Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14838
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 14:30:52 -
[1] - Quote
Hello everyone and happy Saturday!
Today I'm here to start collecting community feedback on a potential package of missile balance tweaks. These changes aren't confirmed yet and don't even have a release date, but if we do decide to go forward with them they would potentially arrive sometime in the summer.
The goal of these changes is to help improve the balance between the cruiser-sized missile systems and make the choice of what missiles to fit more interesting. We have also been hearing from you folks that Rapid Light Missiles are continuing to feel quite oppressive in their extremely strong combination of burst dps, range and application.
Here's the package of changes we are considering at this time:
- Increase Rapid Light and Rapid Heavy launcher reload time from 35s to 40s (~4% sustained dps reduction with no burst damage reduction). This change would reset the rapid launcher reload time back to the original values from when they were first converted to a burst damage system. It is a slight reduction to sustained dps while not impacting burst damage
- Change ship missile range bonuses to not apply to undersize missiles
- This would mean that the following ships would have their range bonuses only apply to Heavy and Heavy Assault Missiles: Orthrus, Caracal, Cerberus, Onyx, Osprey Navy Issue, Cyclone, Drake, Drake Navy Issue
- The Barghest range bonus would also be changed to only impact Cruise Missiles and Torpedoes
- The Mordu flight time reduction would also no longer apply to undersized missiles
- This change would only affect range bonuses (missile velocity and missile flight time) not damage bonuses
- Increase all Heavy Missile damage by 5.6%. This would be a general buff to HMLs and more than compensate for the longer reload time on RHMLs leading to a slight buff for them as well.
As I mentioned above we don't have a proposed release date for these changes yet but we want to start gathering community feedback and get the discussion started. Thanks and happy Saturday!
Game Designer | Team Five-0
Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14838
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 14:32:15 -
[2] - Quote
Reserved
Game Designer | Team Five-0
Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
|
|
GENT
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
40
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 14:36:56 -
[3] - Quote
HAhahahha good one.
Watch my stream on twitch for small gang PVP and Exploration content in 0.0
|
Suitonia
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
813
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 14:40:13 -
[4] - Quote
Th e problem is the burst damage killing most attack cruisers and similar anti support options while having twice the EHP as those options, please reduce the reload time to 30 seconds but reduce the clip size to 17 instead for T2. This retains almost identical Dps to now but allows ships like the rail Thorax, stabber, omen and other anti support ships to survive a reload.
Also, please, please consider increasing the fittings because the main issue with rapid light ships right now is they can fit absolutely everything with no sacrifice, mid to long cruiser sniper ranges, close range turret burst DPS, with high EHP. Increasing the reload time won't address any of this. Most people ping and reload while in Warp in bigger fights.
Contributer to Eve is Easy:
https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos
Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
|
CtrlFreak
V0LTA WE FORM V0LTA
23
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 14:42:01 -
[5] - Quote
1st april. I can only assume this is fake. No more ships would use rapid light anymore with these change, and wtf barghest without rapid heavy? |
May'n Nome
General Quarters Inc. Safeties Set To Red
35
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 14:43:04 -
[6] - Quote
GENT wrote:HAhahahha good one.
I actually don't think this is a joke.
Badly timed release of this information as no one will believe it? Yes.
Joke? Nope.
I can already tell you a potential problem right off the bat. Removing the bonuses for RLMLs and RHMLs from certain ships will screw up doctrines across the board. I fear that this will render these weapons useless; unless there is a reduction to their fitting costs to allow them to fit on Destroyer and Battlecruiser Hulls (with applicable bonuses to those hulls). I pick up on the fact the Corax is perceived by the playerbase to be underutilized. RLML Corax could become a thing as well as RHML Drakes.
"Threefold is the time's pace: the future comes not in haste, the present is gone arrow fast, eternally still remains the past."
|
Gorski Car
714
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 14:47:12 -
[7] - Quote
Increase all Heavy Missile damage by 5.6%
lmao
Collect this post
|
Minty Aroma
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
75
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 14:49:41 -
[8] - Quote
I think he got a few of you with that! The best April fools jokes are subtle enough to possibly be real as opposed to the outrageous.
Still though, would be nice to have a heavy missile buff although for application so they can apply to cruiser sized targets more effectively. |
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1710
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 14:50:31 -
[9] - Quote
Having tested these changes out, this seems like a great idea.
ISD Max Trix
Lieutenant
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
GENT
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
41
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 14:51:28 -
[10] - Quote
May'n Nome wrote:GENT wrote:HAhahahha good one. I actually don't think this is a joke. Badly timed release of this information as no one will believe it? Yes. Joke? Nope. I can already tell you a potential problem right off the bat. Removing the bonuses for RLMLs and RHMLs from certain ships will screw up doctrines across the board. I fear that this will render these weapons useless; unless there is a reduction to their fitting costs to allow them to fit on Destroyer and Battlecruiser Hulls (with applicable bonuses to those hulls). I pick up on the fact the Corax is perceived by the playerbase to be underutilized. RLML Corax could become a thing as well as RHML Drakes.
I duno Fozzie is pretty trolly, and I think he knows this would be a bad change.
Watch my stream on twitch for small gang PVP and Exploration content in 0.0
|
|
Aernir Ridley
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
9
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 14:53:39 -
[11] - Quote
Assuming that this isn't an April Fools joke, if you're going to nerf rapid launcher range then maybe buffing Heavy Assault Missile Range would be a good way to promote some new gameplay around it. They're pretty underused atm because of their pitiful range, but with a small to moderate range bonus they could replace RLMLs on some ships.
"For most people, the sky's the limit... For those who love aviation, the sky, is home."
-Cheers! :D
|
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
V0LTA WE FORM V0LTA
345
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 14:55:39 -
[12] - Quote
I'd rather keep rapids like they are now, but increase the powergrid required to be much higher. This would keep rapid lights as arguably the strongest missile system, but require serious fitting sacrifices. For example, if T2 RLMLs required 140PG instead of 77PG, a Caracal would only be able to fit one LSE with two ancil rigs, which would reduce its EHP by 9k. This would give rapids a real drawback to go with their amazing DPS and versatility. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1284
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 15:02:40 -
[13] - Quote
please seriously consider deleting rapid launchers. look at the stats on a RLML cruiser, then ask yourself what the point of T1 destroyers is |
aria Yatolila
Literally The Worst Community
76
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 15:06:07 -
[14] - Quote
Increase all Heavy Missile damage by 5.6%
GÖÑ
Lady Yatolila, retainer of her Lady Kadesh and Khanid Royal House
|
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
199
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 15:10:46 -
[15] - Quote
What would this do for oversized missile launchers? Will the reload bonus of the jackdaw still affect my rapid light missile launchers on said hull? |
Kendarr
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
62
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 15:14:14 -
[16] - Quote
Yes, finally the ******* RLML nurf!
please buff HML application not damage and also buff the range of HAMs a tiny bit please
Zebra-Corp
|
Capqu
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
1304
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 15:23:21 -
[17] - Quote
a pretty good change re: nerfing rapid lights; however i think heavies need help in a different department than raw damage. they are currently destroyed by a single smartbomb regardless of how they are grouped, and you don't need to be particularly skilled to do it either. here's me just turning on my smarties and destroying torps: http://i.imgur.com/5x7IDBP.gif note that grouping does not matter as the missiles take 100% increased damage for every missile added beyond the first.
another thing i'd ask while you're tweaking medium missiles, would it be possible for an extra launcher on the cyclone? it is currently massively underpowered in the firepower department, and only really has a slight speed advantage to show for it. it has only 6.66 launchers where its sister ships [drake, brutix, hurricane, harbinger] all have 9. an extra launcher would bring it up to 8 launchers, and allow it to join the ferox which also has 8.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Tactical-Retreat
2109
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 15:31:12 -
[18] - Quote
Awful.
Meanwhile you have stuff like live-unboarding into neutral bowheads in war time, neutral risk-free command ships, machariels with selectable damage type, immunity to neut and cruiser warp and subwarp speed.
But suure, go after RHML lol.
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr
Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
|
aria Yatolila
Literally The Worst Community
76
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 15:37:44 -
[19] - Quote
Altrue wrote: machariels with selectable damage type
Tell me more
Lady Yatolila, retainer of her Lady Kadesh and Khanid Royal House
|
The Slayer
Hole Violence Goonswarm Federation
342
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 15:39:21 -
[20] - Quote
Gotta say on the believabilily scale this April fools ranks about a 4/10, not even you could be stupid enough to think this is a good idea Fozziewick. |
|
Ayallah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
880
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 15:45:35 -
[21] - Quote
Nerfing the range will leave them still dangerous but not as overpowering so +1 to that.
Still concerned how they make HAM's worthless though
As strength goes.
|
Veishe
Rubbish
3
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 15:50:33 -
[22] - Quote
I think this is April fool, but seriously just nerf RLML's clip size, not reload time or missile range lol
The problem is simple.
RLML is much better than HML/HAM when even shooting cruisers, and too oppressive when vs small ships; cause It has too much burst dps.
Nerfing missile range will be make Caracal can't hit 1 MWD frig so RLML will be useless dead weapon; so bad nerf. Nerfing reload time will be not primary solution; cause It has same burst dps and the RLML cancer is due to burst dps.
Just nerf clip size, and buff HML and HAM, Cruise missile plz. |
Ripard Teg
Ice Fire Warriors Shadow Cartel
1338
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 15:55:10 -
[23] - Quote
Assuming this is not an April Fool's Day joke, this is a terrible idea.
The whole point to giving missile ships light missile bonuses in the first place is the fact that they were running dead last by race in terms of damage application in a screen or light combat role where such ships -- particularly the Caracal -- are used most frequently. We're not exactly talking about a DPS powerhouse on its best day, perhaps 250 or 275, which you propose to reduce by increasing the reload time. If you're looking to adjust, that adjustment alone should meet your goals without removing the ammo bonus as well.
By removing the ammo bonus as well, you push the Caracal back to 150 DPS with very bad application, which you propose to increase by 4%... to 160 DPS, or 150 DPS and very poor range. This compares to the Omen, which has 280 DPS without its drones and much superior application, then the Thorax/Vexor at 250 DPS or so. Even the Minmatar options will be superior to the Caracal. You're in essence proposing to put a whole set of doctrines right out of business and I don't see a good compelling reason why and you don't state one.
If you're looking to work on a small/medium weapons system, how about working on a small/medium weapons system that is clearly and obviously completely broken: autocannons?
aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.
|
Capqu
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
1305
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 15:55:42 -
[24] - Quote
**** i hate april the 1st
i'd be amazed if this was actually a joke but i don't think it is so
please give heavy+ missiles 4x their current ehp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
Asher Elias
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 15:56:22 -
[25] - Quote
Rapid heavies do not need a range nerf. As someone who has attempted a barghest fleet recently I can tell you the only sensible way to fit them is rapid heavies. I know cruise missiles being no good for PVP is outside the scope of this change but removing the range bonus on the barghest RHML setup is a pretty huge nerf.
