunition, no one (and I mean no one) uses non-Faction ammunition in PvP. The main reason for this is there's a huge range hit, and damage application goes entirely to crap. For example, Faction heavy missiles do about the same damage as Precision, plus the range. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2759
|
Posted - 2014.01.12 01:05:00 -
[478] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Actually thats not the case. If your able to kill the cruiser within one load of the RLML the RLML is a better choice in cruiser vs cruiser. Untill it has to reload it still does over 100 dps more, requires fewer webs to apply max dps, has nearly twice the range, and can fit a lot more tank. It's definitely not the case if you have a Caracal NavyGǪ
Quote:While i agree to your data, that the Caracal Navy is horrible with that weapon system, and that some of the other data is surprising, your still comparing ships. This threat however is not about wich missile system is best on what ship and the pro and cons of that ship / missile system / fit but about the Rapid missile launcher itself.
Your data on the ships and weapons certainly does warrent a discussion, However that is better done in a topic created for those issues, not this topic regarding the launchers. It's actually not a ship comparison; it's a reference chart for alternative medium-based weapon systems. It is applicable, because while we're waiting on the next RLML update it gives players some idea of what missile systems their particular hull might be bested suited for. And yes, discussion of alternatives is relevant until such time as the RLMLs are perceived differently. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2759
|
Posted - 2014.01.12 01:48:00 -
[479] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:In a lot of pvp situations you will need to be in point range (at least) so whatever range advantage missiles may have is pretty much mute... It's "moot", but I get your point. Range can definitely have an advantage if you're shooting at a particularly fast ship. I had an Interceptor outrun my light missiles. Not because his ship was faster, but just fast enough to run out the range. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2759
|
Posted - 2014.01.12 01:56:00 -
[480] - Quote
Unrelated question... Is there an animation for the Rapid Heavy Missile Launchers, or are they supposed to be static? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2760
|
Posted - 2014.01.12 03:07:00 -
[481] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:And it isn't even moot. If your fleet contains an Arazu, Lachesis or Keres then "point range" means the following: T2 disruptor with heat - 57.600km Republic Fleet with heat - 72km T2 disruptor with (unimplanted) cyclone fleet boost - 71.4km republic fleet disruptor with (unimplanted) cyclone fleet boost - 89.2km And people wonder why players run with a single warp core stabilizer... Heavy missiles - we're doing it wrong, lol. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2760
|
Posted - 2014.01.12 03:32:00 -
[482] - Quote
Just a brief RHML PvE update with some feedback... There are many takes on the ultimate L4 mission ship, but I have to say my favourite is the Rattlesnake. There's a 1000+ DPS L4 fit floating around that's quite popular, but I took mine to the next level...
Without giving away the fit (sorry), one tip I will pass along is to swap out the four standard cruise launchers for rapid heavy missile launchers. This actually does the same DPS, the RHMLs fit easier and you almost have the same number of volleys (23 vs. 27). When you consider the reduced damage application of cruise missile against non-battleships, the damage is probably higher with heavy missiles. Plus you don't need to run rigors or expensive implants to improve damage application against frigates (which cruisers missiles are borderline useless at). Most importantly, this frees up two low slots that you can run a signal amplifier and damage control to boost your range, lock speed and EHP. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2760
|
Posted - 2014.01.12 03:45:00 -
[483] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Thanks Mournful.. you just proved the point I was trying to make. Without the right support ships missiles aren't viable. I think to be viable... we need to think outside the box. I went out 2 days in a Tengu with 2 different fits, and I had the least success with the "traditional" Caldari setup. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2766
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 01:01:00 -
[484] - Quote
This has been an interesting side discussionGǪ Without agreeing or disagreeing one way or the other, I did want to offer a few points for considerationGǪ
GÇó Armor tank always beats shield tank. Armor gets a penalty to speed which can be offset with a nanofibers, but shield gets a penalty to signature which makes it easier for basically everything to hit - and there is no counter. GÇó Armor tanks can run twice the buffer as shield tanks, which can then be further expanded through Slave implants; Shields do not have a comparable implant buffer. GÇó Armor hulls typically have more capacitor, more grid, are faster and have a lower signature; Shield hulls (and let's just say "Caldari") are slower with larger signatures. GÇó Armor tanks benefit from passive adaptive plating and reactive armor hardeners, and there are no 0% gaps in any armor resistances. Armor tanks have the option of running active or passive fits, where shields are almost always active - making them highly susceptible to neutralizers and vampires. GÇó Armor tanks have basically all of their mid-slots free for EW, and many armor hulls receive bonuses for stasis webs, warp disruptors/scramblers and target painters. It's ironic when one considers the dependence on EW for missile damage application that Caldari hulls have zero target painter or web bonuses outside of the Golem. GÇó Armor hulls typically have larger drone capacity and bandwidth over shield hulls (*cough*, Caldari). GÇó Armor hulls that receive missile bonuses aren't pigeon-holed to a specific damage type (*wheeze*, Caldari).