I also don't think people really grasp how big a nerf the range removal is to rapid lights either, but that one is more debatable in my mind. The orthrus and osprey navy in particular will be hit hard by it because you'll remove their main defense if you remove range control. I'm worried these ships would become obsolescent.
I'd personally like to see a change that lowered the burst of RLML such as a less shots per reload. Even something like a double change of lowering reload time and lowering the clip would smooth out the damage more and address some of the burst concerns. |
Captain Campion
Campion Corp.
56
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 15:58:02 -
[26] - Quote
I wrote my thoughts before reading your proposal: - Light missile range is too strong. Propose about 30km. - RLML dps is too strong. Propose 10% reduction in ROF. - HAM range is too short. Should not be shorter than light missiles. - HML explosion radius is too big. Propose 10% reduction.
|
Planet 6
Know your Role League of Unaligned Master Pilots
14
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 15:58:27 -
[27] - Quote
there is a reason why nobody uses cruise and torps on a barghest... |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
3111
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 16:08:05 -
[28] - Quote
ProTip: With a longer reload time, you'll have more time to repair the heat damage to your RLMLs.
If you aren't overheating your RLMLs and repairing during the long reloads, you're doing it wrong.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
I predicted FAUXs
|
Methea Selenis
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
5
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 16:11:28 -
[29] - Quote
Makes me really sad that this could be both an April Fool joke and a serious idea. It highlights the state of RLML and the level of expectations we all have from PvP balance changes.
Please don't do that, there are so much bad ideas there... While no doubt opressive nobody thinks the kiting RLML meta should completely disappear (which will be the case if you remove the ship bonuses that influence LM range). Please do it like you did for T3Ds the nerf was overall well-thought and they are now still strong and usefull but require actual piloting and fitting sacrifices. Please take the same approach for RLML cruisers, make a focus group and let people discuss and explain to you the consequences of different options.
RLML are support-pawn-boats, that would be totally fine if they would not be able at the same time to be as tanky as brawly cruisers and kill them within one burst. As many above I'd rather see the clip being smaller and powergid requirement higher forcing to drop tank and be as kiters should be : easy kills when scrammed fast. |
Sanai Nobuseri
Alcoholocaust. Test Alliance Please Ignore
30
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 16:20:05 -
[30] - Quote
Thank you CCP for making missile boats which are already nearly worthless that much more worthless. In a meta which only supports massive small roaming cheap ships or massive groups of supers taking out the only reasonable counter to the former is a fantastic idea. While your at it, please remove the drake navy issue and the caracal navy issue from the game entirely as they are essentially just vanity items now.
Edit: Instead of nerfing the hell out of missiles why dont you actually make defender missiles great again? Not the anti bomber bs but the real defender missiles. Most cruiser hulls have a utility slot they can stick an anti missile defender in that can mitigate Rapid light missile dps. |
|
Tiberizzle
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
157
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 16:20:51 -
[31] - Quote
tfw fozzie is such an awful game designer you can't decide if it's an april fools post or not |
Querns
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2838
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 16:34:42 -
[32] - Quote
Re: the Orthrus and Barghest, does the removal of the range bonus to these ships also remove a range malus? The Mordu's Legion ships have both a bonus and a malus (that averages to a net bonus.) Removing just the bonus would be sort of weird.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Hendrink Collie
Contra Ratio DARKNESS.
108
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 16:45:06 -
[33] - Quote
Man... all this salt on the thread. He asked for feedback, not 'lol ur dumb'. Anyways.
Quote:Increase Rapid Light and Rapid Heavy launcher reload time from 35s to 40s
I'm actually ok with this change tbh. I love the bursting nature of the rapid line and this particular nerf wouldn't hurt the feel of the weapon system.
Quote:Change ship missile range bonuses to not apply to undersize missiles
This one I disagree with completely. The missile range bonus tied along with the burst nature of the rapid line defines a lot of those ships. Now it is possible there are other buffs etc etc that we have not seen yet related to these hulls, but as of now... I'm not a fan. Perhaps concentrate more on nerfing the particular problem ships in this case, not the particular missile bonus. Or just increase the PG requirements of the launchers a bit.
Quote:Increase all Heavy Missile damage by 5.6%
I'd prefer a slight application bonus buff, but for mid-sized gangs and larger that can spare TPs, this particular buff is going to be sexy for cerbs, tengus, etc.
|
Lucius Kalari
Mass Collapse It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake
44
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 16:45:51 -
[34] - Quote
If it isnt a ruse, can you go one step further and remove wolf rayet effect from light missiles please. Things like cerb fleets with rapid lights are aids to fight. |
FeistyOne
13. Enigma Project
13
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 16:54:38 -
[35] - Quote
Lucius Kalari wrote:If it isnt a ruse, can you go one step further and remove wolf rayet effect from light missiles please. Things like cerb fleets with rapid lights are aids to fight.
or specifically, the RLML's in a wolf Rayet :) |
Sven Viko VIkolander
Friends and Feminists
387
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 17:01:10 -
[36] - Quote
Quote:The goal of these changes is to help improve the balance between the cruiser-sized missile systems and make the choice of what missiles to fit more interesting. We have also been hearing from you folks that Rapid Light Missiles are continuing to feel quite oppressive in their extremely strong combination of burst dps, range and application.
I'd like to hear more about what your goals are with this balance change, because they seem at odds with what I've heard from many players and think myself.
The main problem with RLMLs in solo, small gang, and fleets alike is that due to a combination of good application, burst damage and low fitting cost, they make obsolete virtually all other anti-support cruisers, and even beat many brawling cruisers in a fight starting at zero. Due to the combination of good application, burst damage and low fitting cost, they also make many other medium sized weapon systems largely obsolete: HMLs, HAMs, and in many situations rails, arty, and ACs.
The solution, then, is to nerf/tweak one or more of their application, burst damage and low fitting cost. Application is built into the fact that they are light missiles and anti-support, so that seems fine to stay. However, that means RLML burst or fitting needs nerfing (as many have suggested in the thread, blogs, other posts, etc.). Instead, though, you've kept burst and fitting the same and have hurt sustained DPS (which wasn't ever an issue), missing the entire point of why RLMLs are oppressive and limit fitting options.
I'd suggestion going back to the drawing board and either taking Suitonia's advice for lowering both reload time and clip size to lower burst DPS or (/and) nerfing the fittings of RLMLs so that they are more like fitting HMLs. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1285
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 17:06:36 -
[37] - Quote
I think "anti-support" just means overpowered? |
Trespasser
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
74
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 17:09:09 -
[38] - Quote
this is a good step in the right direction, but i think one of the bigger changes that needs to happen is all missiles ships that have a damage bonus to only one type of damage.. needs to get changed to all damage types
Tengu's a good example, just remove the kinetic only damage bonus and replace it with a normal damage bonus that effects all types.
Also at fanfest you guys said that faction launches and turrets were going to be able to use t2 ammo.. you did it with the capital ship weapons but haven't got around to doing it with subcap weapons.. i think you guys really need to make this happen ASAP! |
Space Captain Austrene
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
211
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 17:15:58 -
[39] - Quote
good jokes mate real funny |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
172
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 17:17:01 -
[40] - Quote
All around good looking tweaks.
Now to brass tacks, when do we get to make Torpedoes Great Again? Maybe bring back the aoe effect, give them 100km range with 10x the speed.
In all seriousness, a bump to range is all they really need. An extra 20km range would do it even with their current application. Though an application bonus wouldn't hurt to bring them more in line comparison wise to what we see with current rapid vs normal missile systems. |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1285
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 17:22:01 -
[41] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:All around good looking tweaks.
Now to brass tacks, when do we get to make Torpedoes Great Again? Maybe bring back the aoe effect, give them 100km range with 10x the speed.
In all seriousness, a bump to range is all they really need. An extra 20km range would do it even with their current application. Though an application bonus wouldn't hurt to bring them more in line comparison wise to what we see with current rapid vs normal missile systems.
I think the fitting is the main problem with them, they use more than cruise. the range is worse than blasters and makes no sense because it's the same as hams, but if ccp want to make them a proper short range weapon rather than yet another mid range, I'm down |
XJIE6YLLIEK 6OPOgUHCKUU
PEETOOSHKEE PRIMARY OK Scourge.
0
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 17:41:05 -
[42] - Quote
Yuu really should buff HAML damage and HML expl radius before nerfing only viable missle weapon |
Maximus Andendare
The Scope Gallente Federation
927
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 18:00:13 -
[43] - Quote
Taking this at face value, why the continual erosion of the sandbox? Further limiting modules and ship bonuses to certain things really hurts the freedom the sandbox offers. Definitely a step in the wrong direction.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day.
>> Play Dust 514 FREE! Sign up for exclusive gear today! <<
|
Dorijan
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
101
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 18:14:08 -
[44] - Quote
Ah yes, I see another two years of very minor balance changes to better observe and study the impact on the meta in RLML's future. |
elitatwo
Dicker Quick and Hyde Defense Attorneys O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1696
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 18:26:19 -
[45] - Quote
ISD Max Trix wrote:Having tested these changes out, this seems like a great idea.
I am not sorry, they are not.
Heavy missiles are still the worst kind of weapons in EVE and HAMs being a close second.
Here Fozzie read this:
Heavy missile explosion radius base = 100m
Heavy missile explosion velocity base = 200m/s
Heavy ass missile base explosion radius = 75m
Heavy ass missile base explosion velocity = 250m/s
Medium missiles fixed. What is so damn difficult with that?
Eve Minions is recruiting.
This is the law of ship progression!
Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
|
Gleb Koskov
Hedion University Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 18:31:02 -
[46] - Quote
I receive these changes with open arms, hopefully the rlmls on my stabber won't be affected much. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
821
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 18:33:03 -
[47] - Quote
RLML changes.. ehh, its not fixing the main issue. Their burst damage is oppressive, having a longer reload doesn't solve anything when they have enough damage per magazine to wipe most cruiser sized ships off the field. They are a support weapon/anti-frigate correct? Why should they be able to stomp out cruisers with 1 magazine?
Anyway, this is what i'd suggest for RLML, which goes along with what some others have mentioned.
-Their magazine size needs to be reduced and reload time reduced to compensate, this lowers their damage per magazine, but doesn't really affect the burst damage.
-keep the velocity bonuses to the hulls, but reduce the range of all light missiles. As far as small ship weapons go, light missiles have ******** range anyway. Most small long range weapons max out around 20-30km, not 42km. Reduce their base range and let the hull bonuses still apply, resulting in a net range nerf, but still keeping the flexibility of the hull bonuses.
If caracals didn't have such high damage per magazine, their range wouldn't be a huge issue. From a nullsec or home defense fleet goes, i think them having a good role as anti-support with range does fill some valid roles for groups defending against things like inty fleets or kiting gangs. Doing the other things mentioned here would still allow them the same role, but not make them quite as powerful.
-RLML need higher fittings to balance them out better. Caracals with dual LSE's, invuln, DCU and x3 BCU and shield rigs is stupid. There is no trade-off. Make them sacrifice a rig for a CPU rig, or drop a BCU, or at least meta some mods so they aren't getting max EHP/damage
HML Buff:
Really? Another 5% buff? FIX.THEIR.APPLICATION.
Plus, by buffing HM damage yet again, you're buffing RHML more than the HML themselves.
So, i'll use a HML drake for example, i'm doing about 400dps with 3 BCU and 6 heavies, this bonus will bump that to about 420 dps. Woooo... still terrible application. I'll see maybe a 5 dps increase because it still applies like ass.
Keep in mind, this drake is fit with a Rigor, missile computer and target painter just to apply somewhat decently. Is this your idea of being balanced? I need 3 application mods + crash just so i can apply more than 50% of my damage to anything that isn't a BC or shield tanked cruiser?
Also, 5% buff will do nothing to cruisers that fit HML, doing a pitiful 280-300dps when equipped on most cruisers.
I'd be fine with lower damage, if i didn't need to use 3 slots just for application so they apply. I don't even care if i still had to use 2 slots + crash, or just 2 slots. But tweak their application some. I'm not saying they need to smack frigates out of space with no effort of application, but adjust their application. Let HML synergize with target painters or missile computers, and let HAMs synergize with webs for application by adjusting explo velocity down really low on HAMS and high on HML.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
Make the Muninn great again!
|
Cade Windstalker
1209
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 18:48:24 -
[48] - Quote
Suitonia wrote:Th e problem is the burst damage killing most attack cruisers and similar anti support options while having twice the EHP as those options, please reduce the reload time to 30 seconds but reduce the clip size to 17 instead for T2. This retains almost identical Dps to now but allows ships like the rail Thorax, stabber, omen and other anti support ships to survive a reload.
Also, please, please consider increasing the fittings because the main issue with rapid light ships right now is they can fit absolutely everything with no sacrifice, mid to long cruiser sniper ranges, close range turret burst DPS, with high EHP. Increasing the reload time won't address any of this. Most people ping and reload while in Warp in bigger fights.
I kind of like this approach better, the reload makes them less of a choice in any situation in which... they're already not a great choice.
Yeah, you can never 100% know what you're going to run into on a roam/fleet op, but I don't feel like a longer reload is really going to dissuade people from taking these, or make anyone killed by them feel any better or feel like they were any more survivable. They're still inducing a sort of floor on viable EHP for smaller ships of "Can you survive 1/2/x ships spamming RLML/RHML at you before they have to reload"
The range changes feel better in this regard, but I'm not sure they're really going to have a big impact. Comparing the Caracal (range bonus) to the Caracal Navy Issue (no range bonus) the range on bonused RLMLs is 63.3km at All-5s, which is ridiculous, but the unbonused range is still 42.2km, which is long enough to create a pretty significant bubble of "nope" around one of these ships that most small hulls can't hope to project significant damage into from outside without long-range guns and a fairly specialized fit. For reference the Rifter, which has a Falloff bonus, will still be fighting at Optimal + Falloff if it wants to apply damage from outside the death zone of a Caracal with these changes. That's better than now when it can't even get close, but it's still not great.
In that vein this actually starts to look like something that's mostly going to impact the ability for groups to catch and kill kitey Frigate setups, at least on the RLML side of things. The range is still long enough to wreck most Frigates, so this only really opens up room for a longer range Frig or Destroyer. A burst damage change would need to happen for this to open up room for smaller brawling ships. |
Kines Pavelovna
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
9
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 19:00:43 -
[49] - Quote
Application with heavy missiles and HAM's was always the problem not the raw damage. With HAMs on cruisers you need a TP/Web to fully apply and it's just not practical to do that often enough that they'd be competitive. |
Valkin Mordirc
2755
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 19:01:40 -
[50] - Quote
Long reload times shouldn't be the answer,
Long reloads are not fun, they are boring.
Also what Suitonia said, notch the fitting up. I shouldn't be able to fit a 100mn AB , XL-ASB, small neut, and Scram/Point an Orthrus without gimping it. With RLML this is possible.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
|
Justin Cody
Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens
357
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 19:45:04 -
[51] - Quote
I am ok with this. |
Tom Gerard
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1407
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 19:50:22 -
[52] - Quote
I like this idea it would allow us to extract all missile skills without any loss in combat effectiveness.
Missiles are a cancer upon EVE, remove the entire weapon system, after that remove drones for the love of god.
Now with 100% less Troll.
|
Iv d'Este
OEG Freedom Among the Stars
166
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 20:19:59 -
[53] - Quote
Leave the rlm alone. Do not change them. Improve the damage bringing (signature of explosion or explosion speed) on the heavy assault missiles. The problem is not in the RLM but in the absence of choice. Other missiles just do not suit. HAM have no damage in real combat against cruisers. |
Gleb Koskov
Hedion University Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 20:32:28 -
[54] - Quote
It's either this new change or integrating a new family of rapid missiles that feels more balanced, I don't think they have the resources for the latter. |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
742
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 20:49:53 -
[55] - Quote
Agreed with others, the RLML issue is more the burst damage during the clip, the long reload is almost inconsequential if you delete your target before you ever need to reload. Decreasing clip size so that rapid launchers are still good to delete ships downclass, but not a no-brainer versus same-size or higher opponents, is probably a better idea. It would make same-size missiles a more obvious "sustainable" DPS solution versus downsized missiles as a utility pick.
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
Crimson Draufgange
Black Wolf Syndicate Cosa Nostra.
1072
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 21:00:58 -
[56] - Quote
I would love to see the application of Heavy Assault Missiles buffed. In my opinion, HAMs should be able to apply their damage perfectly to cruiser sized hulls and up, but anything destroyer and below would take considerably less damage from HAMs. Perhaps also tweak the reload times and ammo capacity of HAMs to prevent them from becoming overpowered.
I barely ever see HAMs used in PvP, and would love to see this change.
My Velator is overpowered.
"I use my hairgel to tackle my targets because it has a long lasting firm hold." - Me.
|
michael chasseur
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
93
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 23:07:48 -
[57] - Quote
increase HM damage by 4.20% |
Atomeon
The Scope Gallente Federation
80
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 23:33:17 -
[58] - Quote
If you have to put penalties to make a weapon viable, then the weapon it should'nt exist. Remove Rapids from the game. |
Mr Rive
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
155
|
Posted - 2017.04.01 23:48:47 -
[59] - Quote
So before the changes, the barghest has on faction missile:
30.3km on siege missiles 94.3km on rapid heavies 222km on cruise missiles
After the changes, the bargest will have on faction missiles: 30.3km on siege missiles. 62.9km on rapid heavies. 222km on cruise missiles.
It just highlights the problem with large missile ships all over. They just dont have a decent mid-range option. You either go cruise, which hit like garbage on even BC's, OR you go so close range, there is no point in using them in the first place.
Suggestion: Make siege missiles a viable mid-ranged option. Why on earth siege missilles are SO short range in the first place is a bit wierd. You're basically incentivising people not to use them because turrets are so much more versatile.
I don't think you are going to get to the core of why missiles need balancing by just looking at heavy missiles tbh. |
Lug Muad'Dib
Wise Humans Sword
57
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 00:20:19 -
[60] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
-keep the velocity bonuses to the hulls, but reduce the range of all light missiles. As far as small ship weapons go, light missiles have ******** range anyway. Most small long range weapons max out around 20-30km, not 42km. Reduce their base range and let the hull bonuses still apply, resulting in a net range nerf, but still keeping the flexibility of the hull bonuses.
You know, missiles flight and target move.. thank for the laugh. |
|
Drigo Segvian
Black Fox Marauders
27
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 00:26:55 -
[61] - Quote
Good Changes.
Goodbye Navy Osprey and Orth. You will be remembered.
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
824
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 00:41:24 -
[62] - Quote
Lug Muad'Dib wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:
-keep the velocity bonuses to the hulls, but reduce the range of all light missiles. As far as small ship weapons go, light missiles have ******** range anyway. Most small long range weapons max out around 20-30km, not 42km. Reduce their base range and let the hull bonuses still apply, resulting in a net range nerf, but still keeping the flexibility of the hull bonuses.
You know, missiles flight and target move.. thank for the laugh.
Use rigs if you want velocity, just like turrets have to use optimal rigs or TE's to increase range. There are these things called ballistic tracking enhancers now, use them instead. Stop being bad.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
Make the Muninn great again!
|
Jackaryas
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
129
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 01:19:51 -
[63] - Quote
I think we can all agree The orthrus is a bit OP right now, i personally dont think a huge amount needs to be done to rapid lights and nerfing them into the ground will just see nobody use them at all.
Without repeating whats already been said too much
lel cruise / torp barghests +1 reducing clip size on rapid lights increasing reload time wont help solve the problem Upping fitting probs isnt a bad idea Maybe nerf the orthrus range a bit on rapid lights Rapid heavys are fine (above applies only to RLM imo)
Suddenly Spaceships Youtube
Suddenly Spaceships Recruitment Thread
|
Lug Muad'Dib
Wise Humans Sword
57
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 01:58:18 -
[64] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Lug Muad'Dib wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:
-keep the velocity bonuses to the hulls, but reduce the range of all light missiles. As far as small ship weapons go, light missiles have ******** range anyway. Most small long range weapons max out around 20-30km, not 42km. Reduce their base range and let the hull bonuses still apply, resulting in a net range nerf, but still keeping the flexibility of the hull bonuses.
You know, missiles flight and target move.. thank for the laugh. Use rigs if you want velocity, just like turrets have to use optimal rigs or TE's to increase range. There are these things called ballistic tracking enhancers now, use them instead. Stop being bad.
You only touch at 42km if the target don't move, real range are far less, stop being bad. |
Korvin
Shadow Kingdom Best Alliance
605
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 02:07:39 -
[65] - Quote
Something I told you at CSM8.
Next step - removing the light missle dps, than boost RLMS so they are usefull.
Finally you got it.
Member of CSM 4&5 ... &8
|
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
111
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 03:38:45 -
[66] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:Assuming this is not an April Fool's Day joke, this is a terrible idea.
The whole point to giving missile ships light missile bonuses in the first place is the fact that they were running dead last by race in terms of damage application in a screen or light combat role where such ships -- particularly the Caracal -- are used most frequently. We're not exactly talking about a DPS powerhouse on its best day, perhaps 250 or 275, which you propose to reduce by increasing the reload time. If you're looking to adjust, that adjustment alone should meet your goals without removing the ammo bonus as well.