Basically, any armor hull that can run missiles will smite a comparable shield hull. So maybe it isn't entirely a question of damage application - maybe Caldari hulls just suck outside of PvE. It would be interesting to see how Caldari ships would fare by trading a few mid slots for lows, more grid and larger capacitor - while retaining any shield bonuses. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2766
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 01:13:00 -
[485] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:The point of the comparison is to demonstrate that HMLs are equivalent in power to long range railguns, when all factors are considered. I think the issue is that most Caldari ships are at an extreme advantage just by the nature of their layout. Take the Caracal, swap the shield and armor strength, reassign a mid to a low, buff the power grid and watch that thing just fly. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2766
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 01:43:00 -
[486] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Missile boats would benefit from the introduction of a missile version of the tracking enhancer. It would not increase damage application, but would leave shield missile pilots the option of fitting both a damage application mod plus 3 shield extender rigs, which is something they cannot currently do. How does that not increase damage application then - just increase missile velocity? Because explosion radius and explosion velocity will improve damage application...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2766
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 03:07:00 -
[487] - Quote
Caldari ships suck, and players are mislead about the "real world" potential of HMLs as a result of PvE missioning. The solution is to revamp Caldari hulls and overhaul the PvE mission to feature fewer (more rewarding) NPC ships sporting actual PvP fits. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2767
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 03:18:00 -
[488] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Leave my hookbill alone!!!!!!!! Oh wait... my hookbill is armor tanked :D Exactly. Best PvP Hawk fit I've seen? Armor tank... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2767
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 03:55:00 -
[489] - Quote
Mournful, out of curiosityGǪ Why weren't you running a Nighthawk? Let me see if I can answer that for youGǪ
Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonus per level: 7.5% bonus to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Kinetic damage
Compare: 5x T2 HMLs, 3x T2 BCs, V skills. No drones - just missiles. GÇó Nighthawk: HML, 341 DPS; 1347 volley, 62.9km range, 78.7m ER / 122m/s EV GÇó Damnation: HML, 320 DPS; 2020 volley, 94.3km range, 105m ER / 122m/s EV
DPS is marginally less, but the Damnation outranges the Nighthawk by 50% - and volleys are 50% greater also. The Nighthawk gets a nice kinetic bump (not included here), but that's pretty easy to counterGǪ Damnation also gets 50mbit/s drone bandwidth/100m3 drone storage compared to the 25mbit/s drone bandwidth/25m3 drone storage on the Nighthawk. And since the Nighthawk can use rigs and Slave implants for tank, it can actually run 2 drone damage amplifiers if so desired. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2767
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 13:29:00 -
[490] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Could it be that there is bias in our recollection, in that we have stronger memories of fights lost than fights won? ProbablyGǪ
Quote:And as Rise has said, we have missile damage application mods to come. When they arrive, shield missile ships are likely to start to outperform armour missile ships. Particularly the nighthawk! That would be a welcome change. In the interim, my brief fling with Amarr missile ships is turning into a full-fledged courtship. I can't stand the way Minmatar ships look on general principal, and I've grown bored with Caldari hulls. Maybe I'll train for a missile Legion next... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2769
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:55:00 -
[491] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I would say that this is starting to look like a natural and normal evolution of your experience in Eve.