By removing the ammo bonus as well, you push the Caracal back to 150 DPS with very bad application, which you propose to increase by 4%... to 160 DPS, or 150 DPS and very poor range. This compares to the Omen, which has 280 DPS without its drones and much superior application, then the Thorax/Vexor at 250 DPS or so. Even the Minmatar options will be superior to the Caracal. You're in essence proposing to put a whole set of doctrines right out of business and I don't see a good compelling reason why and you don't state one.
If you're looking to work on a small/medium weapons system, how about working on a small/medium weapons system that is clearly and obviously completely broken: autocannons?
I think you're misreading. The only ship bonus that's changing is the one to range. Application/damage bonuses to LMLs aren't changing. |
KillCamSpecteR
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 03:50:43 -
[67] - Quote
Well ... Waiting Orth for 100kk , Bargh - 300kk . Ahahah It's time 100ab tengu ... |
Creecher Virpio
Alcoholocaust. Test Alliance Please Ignore
10
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 04:13:24 -
[68] - Quote
How about we work on missiles systems that actually need a buff, like XL torps? The application on these is still god awful. losing application on archons that are moving more that 35m/s is just frankly unacceptable. I realize that NC/PL don't use missile capitals, but they still need fixing. |
Wyper insane
The Hornets Cartel
2
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 04:27:41 -
[69] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:Assuming this is not an April Fool's Day joke, this is a terrible idea.
The whole point to giving missile ships light missile bonuses in the first place is the fact that they were running dead last by race in terms of damage application in a screen or light combat role where such ships -- particularly the Caracal -- are used most frequently. We're not exactly talking about a DPS powerhouse on its best day, perhaps 250 or 275, which you propose to reduce by increasing the reload time. If you're looking to adjust, that adjustment alone should meet your goals without removing the ammo bonus as well.
By removing the ammo bonus as well, you push the Caracal back to 150 DPS with very bad application, which you propose to increase by 4%... to 160 DPS, or 150 DPS and very poor range. This compares to the Omen, which has 280 DPS without its drones and much superior application, then the Thorax/Vexor at 250 DPS or so. Even the Minmatar options will be superior to the Caracal. You're in essence proposing to put a whole set of doctrines right out of business and I don't see a good compelling reason why and you don't state one.
If you're looking to work on a small/medium weapons system, how about working on a small/medium weapons system that is clearly and obviously completely broken: autocannons?
I'm sorry, when did you thought minmatar should be always behind caldari ? Or ever was in fact. Stop being disrespectful. + all your argumentation is wrong lol, vexor and thorax rail, just to quote a few of what you said (applies to all), don't apply as perfectly as rlml. Now you're saying ACs are broken ? Come on... Rlml is the only thing more ******** than drones and other missiles imo.
|
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
905
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 05:21:32 -
[70] - Quote
I'm sorry, these changes do absolutely nothing.
The non application of the hull bonus for RLMLs, is the only thing that might mitigate the RLML caracal meta, but even that doesn't mitigate the absolute superiority of RLMLs. The rest is just not going to do what CCP wants.
A deeper analysis was done almost a year ago here. Even with the numbers CCP wants to use, RLMLs are still the ONLY choice for damage application, out DPSing Heavy missiles.
"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves."
The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
|
|
Conmen
Syndicate Enterprise Northern Coalition.
41
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 06:54:09 -
[71] - Quote
love the changes for eve hate the changes for the newbros rapid light platform low sp entry level to be effective. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
824
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 08:10:15 -
[72] - Quote
Lug Muad'Dib wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Lug Muad'Dib wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:
-keep the velocity bonuses to the hulls, but reduce the range of all light missiles. As far as small ship weapons go, light missiles have ******** range anyway. Most small long range weapons max out around 20-30km, not 42km. Reduce their base range and let the hull bonuses still apply, resulting in a net range nerf, but still keeping the flexibility of the hull bonuses.
You know, missiles flight and target move.. thank for the laugh. Use rigs if you want velocity, just like turrets have to use optimal rigs or TE's to increase range. There are these things called ballistic tracking enhancers now, use them instead. Stop being bad. You only touch at 42km if the target don't move, real range are far less, stop being bad.
Thats why i said put missile velocity rigs or missile TE's on your ship. That will increase your missile velocity/range at the sacrifice of tank or damage, which is how it is for every other ship that wants to project damage. Learn to read.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
Make the Muninn great again!
|
Chan'aar
State War Academy Caldari State
99
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 10:11:29 -
[73] - Quote
Really hope this is an April fool. HML's need application. |
Okuu Reiuji
PEETOOSHKEE PRIMARY OK Scourge.
2
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 11:00:49 -
[74] - Quote
So we have:
>Orthrus Which deserves some balancing, but with given changes it will be RIP.
>Caracal RIP, you will be remembered.
>Cerberus Will still be used as HML platform
>Onyx Nobody cares about weaponry in mobile bubble.
>Osprey Navy Issue RIP
>Cyclone, Drake, Drake Navy Issue These three weren't very alive to begin with, now it will be even more dead.
>Barghest
RIP. Ship is already unpopular and without RHML it is RIP.
Give us some real boost to HML/HAML, explosion velocity and radius. 5.6% damage is nothing if you can't apply it to anything but capitals. |
Michael Oskold
BURN EDEN Northern Coalition.
29
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 11:12:56 -
[75] - Quote
as a soloist i am mad
as an fc i am hella happy
godbless |
light heaven
JUST SET TIMES Fraternity.
9
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 11:23:23 -
[76] - Quote
RLML is good at deal dps on frig, so it did better on cruiser. RLML always apply full dps on cruiser which HML can't do it. Even plus reload time, HML always apply less dps than RLML. This is the biggest thing make HML useless compare to RLML. By reduce RLML range will give ppl a reason to use HML when they want to deal dps at long range. But core problem is if you have a lot of RLML ships, you can kill both large and small target very well. Reload time is not a big problem for large fleet, you can do it in warp and so on. You should reduce RLML dps for large target, make it only good at kill frigs. |
Caleb Seremshur
Black Scorpions Inc Circle-Of-Two
868
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 12:18:14 -
[77] - Quote
Kendarr wrote:Yes, finally the ******* RLML nurf!
please buff HML application not damage and also buff the range of HAMs a tiny bit please
The point of buffing the damage is to promote the use of, you know, actual dps application modifiers like tracking computers and target painters, instead of just making all ships a flat X% more effective.
Years and years ago we all lamented the extremely heavy nerfs to HML and it took years of lobbying from people including myself to get something done. Once upon a time I proposed a flat 5% damage buff nothing else, we got that 5%. Obviously the devs have after some consideration decided to iterate by another 5%.
Because this damage will barely affect frigates and destroyers. It will make a marginal difference to shooting other cruisers (the calculations are determined against you having TONS of extra application) and a decent % more damage against large targets. That's why they chose for damage increase instead of application increase, because it just balances the weapon better. |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
362
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 12:45:28 -
[78] - Quote
The changes sound like they were done by someone who goes by paper figures and not in-game experience...
range isnt the issue. a 10% base range nerf to LM would be plenty.
the main issue is the burst damage
reduce the clip size by 5 missiles, drop the reload time to 30 seconds.
this would result in a slightly more balanced playing field.
also, polarized RLML please :p |
CyberJanus
Panic Stations. Panic Attack.
0
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 12:57:42 -
[79] - Quote
If you remove the velocity bonuses from undersized missiles, RLMLs become an absolutely useless anti tackle system. It would allow them to be outran by some fast frigs, let alone interceptors (5.6km/s missile speed. lol). The range nerf is also massive. a ~20km range nerf to the Orthrus, really? Yeah these ships are currently super strong but gutting everything worthwhile about them isn't the best way to go about it.
The problem, like everyone has tried to say before, is that they are WAY too easy to fit. Increase the fitting requirements and let us have to make compromises, as opposed to having ships that can go super fast, fit an LSE AND an XLASB without a single fitting module/rig.
Just my two cents (PS. No % increase on damage will fix a missile that is negated by deciding to move slightly. lol. Consider an explosio |
Panther X
High Flyers Northern Coalition.
119
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 13:51:07 -
[80] - Quote
Tom Gerard wrote:I like this idea it would allow us to extract all missile skills without any loss in combat effectiveness.
Missiles are a cancer upon EVE, remove the entire weapon system, after that remove drones for the love of god.
I think you oughtta look at your signature again.
I love my Balanced Legion ships. Please balance something else. Heavies need an application bonus, not a vanilla dps boost.
HAM's are still in need of love, as are pretty much every other missile system.
Make the Levi and Phoenix great again!
My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
|
|
Jasper Binchiette
Aliastra Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 14:14:59 -
[81] - Quote
If this is a joke then it's in poor taste after the March update joke... |
Valence Benedetto
South of Heaven Ltd Blades of Grass
7
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 14:38:22 -
[82] - Quote
Overall - it is nice to see CCP working on missile balance. Some love to heavy missiles is welcome (though I think a light touch is best), and nerfs to RLML are long overdue.
As to the specific changes
1. As others have said, I think you need to start this balance pass with a review and adjustment of launcher PG requirements.
2. As others have said, I think clip size is an important variable that you may be overlooking.
3. Personally I agree with nerfing range. I understand why that bothers some people, as it does fundamentally change the capability of several hulls. But it makes sense to me conceptually that RLML should emphasize shorter range, burst and oppressive anti-support (without also being such a powerful anti-cruiser weapon).
Fozzie, I think much of the recent changes and balance passes to the game have been great. With this one, it feels like you are trying too hard to be non-disruptive to current fits. I suggest you take the opportunity to step back and think conceptually about what you really want the RLML system to be.
Thanks.
|
Kines Pavelovna
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
9
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 15:19:06 -
[83] - Quote
Falin Whalen wrote:I'm sorry, these changes do absolutely nothing. The non application of the hull bonus for RLMLs, is the only thing that might mitigate the RLML caracal meta, but even that doesn't mitigate the absolute superiority of RLMLs. The rest is just not going to do what CCP wants. A deeper analysis was done almost a year ago here. Even with the numbers CCP wants to use, RLMLs are still the ONLY choice for damage application, out DPSing Heavy missiles.
That article is good. Heavy Missiles basically always do 30-60% paper dps and can't practically use t2 ammo. RLML's always fully apply and the target has to equip a 4+ slot passive tank to survive a full clip.
So what's different with this change is that you have to burn deeper into range before you start firing your RLMLs. |
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
440
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 16:03:44 -
[84] - Quote
Fozzie, why dont you start with an easier task and fix the torpedoes? Those are ridiculously underperforming. I doubt anyone uses them at all, aside from stealth bombers. Instead, people use RHMLs as a high damage mid to close-range weapon system that can actually hit a target smaller than an Upwell structure. Cruise missile battleships find some use in PVE and large fleet meta, but their close-range brethren are already a rare breed that can go completely extinct.
HAMLs may also need some love. Once both torps and HAMs are fine, you'll feel more freedom to adjust rapid launchers without screwing up a whole bunch of missile ships.
Fix the torps. Just do it. |
Blood Animus
Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium
40
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 17:21:59 -
[85] - Quote
I'm honestly not sure if this is a joke or not, if it is then it's a poor one, ditto if this is a real post. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
824
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 17:26:00 -
[86] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Fozzie, why dont you start with an easier task and fix the torpedoes? Those are ridiculously underperforming. I doubt anyone uses them at all, aside from stealth bombers. Instead, people use RHMLs as a high damage mid to close-range weapon system that can actually hit a target smaller than an Upwell structure. Cruise missile battleships find some use in PVE and large fleet meta, but their close-range brethren are already a rare breed that can go completely extinct.
HAMLs may also need some love. Once both torps and HAMs are fine, you'll feel more freedom to adjust rapid launchers without screwing up a whole bunch of missile ships.
Fix the torps. Just do it.
I use torps all the time. Torps need fitting adjustments and maybe some minor tweaking in application and resulting nerf in bomber application to compensate. Otherwise, they're actually pretty strong when you fit for them. 3 shotting sabre's with a torp RNI is fun.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
Make the Muninn great again!
|
Muon Farstrider
Partial Safety
50
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 18:09:25 -
[87] - Quote
After pondering for a while, I don't think these proposed changes are on the right track.
The problem with RLML isn't their range, or their sustained DPS. The problem is how their raw burst damage, combined with the way their light fitting and perfect application (on cruiser scales) completely frees up the rest of their fit for tank/oversized prop/etc, obsoletes other medium missile systems for fighting other cruisers and up rather than just lighter ships.
Range and velocity are actually necessary for their *intended* role of anti-light support. Unbonused light missiles only go about 40 km @ 5.6 km/s with max skills, which in a fleet context isn't actually much. The battle area is usually notably larger than that, and the low velocity is also problematic - many inties can straight-up outrun them, and even a ship moving 'only' 3 km/s can force the missiles to chase long enough to expire in many cases. Removing the velocity bonuses will weaken RLML, for sure, but not in the right manner. It makes them worse at anti-support without weakening their oppressively strong brawling potential.
RLML nerfs need to focus on making them weaker against cruiser-up targets *without* excessively nerfing them against small targets. This is why I think Suitonia's suggestion of reducing clip size instead of increasing reload time is heading in the right direction - most small ships will still die in a single clip, but the more chance cruisers have to survive one, the better.
However, there's still a fine balance to walk here, mostly because there are a lot of quite tanky small ships these days. Keeping RLML strong enough to properly threaten them can easily make it still too good against cruisers. As such, I'd personally suggest playing with a different stat on RLML - application.
While the application on light missiles is very good, it's often overlooked that it's not *perfect* - a lot of small ships will somewhat reduce the damage from them. If you pyfa up a few examples, you can see that many t1 frigates mitigate 10-30%ish of the damage, while in the extreme case inties often mitigate over 60% with MWD on. Destroyers, meanwhile, don't avoid any faction missile damage, but the advanced versions often avoid significant amounts if the firer is using fury.
As such, playing with application is one possible way to allow for lowering RLML damage against cruisers while keeping it good against small ships. If rapid platforms all had a light missile expvel or exprad hull bonus (or if the launchers themselves applied this bonus to the missiles they fired? not sure if the game mechanics can do that), it would allow the clip sizes or fire rates on RLML to be further lowered to reduce their oppressive damage against cruisers while the application bonus counteracts this against small ships.
TL:DR - leave RLML range alone, reduce RLML clip size, give missile cruisers a light missile application bonus. Probably also increase RLML fitting cost.
Meanwhile, as this article indicates, the problem with heavy missile launchers (and their cousins HAMs) isn't just the damage, it's the application. A 5% damage bonus is all well and good, but when you can't *apply* that damage even to peer targets it doesn't help much. This update really ought to also include buffing HML/HAM *application* by a good 10% or so at least. |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
196
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 18:14:41 -
[88] - Quote
Congrats CCP on ******* up the only missile system still efficient.
RLML are fine like they are. People complaining about the RLML being overpowered are the nones that fly paper tin fits that sacrifice everything to velocity. If a fit is decent enough to hold the burst damage from a RLML system most probably will beat the other ship using the RLML.
Then the HML buff ? Thats a bad joke. The problem is not the DPS or the Alpha or whatever it's their CRAP APPLICATION. If you fit a Afterburner, you laugh at a ship using whatever Missile system people have available. Except the now nerfed RLML.
Congrats once again CCP...
You want to talk about balance, balance the Keres or the Maulus or do you think they are balanced ships ?
|
Vic Jefferson
Brand Newbros Test Alliance Please Ignore
1210
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 18:23:02 -
[89] - Quote
RLMLs are so much to so many different fits at the moment, there's simply no easy way to adjust them without breaking lots of hulls at the same time. Some parts of EvE reinforce the idea that specialization is a trade-off, but RLMLs have just violated this for so long and simultaneously been a crutch for much of the missile line up that it's going to be impossible to simultaneously present a real fitting choice and have much of the missile line be viable.
I mean we can chew on the numbers for a while, but I don't think that's going to make it much easier - this is a needed change, but not one that will ever achieve the desired result in one step. Echoing others, I think the entire process would go better if any changes were coupled to changes in heavy missiles.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
|
Nightfox BloodRaven
SQUIDS.
45
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 18:26:53 -
[90] - Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njJAnWzKDfQ
At the end of the day.. RLML are not op by any chance.. u can barely kill a properly tanked vexor in an orthrus
properly fit thoraxes can solo tank orthrus no problem. Hell an exequror rep fit can kill orthrus and tank its dps no problem.
What you have are legions of idiots in **** fits hitting approach and mwd right at you and they complain op when they die.
but once again CCP has decided to take a dump on caldari lol.. caracal will be entirely useless... what it gonna be like not even 200dps with reload?
You wanna fix op? Vexor, Algos, Tristan all top of their meta.. for years.. |
|
Okuu Reiuji
PEETOOSHKEE PRIMARY OK Scourge.
2
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 20:26:04 -
[91] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Kendarr wrote:Yes, finally the ******* RLML nurf!
please buff HML application not damage and also buff the range of HAMs a tiny bit please The point of buffing the damage is to promote the use of, you know, actual dps application modifiers like tracking computers and target painters, instead of just making all ships a flat X% more effective.
For a ship with 400 dps it will be like +20. Wow, such a reason to throw away something necessary from low or mid for a damage application module. Nobody will even try.
Most players will just abandon missile ships beyond destroyer hull and stick to drones & turrets. I know I will do.
Nightfox BloodRaven wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njJAnWzKDfQ but once again CCP has decided to take a dump on caldari lol.. caracal will be entirely useless... what it gonna be like not even 200dps with reload?.
Shhhhhh, don't tell them that Ferox is still viable. |
elitatwo
Dicker Quick and Hyde Defense Attorneys O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1697
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 20:44:04 -
[92] - Quote
Jackaryas wrote:I think we can all agree The orthrus is a bit OP right now..
This is complete bull and you know it.
The problem are the light rapid bajeebus launchers, not the ship.
Those rapid bajeebus IWIN launchers just need to go. The light missiles are a ******* frigate missile system. They need to stay where they belong - in the light launchers.
Those "prototype" launchers failed. Delete them and we can all go back to fighting with proper options. Oh and don't forget to un-nerf heavy missiles to the 2011 state.
Heavy missiles fixed and hams in dire need of love.
Eve Minions is recruiting.
This is the law of ship progression!
Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
|
Korvin
Shadow Kingdom Best Alliance
606
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 21:26:18 -
[93] - Quote
Nightfox BloodRaven wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njJAnWzKDfQ
At the end of the day.. RLML are not op by any chance.. u can barely kill a properly tanked vexor in an orthrus
properly fit thoraxes can solo tank orthrus no problem. Hell an exequror rep fit can kill orthrus and tank its dps no problem.
What you have are legions of idiots in **** fits hitting approach and mwd right at you and they complain op when they die.
but once again CCP has decided to take a dump on caldari lol.. caracal will be entirely useless... what it gonna be like not even 200dps with reload?
You wanna fix op? Vexor, Algos, Tristan all top of their meta.. for years.. You try to compare long range orthus with the close range fit thorax. Got webbed - deserved to die. Close range is always more dps, for a good reason.
Member of CSM 4&5 ... &8
|
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
197
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 21:31:37 -
[94] - Quote
In the current state of missiles damage application a frigate with an AB or a cruiser with an oversized ab or with AB bonus will laugh at an opponent using HML or HAMS. It's ridiculous when shooting other ship you can make damage of 80-100 HP per volley !
You can nerf the **** out of RLML but just keep in mind that people only use them because the state of the other missiles systems damage application it's awfull. I mean, really, really, bad.
|
sten mattson
Virtus Crusade Curatores Veritatis Alliance
94
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 22:57:20 -
[95] - Quote
Quote:This would mean that the following ships would have their range bonuses only apply to Heavy and Heavy Assault Missiles: Orthrus, Caracal, Cerberus, Onyx, Osprey Navy Issue, Cyclone, Drake, Drake Navy Issue
the sacrilege and gets spared?
IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!!
|
Nightfox BloodRaven
SQUIDS.
46
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 01:00:34 -
[96] - Quote
Korvin wrote:Nightfox BloodRaven wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njJAnWzKDfQ
At the end of the day.. RLML are not op by any chance.. u can barely kill a properly tanked vexor in an orthrus
properly fit thoraxes can solo tank orthrus no problem. Hell an exequror rep fit can kill orthrus and tank its dps no problem.
What you have are legions of idiots in **** fits hitting approach and mwd right at you and they complain op when they die.
but once again CCP has decided to take a dump on caldari lol.. caracal will be entirely useless... what it gonna be like not even 200dps with reload?
You wanna fix op? Vexor, Algos, Tristan all top of their meta.. for years.. You try to compare long range orthus with the close range fit thorax. Got webbed - deserved to die. Close range is always more dps, for a good reason.
I am not trying to compare them .. the people who think RLML are broken are saying that RLML are so op they kill brawlers at brawl range.. which is completely untrue as to the video i posted and from my in game experiences.
|
Valkin Mordirc
2757
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 01:12:52 -
[97] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:Quote:This would mean that the following ships would have their range bonuses only apply to Heavy and Heavy Assault Missiles: Orthrus, Caracal, Cerberus, Onyx, Osprey Navy Issue, Cyclone, Drake, Drake Navy Issue the sacrilege and gets spared?