I think very often people are advised to start the game in caldari and gallente ships - they are after all the kings of PVE, to be later drawn either towards the brash elegance of the shiny imperial death bricks, or the guerrilla-style minmatar death traps.
In a fleet fight, i'm always happy to have amarr ships around me. I can rely on them still being there on the next server tick...
I know this is a poor excuse, but I was drawn to the Caldari because I liked the aesthetic appeal of the ships as a whole. But this is a valid observation, and I can't help but think that the root of the problem is how PvE is treated in EVE. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2769
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:16:00 -
[492] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Improveing damage application on Ham, HML and Torpedo's is a must; allowing more flexibility to the fits (or even in fights) with range / damage application altering mods is a must as well. Truth be told, they just need to get rid of the Caldari-specific kinetic damage bonuses. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2774
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 07:02:00 -
[493] - Quote
Lows would be preferable for a ballistic enhancer. I'd even trade a few more mids for lows so I can run an armor tank instead. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2776
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:41:00 -
[494] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:In favor of what? Eg Cerberus has a kin bonus, but even with that kinetic bonus its missiles compare poorly compared with other hacs, switching to allround bonus allows more flexibility yes, but it still doesn't improve the fact that it still poorly compared with other hacs in terms of damage application. Just changing it to a standard missile damage bonus would go a long way with damage application. It might even be enough without a ballistic enhancer module.
Vinyl 41 wrote:so how to change TP mechanicsGǪ I'm inclined to leave TP mechanics the way they are, as they're a form of EW. Truthfully, stasis webs are overpowered - and that's part of the problem. They should really have a 20-30% effect (max), because they make it altogether too easy to apply damage. What we really need is a low-slot passive ballistic enhancer that yields -10% explosion radius, +10% explosion velocity and say 5-10% missile velocity (stacking penalized with other modules and rigs, of course). This would then take the place of a third or fourth ballistic controller.
Mournful Conciousness wrote:The way to look at your chosen weapons system is not from your own eyes, seeing your vulnerabilities, but from your target's perspective. What will he be worrying about when he encounters you? Can you do something to your ship that will make his day worse? Don't bring a missile to a gun fight, and if you find yourself in a fair fight - you're doing it wrong. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2776
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:26:00 -
[495] - Quote
Vinyl 41 wrote:problem is that TP in its current form is considered medicore at best - im sick of the jokes that you need 10 TPs and 10 webs to make most missles work I think if you look at the effective range for TPs they're more suitable as fleet or support tools than active PvP. And it's not quite as extreme as needing 10 EW modules; rigors will trump a target painter and a web will trump both combined. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2776
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 20:18:00 -
[496] - Quote
Vinyl 41 wrote:still guys TPs offer the most benefits to missles mostly sure they give benefits to all but missles get the most of this becaue on how the missles formulas work and the huge range on TPs is idealy suited to support long range missle platforms if you want to use short range missles your allways better with an "op" web Actually, not disagree with you - but you get more bang with rigors than target painters. Let's use a Caracal for example. Using 3 rig slots for two medium core defense field extenders and a medium anti-EM screen reinforce you get a +30% bonus to your shields (+639) at the cost of a +15% signature hit (18.75m); you then lose an additional medium slot for a target painter. Now if you instead went with three rigors, this improves your explosion radius by 45% - and works automatically on all targets (with target painters you only gain the damage application to those targets). Take the medium slot you would've used for a target painter and instead substitute a large shield extender. That gives you a +223% shield increase (+2625) for a token penalty of a +20% signature hit (+20m). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2776
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:44:00 -
[497] - Quote
Rubicon 1.1 is out in 2 weeks. What if anything can we be hopeful for in this timeframe? Ammunition bump? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2777
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:23:00 -
[498] - Quote
Vinyl 41 wrote:so were getting a TP nerf now how will that change to our evil plan of creating the op missles system ? Target painters - now with 10% more suckGǪ As I indicated: Rigors, rigors, rigors... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2777
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:40:00 -
[499] - Quote
Vinyl 41 wrote:seems CCP is doing whatever possible to increase the importance of webs on every possible ship type by nerfing eerything else - no love for kite warfare "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!" GǪ I'm anticipating a near-riot with the drone changes, so this should be good. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2777
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:30:00 -
[500] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Oh interesting! Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The omnidirectional tracking link change is effectively a nerf for ishtars and dominix for long range work (probably a reasonable change). It's also therefore an indirect buff for cruise missile ships (or at least tips the balance of choice in the direction of their selection).