Sacrilege
Amarr Cruiser bonuses (per skill level): 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile damage
4% bonus to all armor resistances
Heavy Assault Cruisers bonuses (per skill level): 10% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile max velocity
5% bonus to Rapid Light Missile, Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile Launcher rate of fire
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in Microwarpdrive signature radius penalty
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Korvin
Shadow Kingdom Best Alliance
606
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 02:03:54 -
[98] - Quote
Nightfox BloodRaven wrote:[quote=Korvin][quote=Nightfox BloodRaven] I am not trying to compare them .. the people who think RLML are broken are saying that RLML are so op they kill brawlers at brawl range.. which is completely untrue as to the video i posted and from my in game experiences.
He was close on that video.
Anyway, my main point is - the whole rebalance idea we were asking since csm4 was to make low tier ships useful for something, and get a proper role, so new players on a rifter or atron had a role in a serious pvp fleet and be wanted in corporations. RLMLs and t3 destroyers just ruined that idea like a hummer and the anvil. With those strange immune interceptors on top.
More than that, the whole point of RLMLs were the role of a secondary weapon on an extra slot, if you don't want to use it for the neut or salvager.
Giving the light missile bonuses on a cruiser size was a major mistake from the start.
Member of CSM 4&5 ... &8
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
825
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 03:06:10 -
[99] - Quote
Nightfox BloodRaven wrote:Korvin wrote:Nightfox BloodRaven wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njJAnWzKDfQ
At the end of the day.. RLML are not op by any chance.. u can barely kill a properly tanked vexor in an orthrus
properly fit thoraxes can solo tank orthrus no problem. Hell an exequror rep fit can kill orthrus and tank its dps no problem.
What you have are legions of idiots in **** fits hitting approach and mwd right at you and they complain op when they die.
but once again CCP has decided to take a dump on caldari lol.. caracal will be entirely useless... what it gonna be like not even 200dps with reload?
You wanna fix op? Vexor, Algos, Tristan all top of their meta.. for years.. You try to compare long range orthus with the close range fit thorax. Got webbed - deserved to die. Close range is always more dps, for a good reason. I am not trying to compare them .. the people who think RLML are broken are saying that RLML are so op they kill brawlers at brawl range.. which is completely untrue as to the video i posted and from my in game experiences.
I was curious, so i looked up the orthrus loss. I can't post the killboard link (against rules i believe). For one it was not a properly fit orthrus, it did not have max damage, nor did it have a proper tank. It was a terribly fit orthrus that died by being ontop of an AB thorax. Not exactly a normal situation for an RLML orthrus.
The orthrus that died in the video you listed was fit like this:
x5 t2 RLML (using faction inferno missiles, not T2 and also not ideal missile for an armor cruiser)
T2 MWD T2 Sensor booster Republic Fleet warp disruptor T2 Invuln XLASB
x2 BCU T2 OD injector T2 nanofiber
Rigs: x2 T2hyperspatials T2 Semiconductor memory cell (lol wat)
This is not the kind of fit we (or Suitonia) are talking about with RLML outbrawling other cruisers. A terrible fit does not mean RLML are fine. Anyone who is competent and knows how to fit a ship and use the right ammo will be far more dangerous than what is shown in that video.
With that in mind, even with how terribly fit that Orthrus is, he still almost managed to kill that thorax while brawling, perfectly illustrating our point.
If that orthrus had a DCU or 3rd BCU and a better midslot layout, along with either fury or explosive ammo (or both, ideally) he would of tanked and killed that thorax no problem.
EVE being EVE, there are always many variables in fights and no one is perfect, especially in videos. But using that one video as your proof that RLML are fine is pretty short sighted.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
Make the Muninn great again!
|
XJIE6YLLIEK 6OPOgUHCKUU
PEETOOSHKEE PRIMARY OK Scourge.
1
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 03:14:30 -
[100] - Quote
I have a strong feeling nobody from CCP actually playing their own game. |
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
283
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 03:49:59 -
[101] - Quote
RLMLs are fine. The problem is that only undersized missiles can actually hit a same-size target with full damage, and even the paper dps of heavies/HAMs isn't all that impressive. Nerfing RLMLs without fixing all the other missiles just means that missile ships in general take a major nerf and probably cease to be viable.
The actual solution here is to buff "normal" size missiles so they can hit same-size targets for full (or at least near-full) dps, with better dps than undersized missiles (which have fine paper dps as they are). That gives you the choice between maximum dps at the cost of projection against smaller targets, or awesome projection against smaller targets but weaker dps against anything in the same size class. |
oiukhp Muvila
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
146
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 05:21:44 -
[102] - Quote
I think the whole damage calculus of this game needs to be re-thought.
I agree the biggest issue is how poorly cruiser class missiles are against cruiser sized ships. That should be their strong point regardless of the propulsion modules added to the targets.
As well, I think the ranges for all weapons and targeting systems should be increased something like 5 to 10 times. A frigate shouldn't be able to cross a cruiser's engagement range in less than 30 seconds in any circumstance.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3927
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 08:29:41 -
[103] - Quote
oiukhp Muvila wrote:I think the whole damage calculus of this game needs to be re-thought.
I agree the biggest issue is how poorly cruiser class missiles are against cruiser sized ships. That should be their strong point regardless of the propulsion modules added to the targets.
As well, I think the ranges for all weapons and targeting systems should be increased something like 5 to 10 times. A frigate shouldn't be able to cross a cruiser's engagement range in less than 30 seconds in any circumstance.
Oversized AB's are meant to be a counter to Missiles, AB's in general are. While MWD are meant to be weak to them. So prop mods should have a decent impact, but currently an unfitted cruiser, some of them are down to 60% of paper damage from Heavy Missiles, fix at least that issue to 100, and prop mods are no longer as insanely good at negating the damage, because they start from 100, not 60%. |
Isengrimus
Call of the Wild The Minions.
35
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 10:55:20 -
[104] - Quote
So this was NOT April's Fools after all? Well, that's even less funny. |
elitatwo
Dicker Quick and Hyde Defense Attorneys O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1702
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 12:12:49 -
[105] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:RLMLs are fine. ...
No, they are not. And ships like a Caracal don't even have enough fitting room to fit heavy launchers in the first place.
Light missiles are fine, rapid IWIN launchers are not.
Why do you think, I made a thread about rapid artillery turrets??
Eve Minions is recruiting.
This is the law of ship progression!
Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
285
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 12:53:13 -
[106] - Quote
elitatwo wrote: And ships like a Caracal don't even have enough fitting room to fit heavy launchers in the first place.
Then this needs to be fixed. If you just nerf RLML then congratulations, you have a Caracal that can't work effectively with RLML, can't fit anything else, and can't apply useful damage even if it could fit HML/HAM. IOW, you might as well delete the Caracal from the game. |
Isengrimus
Call of the Wild The Minions.
35
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 13:19:28 -
[107] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:elitatwo wrote: And ships like a Caracal don't even have enough fitting room to fit heavy launchers in the first place. Then this needs to be fixed. If you just nerf RLML then congratulations, you have a Caracal that can't work effectively with RLML, can't fit anything else, and can't apply useful damage even if it could fit HML/HAM. IOW, you might as well delete the Caracal from the game.
Just like basically all Mordu's ships, because Garmur is not worthy keeping a whole line of cool-looking useless line. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3285
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 13:20:24 -
[108] - Quote
To fix RLML, you need to fix the other medium missiles and make RLML a real trade off to fit. Having a dedicated anti-support missile syytem isn't the end of the world but it has to be an effective limitation. Right now, the ships that use them pretty much work better against EVERYTHING with RLML instead of HMs and HAMs. |
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
556
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 14:35:25 -
[109] - Quote
Giving more damage to heavy missiles seems like a good idea, considering some of my favourite ships are basically on death row because it's not possible to get sensible DPS with heavy missiles. Seriously, there are frigates who have higher DPS than a Cyclone with HMLs. That's not right. |
Ransu Asanari
V0LTA WE FORM V0LTA
534
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 15:21:25 -
[110] - Quote
Let's take a trip back in time.
I started playing in 2012, when the Drake was still an amazing ship. I trained into missiles based on feedback everyone gave me, that it was good for PVE and PVP. Pretty soon afterwards:
Winter 2012
- Heavy Missile Damage reduced by 10% (rounded to closest digit)
- Heavy Missile Explosion Radius increased by 12%
Summer 2015
- Heavy Missile Damage increased by 5%
So now we're looking at increasing HML damage again, by 5.6%. That puts damage levels basically back to the same as they were in 2012, possibly increased by a whole 0.6%. But with the previous nerfs to damage applications, it's almost pointless.
The Missile Explosion Radius has never been adjusted to my knowledge. We have Missile Guidance Computers/Enhancers now, which we didn't back then, but HML damage application has been suffering since the nerf in 2012, hence why it's such an underperforming weapon system.
CCP Fozzie: Please consider increasing the damage application, and undoing some of the Explosion Radius nerf from 2012. |
|
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
198
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 15:31:35 -
[111] - Quote
Owen Levanth wrote:Giving more damage to heavy missiles seems like a good idea, considering some of my favourite ships are basically on death row because it's not possible to get sensible DPS with heavy missiles. Seriously, there are frigates who have higher DPS than a Cyclone with HMLs. That's not right.
Lack of damage and even worst: the lack of application. HAMS and HML have really crap damage application. I used to fit HAMS or HML in my caldari fits but was pretty much "obliged" to fit RLML due to the explosion radius and velocity nerfs these 2 systems suffered.
If they go ahead with this nerf and dont change the application status of HML's and HAMS, a lot of the Caldari BC/Cruiser Hulls will be useless. |
Alderson Point
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
42
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 16:09:49 -
[112] - Quote
Fozzie, while your intentions are good, you may want to consider some of the ideas put forward.
1. RLML are the defining choice because HML and HAM launchers are extremely poor at applying damage below battlecruiser sized targets. Improve application for these, and then it becomes a question of players balancing benefits against RLML rather than "always RLML"
2. Increasing reload time simply makes RLML more unpleasant to use, where reducing both clip size and REDUCING reload time by 5 seconds would make them far more useable WHILST making them less oppressive.
3. Decreasing range makes RLML less effective against fast moving targets, the real purpose of the weapon system, it simply means fly another ship if you want to fight frigates and interceptors.
I hope you will take these ideas and comments in board, you have far more experience and knowledge of future developments than most of us, but we do have in game experience, and from that perspective this solution is not addressing our issues. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
3053
|
Posted - 2017.04.04 00:06:06 -
[113] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:No, they are not. And ships like a Caracal don't even have enough fitting room to fit heavy launchers in the first place. Max skills it fits 5x T2 HAM launcher, T2 MWD, and T2 LSE, needing only 1% powergrid bonus to make it fit. With Powergrid Upgrades 3 and without Advanced Weapon Upgrades (same as a starter toon), it fits T1 versions of those mods (not compact) using 700 out of 724.5 MW powergrid. Still got room to fit everything else.
You don't have to fit a 1600mm armor plate to your Caracal.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
440
|
Posted - 2017.04.04 09:06:26 -
[114] - Quote
While you're at it, could you take a look at precision light missiles? In my opinion they lack velocity already, and now that they lose bonuses from many hulls, it puts them into an even weaker place. |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
740
|
Posted - 2017.04.04 10:00:41 -
[115] - Quote
Fozzie, do a balance pass to all missiles systems instead. Range Application Hull bonuses Straight buffing damage won't solve anything here.
This community always pick the best options and the best now are rapids missiles lanuchers for both undersized and same size hulls. Maybe instead of introducing burst damage launchers give hulls bonuses to undersized weapons?
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Zavand Crendraven
Rolling Static Sleeping Dragons
26
|
Posted - 2017.04.04 10:02:45 -
[116] - Quote
Ransu Asanari wrote:Let's take a trip back in time. I started playing in 2012, when the Drake was still an amazing ship. I trained into missiles based on feedback everyone gave me, that it was good for PVE and PVP. Pretty soon afterwards: Winter 2012
- Heavy Missile Damage reduced by 10% (rounded to closest digit)
- Heavy Missile Explosion Radius increased by 12%
Summer 2015
- Heavy Missile Damage increased by 5%
So now we're looking at increasing HML damage again, by 5.6%. That puts damage levels basically back to the same as they were in 2012, possibly increased by a whole 0.6%. But with the previous nerfs to damage applications, it's almost pointless.
No missile damage is still lower than it was back then (albeit not by much) 0.9*1.05*1.056=0.99792 so still ~0.2% lower dps |
Stridsflygplan
Yjellio The Volition Cult
90
|
Posted - 2017.04.04 10:38:15 -
[117] - Quote
Will the range nerf also affect the role bonus on the Drake and Drake Navy Issue? |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2864
|
Posted - 2017.04.04 11:03:16 -
[118] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:RLMLs are fine. The problem is that only undersized missiles can actually hit a same-size target with full damage, and even the paper dps of heavies/HAMs isn't all that impressive. Nerfing RLMLs without fixing all the other missiles just means that missile ships in general take a major nerf and probably cease to be viable.
The actual solution here is to buff "normal" size missiles so they can hit same-size targets for full (or at least near-full) dps, with better dps than undersized missiles (which have fine paper dps as they are). That gives you the choice between maximum dps at the cost of projection against smaller targets, or awesome projection against smaller targets but weaker dps against anything in the same size class.
I agree with this assessment.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2865
|
Posted - 2017.04.04 11:14:03 -
[119] - Quote
Alderson Point wrote:Fozzie, while your intentions are good, you may want to consider some of the ideas put forward.
1. RLML are the defining choice because HML and HAM launchers are extremely poor at applying damage below battlecruiser sized targets. Improve application for these, and then it becomes a question of players balancing benefits against RLML rather than "always RLML"
2. Increasing reload time simply makes RLML more unpleasant to use, where reducing both clip size and REDUCING reload time by 5 seconds would make them far more useable WHILST making them less oppressive.
3. Decreasing range makes RLML less effective against fast moving targets, the real purpose of the weapon system, it simply means fly another ship if you want to fight frigates and interceptors.
I hope you will take these ideas and comments in board, you have far more experience and knowledge of future developments than most of us, but we do have in game experience, and from that perspective this solution is not addressing our issues.
These are also good points.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Planet 6
Know your Role League of Unaligned Master Pilots
18
|
Posted - 2017.04.04 15:35:51 -
[120] - Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_oiSQehU_M
im only good for memes anyway, ill just leave this here |
|
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues
Hookers N' Blow
34
|
Posted - 2017.04.04 16:08:26 -
[121] - Quote
HAM's really need a range/application bonus, or more dps as well. HML's dont really need more dps, just a bit more application.
RLML defintielly need the nerf. finally. What about the Medium AC buff, and the rest of the tiericide of weapon systems. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
3053
|
Posted - 2017.04.04 17:12:47 -
[122] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:The actual solution here is to buff "normal" size missiles so they can hit same-size targets for full (or at least near-full) dps, with better dps than undersized missiles (which have fine paper dps as they are). Maybe the missiles are supposed to be able to do more damage to larger targets, and the damage they are already doing to medium targets is intended and balanced? After all, they have excellent range and flexible choice of damage. Maybe the RLMLs are overpowered by offering cruiser missile paper DPS which translates too easily onto the target.
Skia Aumer wrote:While you're at it, could you take a look at precision light missiles? In my opinion they lack velocity already, and now that they lose bonuses from many hulls, it puts them into an even weaker place. Fly a Kestrel if you want precision light missile range bonus. That's what Kestrels are for. If you can't be bothered to fly a frigate, you shouldn't be able to blap mobile interceptors. Alternatively you could use Minmatar recon ships and not need precision missiles! It's an excellent reminder that more ships can make up for not having the right ships.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3291
|
Posted - 2017.04.04 20:07:29 -
[123] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Merin Ryskin wrote:The actual solution here is to buff "normal" size missiles so they can hit same-size targets for full (or at least near-full) dps, with better dps than undersized missiles (which have fine paper dps as they are). Maybe the missiles are supposed to be able to do more damage to larger targets, and the damage they are already doing to medium targets is intended and balanced? After all, they have excellent range and flexible choice of damage. Maybe the RLMLs are overpowered by offering cruiser missile paper DPS which translates too easily onto the target.
HAMs already deal more damage to a Caracal than rapid lights, even more so if you factor in reloads. With 2 LSE and 2 rigs bloating his sig, a Caracal end up at 192m radius. The crossover for speed to have less damage coming from HAMs is around 375 m/s but only on AB. The full speed envelope with MWD bloom is better damaged by HAMs. If you link the Caracal for sig radius reduction, the speed required is then 320 ish on AB or 1845 on T2 MWD.
The application of HAMs against a shield cruisers is then not the problem. What probably is the problem is more the fact that anywhere you fly, you have about 10 time as much chance to face frigs/destroyers than you do cruisers and up and in those cases, I'm pretty sure RLML are always better than HAMs so people will take the slight DPS hit against cruisers and up to deal better damage the majority of stuff they will face.
The "frigate menace" is responsible for spawning the "RLML cancer" they keep facing because it's flat out a better weapon to engage them.
Only making reloads longer at the end of the clips will not solve any of this because one clip is easily enough right now to swap the frigates off the field. Shorter reloads + smaller clips would at least mean I actually lose out on the damage curve way faster if facing a cruiser weapon but also can't kill so many frigates before I need to reload. Reducing the rage won't really change much because even with no ship bonus and no support skill at all, you still already shoot at 18km.
Longer reload and no range bonus solve nothing because the missiles already have the needed range and the reload don't matter all that much with a clip as big as it currently is. |
Aleverette
Peoples Liberation Army Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 02:56:50 -
[124] - Quote
To Fozzie, both sincerely and seriously:
I was once a pilot living in Serenity's low sec for two years, and Cancerous Legion was my best friends both ratting-wise(barghest bpc sweetest bpc) and pvpmeta-wise. I know you balance team is trying to get rid of the brainless RLML kiting meta, but I have to point out you are balancing it from not the best approach, especially the damage buff to heavy missiles and the no-reason nerf to barghest.
Here is a little piece of my thought about how the rapid launchers balance should work.
1) Cancerous Legion: Orthrus and Garmur: change their gallente bonus to 5% propulsion jamming system range bonus. (More brawling less kiting) Barghest: Do nothing. Leave the all-missile range bonus unchanged, it should be Mordu's factional special.
2)RLML, RHL and heavy missiles: Do nothing.
3)Caracal, Cerberus, Onyx, Osprey Navy Issue, Cyclone, Drake, Drake Navy Issue: Keep your style. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
293
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 03:20:07 -
[125] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Maybe the missiles are supposed to be able to do more damage to larger targets, and the damage they are already doing to medium targets is intended and balanced?
That makes no sense at all. Why should all missiles be oversized weapons, the equivalent of putting battleship guns on a cruiser? And it's not like missiles do amazing damage to larger targets, their maximum paper dps isn't any better than equivalent gun dps.
Quote:After all, they have excellent range and flexible choice of damage.
Both of which are not worth anywhere near as much as many people think. Range is a marginal advantage at best, in small fights anything over 20-30km is wasted because of the limits of tackle range, and in big fights the flight time of missiles means that the primary is dead before any missiles hit. And flexible damage type is almost worthless, many (most?) missile ships are locked into a single damage type because of their bonuses and you're almost never going to be willing to spend time reloading mid-fight to change damage types. And in PvP most targets are omni-tanked, so you're looking at a modest advantage at most even if you can hit their resistance "hole".
Quote:It's an excellent reminder that more ships can make up for not having the right ships.
Encouraging blobbing is a bad idea.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
3053
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 03:32:29 -
[126] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:That makes no sense at all. Why should all missiles be oversized weapons, Because...
Merin Ryskin wrote:their maximum paper dps isn't any better than equivalent gun dps. It's worse. But what if it wasn't? It should be worse, but what if instead of buffing medium missiles' application, their damage was buffed instead? They could deal reasonable damage to cruiser-sized targets but higher damage to larger targets or webbed+painted cruisers. That would give them an interesting trait to help make up for their overall cumbersome nature. Also, since they're built to have less damage than turrets, it is less likely they will become overpowered with a bit of extra damage.
What if the Phoenix had the highest DPS of any dreadnought, but only against large citadels or webbed+painted titans?
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
293
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 04:50:43 -
[127] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:It's worse. But what if it wasn't? It should be worse, but what if instead of buffing medium missiles' application, their damage was buffed instead? They could deal reasonable damage to cruiser-sized targets but higher damage to larger targets or webbed+painted cruisers. That would give them an interesting trait to help make up for their overall cumbersome nature. Also, since they're built to have less damage than turrets, it is less likely they will become overpowered with a bit of extra damage.
Then you get one of two problems:
1) Missiles are ok against same-size targets AND get bonus dps against larger targets, making them overpowered and better than turrets in pretty much every situation besides huge fleet fights.
or
2) Missiles are weak against same-size targets but powerful against larger targets. This is balanced, but it's the kind of specialized role that T2 ships are given, not something that is appropriate for an entire class of weapons/ships. |
Zircon Dasher
353
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 16:20:12 -
[128] - Quote
My memory is hazy. Wasn't the old HML nerf -10%dmg and -15%expl radius?
With a single guidance computer the expl. radius 'nerf' is countered (while also getting a velocity bonus compared to old HMLs). With the proposed buff we are back to the old HML dmg. Granted the meta is different now, but I don't recall everyone shouting that the old HML Draeks/Tengus were woefully underpowered at killing cruisers +.