They still need to stop 1 person from controlling all the sentries in a fleet thoughGǪ There's a subtle irony in the fact that you can't bring Dreadnoughts into high-sec to participate in the next wave of Jita riots. Not that they'll necessarily be able to hit the statueGǪ
And yes, drone assist totally needs to die a horrible death... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2777
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:23:00 -
[501] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:So.. did you miss the part about the 20% buff to tp when OH? How does that not help damage application? Yes, because everyone runs their TPs overheated in PvEGǪ For all intents and purposes it's a nerf. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2778
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:20:00 -
[502] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:To be fair though, in PVE everything flies towards you once aggroed so it's not really an issue. To be sure. My point was I just don't see players running overheated TPs for PvE, as they'll either be the support ship painting targets or the solo player who's looking to improve damage application. In either case, since the TPs will be running near constantly - overheating doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense. I'm not even sure there's enough of a benefit in solo PvP to overheat TPs because the benefit is marginal at best and you're reducing your ability to overheat other mid modules such as afterburners, stasis webs, etc.
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Ah well, the only constant in life is change. Adapt or die... I think you really nailed it with this. So with this morning's drone and related changes, thus ends my brief love affair with them. Back to missiles and my Tengu. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2778
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:29:00 -
[503] - Quote
I am disposable wrote:And the nerfs to missiles, both direct and indirect, just keep coming. It's unreal... "There's no turning back..." I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2779
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 03:19:00 -
[504] - Quote
CCP Rise, any RLML or RHML Rubicon 1.1 update you might be able to share with us? Hint: RLML -+ 28 ammunition capacity, RHML -+ 36 missile capacity. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2779
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 04:06:00 -
[505] - Quote
I am disposable wrote:I hope you know there isn't a chance in hell of that happening. Why not? The total DPS is still less than the original RLML and RHMLs... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2779
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 05:38:00 -
[506] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:I think what CCP looks for is you to actually sit down and create a compelling case for your argument. It should include an opening statement and the direction for the rest of your case. Following this is your interpretation of the current balance supported by statistical evidence and possibly with opinion pieces from respected members of the PVP community. Then you make your case for the changes you would like to see including actual statblock changes, the anticipated effects on the game balance and possibly include a few endorsements by PVP players. Finish your address to CCP with references to balance of the game particularly ensure that you refer back to your opening address and your balance analysis. Your closing statement should have a confident atmosphere and one that encourages feedback.
Do not include disclaimers, any kind of reference to uncertainty or have inadequate statistical evidence --- these will weaken your case beyond repair.
Remember that you are changing a fundamental weapon system with no direct comparison anywhere, you need to get your case right the first time. Scroll back and read through any of my proposals. Including charts. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2779
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 05:50:00 -
[507] - Quote
I just had to include this... Best comment I read on the Target Painter changes: "Finally, I can get that overheated painter I never asked for." I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2779
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 05:53:00 -
[508] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:So post 1.1 I can overheat my TC's to improve turret application, but I still have no mid slot missile mod? I am totally and utterly un-surprised. Don't forget the drone omni's... Apparently 92% scripted tracking now. I really just want a passive, low-slot ballistic enhancer. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2779
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 08:14:00 -
[509] - Quote
Morwennon wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:Usage has dropped by 40% which is within "anticipated levels and acceptable boundaries" or someshit. In other words they wanted to kill a brand new weapons system before it even happened. Actually, based on more recent Jita sales figures for 05/01/2014 - 11/01/2014, RLML usage is now down 48% - they've fallen by another 10% relative to their pre-Rubicon levels since I made my original sales post. HAML II sales are also down by an additional 10% (for a total decline of 38% relative to the pre-Rubicon reference). Oddly, top tier medium close range turret sales have increased slightly over the same period. I'd be curious to see what drone sales have done... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2779
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 12:49:00 -
[510] - Quote
Katabrok First wrote:This is the undying thread!!! Thanks to players like you.
Vinyl 41 wrote:but now back to serious stuff - great news no TP nerf in rubi 1.1 YayGǪ Still not using them, but all guns just got a nerf in the process. The tearsGǪ
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I do not feel disrespected and I agree that it's a difficult comparison. The real question now is how do sentry drones stack up to guns and missiles? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2779
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 13:05:00 -
[511] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:If the FC is in a rapier, boosted by an Eos , he can still rain down 100% thermal Hell on anyone within 70k. That's insaneGǪ and people think ECM is overpowered. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2779
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:06:00 -
[512] - Quote
I hate drones. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2779
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:01:00 -
[513] - Quote
Apparently stasis webs are slated for a review at some point in the not-too-distant future, which means there's a better than even chance they're going to get a nerf. So in effect, we did get some missile buffs after all. Now if we can just get that low-slot ballistics enhancer, we'll all be happy campers... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2779
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:03:00 -
[514] - Quote
Captain Hoax wrote:If it were up to me, I would increase rapid launcher capacity by 50%GǪ And that's a good place to stopGǪ Rate of fire is ideal at the moment for both launchers. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2781
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:54:00 -
[515] - Quote
Vinyl 41 wrote:i was allways asking meself too why couldnt rapid heavys benefit from 50% missle velocity hull bonus i remember those profiting form the rate of fire one but not the velocity - but yeah i think there are more urgent problems those launchers have right now I'd love the +50% missile velocity bonus on my Raven for RHMLs... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2781
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:07:00 -
[516] - Quote
Vinyl 41 wrote:so were allready 2 i would even exchange that rate of fire bonus to the velocity one - RHML raven Hey, let's not get crazy nowGǪ Leggo my rate of fire bonus. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2787
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 23:24:00 -
[517] - Quote
CCP Rise, any update on what we might expect for Rubicon 1.1 with RLMLs and RHMLs? It would be have a bit of head's up so we can get you some feedback before it goes live at the end of January. A 55% bump in ammunition capacity would be preferable, but I'm not opposed to a 20-second reload (or some combination thereof). Thanks. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2787
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 23:33:00 -
[518] - Quote
I am disposable wrote:I know they said they would make changes in 1.1, but I'll believe it when I see it. Also you are way too optimistic in terms of what changes they might make. You keep saying that... but I've yet to see your proposal(s) put forward... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2787
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 23:51:00 -
[519] - Quote
I am disposable wrote:It isn't about your ideas or my ideas. I'm simply saying that the buffs you are asking for are not going to happen. They are going to increase magazine size by 10% (some other minor buff) and call it a day. Just watch. The numbers and charts I posted show that a 55.5% ammunition bump is still less overall DPS than the original RLMLs and RHMLs, so why isn't it realistic? All three scenarios address the one current stumbling block with RLMLs and RHMLs: implementation of faster ammunition swaps.
I can't believe that CCP Rise would add insult to injury with the scenario you propose... CCP Rise, any comment? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2787
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 00:31:00 -
[520] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:1) Additional skill that reduces the reload time of Rapid launchers
2) Additional stats on the Rapid Launchers, Meta level flexibility to reload time, and or ammo load
3) Modules that alter the reload time of Rapid launchers
4) New (Rapid) missile types
1. I'm generally opposed to another SP skill sink. 2. I like the idea of extending this to reload times. as ammunition capacity already varies based on Meta. 3. I'd rather see a passive low-slot ballistic enhancer for general damage application improvements. I don't think rapid launchers necessitate their own module (I'd rather just see them improved so it's not needed). 4. Light and heavy missiles already have options with Precision and Fury ammunition types, so I'm not sure what additional types are needed. We have standard, FoF, Faction, Precision and Fury in all 4 flavours.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2787
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 01:10:00 -
[521] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Im talking about specific ammunition for Rapid missiles, I don't know what CCP has exactly planned, but i am getting a sense that they aren't content with the fact they just shoot one tier down missiles. Yes they like the idea of a missile system designed for hitting smaller targets, but they don't want them to be "ultimate" smaller target killers.
Designing a missile specificly to be used for Rapid missile systems would solve a lot of problems. The'll have there own speed, flight time, explosion velocity, explosion radius and damage, wich allows them to get the stats to what they envision as optimum for this kind of weapon, without haveing to revisit every ship, make weird adjustments to the current missiles or launchers just to make them perform adequatly.
They would have a system that differentiate in roles from eg a Light missile Corax between a Rapid missile Caracal. (in this example the corax beeing designed to take out frigates, and the Rapid missile to take out the smalles size cruisers and / or destroyers, while haveing a slightly harder time to take out frigates then said Corax.
For the purpose of High burst, long reload, a new missile is also beneficial, since you can opt to make missiles that have multiflavored damage types, wich coincides with the gun type patterns. A big concern with longer reload times, is the fact that you can't switch damage types if needed. With a dual Triple or Omni damage type missile that concern is lessened.
Additionally This would allow ships to benefit all of their bonuses to include the Rapid missile launcher. With a new Rapid missile ammunition, the Typhoon can transfer its awesome Explosion velocity bonus to this new Missile, wich with proper tweaking then behaves exactly as the current heavy missile, but on the Raven it would convey its Equally (awesome) Velocity bonus Allowing longer range, but slightly less damage application. In essence that would make the ship feel like a typhoon, or raven, or (insert other favorite ship) with all missile options, instead of a full fledged typhoon for Cruise and Torps, and a halfbaked one with rapid heavy Yes, I do realize this. If you buff light missiles any more they will actually start outperforming both HMs and HAMs. In fact, one could already argue that Fury light missiles are fairly close to T1 heavy missiles in terms of damage application. Run the numbers... it's not a pretty picture. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2787
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 02:42:00 -
[522] - Quote
Why is it the best missile ships are Minmatar? Ugly as sin, but very functional nonetheless... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2795
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:10:00 -
[523] - Quote
12 days leftGǪ I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2795
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 19:34:00 -
[524] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:What if they add a small # to base capacity, like 2, so a t2 RLML holds 20 missiles. Then create rigs that add +2-3 missile capacity? That way its a compromise between more missiles without sacrifice, but also giving more missiles for base stats. So if you think you may run across a cruiser, add a rig or 2 for additional capacity, bringing the total to 24-26 if you add 2 rigs. Yes, you sacrifice tank, but thats the point.
Rig drawback would be like any damage rig calibration, and increases CPU cost of launchers. This way, some scrub with t2 launchers doesn't get max capacity, and have max tank. The RLML as is it sits now is very strong for those 18 shots. I've killed 2 frigs within 1 reload, and had 7 missiles left. Granted, they were t1 frigs, but you have to be careful on the capacity, too much and these will decimate frig gangs without proper sacrifice on the fit, from just a single boat. No, the point is that if I have to add rigs to get the ammunition capacity (aka: performance) out of these things - I'll just use something else. The rapid launchers are inherently broken, and I'm not trying to be critical. They're no longer suitable for PvE and can only be utilized in the most extreme PvP scenario. I'm not sure using a half-billion insta-lock Tengu to gank destroyers and frigates is what most players have in-mind... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2799
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 03:46:00 -
[525] - Quote
I think I might have finally found a legitimate use for the rapid light and rapid heavy missile launchers, and it actually ties-in another dead-end weapon system. The caveat is that CCP Rise needs to implement a change:
GÇó Rapid Light Missile Launcher: "Used with (chargegroup) Light Defender Missile" GÇó Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher: "Used with (chargegroup) Heavy Defender Missile"
The rapid launchers can now fulfill an anti-missile role in PvP and PvE, and with their insane rate of fire I imagine they would be quite effective in a combination offensive/defensive roll. They still need a 55% ammunition capacity increase, though.
Thoughts? CCP Rise, was this just an oversight when the rapid light missile launcher was introduced? Because I don't see any reason why a "light launcher" can't handle "light missile" ammunition. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2800
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 12:09:00 -
[526] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:In order to make this work well, wouldn't you also need to change defender missiles to make them attack the nearest missile that's hostile to your fleet, rather than just to you?
I think the fact that defender missiles attack only missiles inbound to you personally is why they are essentially useless. Yes and no. The way they work is that they go after the closest missile that's inbound, so even a 4-second ROF on a HML Tengu leaves a huge window where enemy fire can get through. With a faster 2-second ROF on RLMLs, they cycle fast enough that a single launcher could intercept multiple volleys from different enemies. They''d be much more effective in PvE environments or solo activities. I'm not saying this will make defender missiles not suck, just suck less.
Spugg Galdon wrote:I'm guessing that at best we will see some balance tweaking on the launchers in 1.1 and if a 1.2 gets released we may see the other two updates then. But these are all being worked on. I don't see the need to constantly post in this thread moaning all the time. The weapons do work. They do have glitches that need fixing and the balance may be a little off but they are still useful.
On a side note. The more I look at missiles and how to fit your ship to use them the more I am convinced that they are currently in a very balanced state. **Dons flame retardent clothing** While they may work, it's a very limited application at the moment. The usage and sale stats that have been previously referenced speak for themselves. And the whole point of "moaning" is to get an update before these changes are announced - otherwise what's the point of feedback? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2801
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 22:13:00 -
[527] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:But but but... at the moment in order to mitigate damage with a defender missile you have to give up a corresponding outbound missile. So while you are reducing your enemy's firepower, it is at the expense of your own.
This may be useful if you're bait but utterly useless in any other circumstance unless your ship has spare, unbonused missile launcher slots and another effective means of delivering damage. So I guess a typhoon or loki may benefit during some engagements, and some of the recons when tackling tengus... but this seems to be a very narrow application. Correct, with the caveat that a RLML-based defender setup could take out 2 enemy missiles per launcher. So you'd only need 2 RLMLs loaded with defenders to negate 4 incoming missiles - leaving you 3-4 offensive launchers. And yes, it's a very narrow application. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2806
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:16:00 -
[528] - Quote
CCP Rise has posted a rapid missile update here. I have endeavored to provide a balanced counter-proposal based on the various feedback and discussions we've had. Comments welcome and appreciated, thanks. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2806
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:29:00 -
[529] - Quote
I am disposable wrote:I told you that would be the kind of change they would make. They are painfully predictable if nothing else. You didGǪ (sigh). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2806
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 23:37:00 -
[530] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:And unstickied. See you on the other side. Yeah... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2806
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 01:58:00 -
[531] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:The problem is not overall the reload, it's having to switch ammo. But at this point I don't think there's anything I could add to this thread and say anything that's not already said. With PvE you can preload based on mission type, so it's just the long reload that provides the NPCs time to heal. With PvP it's a crap-shoot: you preload what you think will be most effective and hope for the best. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
2928
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 11:15:00 -
[532] - Quote
In PvE the ammunition swap isn't a huge issue, but in PvP it's a make-or-break proposition. If you lucked out and preloaded the right assortment of ammunition you stand a good chance of coming out on top. OtherwiseGǪ PS. Holy thread resurrection Batman! I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
2940
|
Posted - 2014.02.23 19:31:00 -
[533] - Quote
What are the chances of getting the reload/swap changed to a flat 20 seconds? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
2970
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 04:59:00 -
[534] - Quote
So how do we go about getting a [Rubicon 1.3] tag added to this? And a sticky, as this is still unresolved going on several months now... "Summer 2014" isn't going to cut it. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
2970
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 06:41:00 -
[535] - Quote
While I appreciate the enthusiasm, let's try a little more tact - shall we? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Arsenite
3026
|
Posted - 2014.03.10 04:04:00 -
[536] - Quote
CCP Rise, what if any changes can we expect in Rubicon 1.3 with respect to rapid launchers and Marauders? You hinted at something in the New Eden Open Tournament today... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Arsenite
3039
|
Posted - 2014.03.10 18:22:00 -
[537] - Quote
If we're going to start entertaining the prospect of transversal and angular velocity entering into the equation, then we need to revisit missile damage application in its entirety - as well as the possibility of critical hits. In this scenario, I think it's a case of "better the devil you know". I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
|
|