So my question for those who want HML to get expl. radius nerf reversed: Would HMLs with 16% better application to frigs and cruisrs, compared to the OLD HML, not be a little to overbearing wrt all the other missile platforms (given range)?
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
172
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 16:47:50 -
[129] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:My memory is hazy. Wasn't the old HML nerf -10%dmg and -15%expl radius?
With a single guidance computer the expl. radius 'nerf' is countered (while also getting a velocity bonus compared to old HMLs). With the proposed buff we are back to the old HML dmg. Granted the meta is different now, but I don't recall everyone shouting that the old HML Draeks/Tengus were woefully underpowered at killing cruisers +.
So my question for those who want HML to get expl. radius nerf reversed: Would HMLs with 16% better application to frigs and cruisrs, compared to the OLD HML, not be a little to overbearing wrt all the other missile platforms (given range)?
No, no it wouldn't. Because we have ships and weapons systems that have been added and/or changed within the game that such changes would now bring the HML/RHML in line with the rest. And something that people then and now keep forgetting is that to get that better application you are giving up tank/ewar to obtain it. It's not like you were ever magically getting that application/range bonus out of thin air. HAMs would be in a lot better place as well with an application change more so than the HML/RHML anyway.
As many have pointed out adding dmg just makes them all the better as an oversized weapon system, while it improves the damage to same-size vessels appear to get better while introducing a whole new set of problems by ignoring the actual problem which is application.
At this point I think CCP will be be better served actually creating an entirely new calculation of which to base missile damage application. Perhaps one based on mass? The more massive the target the more force absorbed (and therefore damage taken) by the target, max force determined by the missile fired (think leaf in the wind vs static structure). Add in a corresponding vector equation to determine damage bonus/reduction based on speed moving towards/away from the origin point. I imagine such an equation could be created to actually be less server intensive than the current given these values should already be readily available based on what is already pulled. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3294
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 17:58:11 -
[130] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:
At this point I think CCP will be be better served actually creating an entirely new calculation of which to base missile damage application. Perhaps one based on mass? The more massive the target the more force absorbed (and therefore damage taken) by the target, max force determined by the missile fired (think leaf in the wind vs static structure). Add in a corresponding vector equation to determine damage bonus/reduction based on speed moving towards/away from the origin point. I imagine such an equation could be created to actually be less server intensive than the current given these values should already be readily available based on what is already pulled.
How do you expect the sever to have less of a hard time to handle a variable set containing mass, speed, direction and position as opposed to a variable set that include size and speed? |
|
Zircon Dasher
354
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 19:04:16 -
[131] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:No, no it wouldn't. Because we have ships and weapons systems that have been added and/or changed within the game that such changes would now bring the HML/RHML in line with the rest. And something that people then and now keep forgetting is that to get that better application you are giving up tank/ewar to obtain it. It's not like you were ever magically getting that application/range bonus out of thin air.
First, people could not 'keep forgetting' that using a slot on a guidance computer meant less tank/ewar back then. There were no comps when the HML nerf occurred.
Second, tank was already sufficient given the numbers involved that people dropped in other semi-random stuff that might be useful in fleet. If guidance comps had been around, those would have been on a lot of fits.
Finally, don't misunderstand me. I am not completely adverse to expl. radius decreases. I just have not seen a resasoned argument for why old HML's + guidance comp would not be so much better than all other missile doctrine once you get past small gang. Lets not forget that the old HML boats were not really an issue when solo or small gang. They only became a 'problem' (quotes intentional) at scale and so you have to keep scale in mind when making changes.
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
172
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 21:43:04 -
[132] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote: First, people could not 'keep forgetting' that using a slot on a guidance computer meant less tank/ewar back then. There were no comps when the HML nerf occurred.
Second, tank was already sufficient given the numbers involved that people dropped in other semi-random stuff that might be useful in fleet. If guidance comps had been around, those would have been on a lot of fits.
Finally, don't misunderstand me. I am not completely adverse to expl. radius decreases. I just have not seen a resasoned argument for why old HML's + guidance comp would not be so much better than all other missile doctrine once you get past small gang. Lets not forget that the old HML boats were not really an issue when solo or small gang. They only became a 'problem' (quotes intentional) at scale and so you have to keep scale in mind when making changes.
You're looking a little too far back when I said "back then" - I was referring to when they released the guidance computers. They're great, but you have to give up something to gain something. That's all i meant by that. And there was a small hit so some hulls at the same time as that release, but I wasn't referring to that anyway.
Your second point, it's unlikely unless it was an armor-based missile doctrine. *Most* shield doctrines, the brawling kind the existed once upon a time, used specifically tank and prop modes only in mids for the sake of survival. That slot is best used with another extender as it typically was. And I honestly cant think of an armor-based ship that would consider missiles.
Anymore missiles only really apply to small gang to be perfectly honest. When it comes to fleet warfare a price cannot be placed on instantly applying damage which cannot be completely negated via firewall or other means.
Frostys Virpio wrote:How do you expect the sever to have less of a hard time to handle a variable set containing mass, speed, direction and position as opposed to a variable set that include size and speed?
Because they're already pulling variable sig radius and trajectories. I don't need to see their code to know it's there. Activating a prop mode to increase mass is updated just like updating a sig that has been target pained/increased via MWD. One would argue you would actually have less possibilities of a collision due to the limited ways a mass can change in combat. Additionally your movement through space is calculated via vector equations as we are in a 3D space. Which again is readily available as that is how they would have to go about calculating transversal/orbits/basic location in space. There are other ways, but would require more calculations to be done on the back end, which is why I can say with almost certainty this is how it is being done.
In short, what I have suggested makes use of what is already available, there are no additional calculations needed to obtain these values over and above what is already being done in the current system. More so since the introduction of Brain-in-the-box. |
Zircon Dasher
355
|
Posted - 2017.04.06 02:18:59 -
[133] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:Your second point, it's unlikely unless it was an armor-based missile doctrine. *Most* shield doctrines, the brawling kind the existed once upon a time, used specifically tank and prop modes only in mids for the sake of survival. That slot is best used with another extender as it typically was. And I honestly cant think of an armor-based ship that would consider missiles.
Did we play the same EVE? Nobody fit all tank. Hell, even the 3mo old newbro/ 5xMultibox Drake fit was MWD, Tank, + cap mod. Most fits didnt use the cap mod unless you had to.
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
|
Milostiev
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
21
|
Posted - 2017.04.06 14:52:06 -
[134] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone and happy Saturday! Today I'm here to start collecting community feedback on a potential package of missile balance tweaks. These changes aren't confirmed yet and don't even have a release date, but if we do decide to go forward with them they would potentially arrive sometime in the summer. The goal of these changes is to help improve the balance between the cruiser-sized missile systems and make the choice of what missiles to fit more interesting. We have also been hearing from you folks that Rapid Light Missiles are continuing to feel quite oppressive in their extremely strong combination of burst dps, range and application. Here's the package of changes we are considering at this time: - Increase Rapid Light and Rapid Heavy launcher reload time from 35s to 40s (~4% sustained dps reduction with no burst damage reduction). This change would reset the rapid launcher reload time back to the original values from when they were first converted to a burst damage system. It is a slight reduction to sustained dps while not impacting burst damage
- Change ship missile range bonuses to not apply to undersize missiles
- This would mean that the following ships would have their range bonuses only apply to Heavy and Heavy Assault Missiles: Orthrus, Caracal, Cerberus, Onyx, Osprey Navy Issue, Cyclone, Drake, Drake Navy Issue
- The Barghest range bonus would also be changed to only impact Cruise Missiles and Torpedoes
- The Mordu flight time reduction would also no longer apply to undersized missiles
- This change would only affect range bonuses (missile velocity and missile flight time) not damage bonuses
- Increase all Heavy Missile damage by 5.6%. This would be a general buff to HMLs and more than compensate for the longer reload time on RHMLs leading to a slight buff for them as well.
As I mentioned above we don't have a proposed release date for these changes yet but we want to start gathering community feedback and get the discussion started. Thanks and happy Saturday!
It's good that CCP is at least trying to fix this broken stuff.
Suitonia did a very good job describing the problem with Rapids, so i'll summarize what he said and add : 1 - very light fitting requirements make it a very attractive option; you don't just fit a good weapon, but by using it you also get a built-in fitting/tanking bonus 2 - good application, or not that good application 3 - in the situations where they apply in the cruiser/frig meta, their burst DPS is opressive 4 - the ships that excel at using RLML's also excells at controlling range
1 - increase the fitting requirements so that ppl who use them, cannot mount such a massive buffer tank, or at least have to drop 1 bcu 3 - 35s reload time is not a penalty when you a whole bunch of ppl getting used to counting salvo's in fleets or small groups know how to cycle pilots through their reloads, so not sure if boosting it to 40s would help that much. 4 - the missile velocity bonus turns a relatively short range weapon system into a long range kitting weapon system
2 - i left this one last because i feel it is the most important thing. You have 2 weapon systems in 2 different classes that use the same ammo. Balancing around that is turning into a nightmare. Nerf lights too much and the small class will suffer (dessies and frigs). Nerf lights not enough, and the cruiser class will abuse it. You have a number of options to cut this Gordian knot : - give ammo penalties to rapid launchers (less needed for RHML's) - split the ammo's of small and medium weapon systems (lml/rlml and hml/rhml) - nerf the ships that abuse their use
I personally think the first option is the most elegant one, especially since you already have the code in place to provide launcher specific boosts/penalties to ammo.
To say it again, the biggest problems of RLML's are : - application (on most/all ships) - light fitting (on all ships applies) - clip damage (on some ships, not all)
And application will also somewhat fix the problem of RLML-destroyer hulls that there is currently (in a dessy you are dead the moment a RLML cruiser enters range unless you are in a very weird fit like 10mn ab, hi resists .... where you will last a little). |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3294
|
Posted - 2017.04.06 21:03:26 -
[135] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:
Because they're already pulling variable sig radius and trajectories. I don't need to see their code to know it's there. Activating a prop mode to increase mass is updated just like updating a sig that has been target pained/increased via MWD. One would argue you would actually have less possibilities of a collision due to the limited ways a mass can change in combat. Additionally your movement through space is calculated via vector equations as we are in a 3D space. Which again is readily available as that is how they would have to go about calculating transversal/orbits/basic location in space. There are other ways, but would require more calculations to be done on the back end, which is why I can say with almost certainty this is how it is being done.
In short, what I have suggested makes use of what is already available, there are no additional calculations needed to obtain these values over and above what is already being done in the current system. More so since the introduction of Brain-in-the-box.
Just making missiles hit not always hit "at 0" on the target is much more calculation that what is currently done because it involve an sphere around each missile salvo checked each tick. Yes it's probably more realistic but CCP made boost pulses instead of a constant AoE to check who was affected so I really doubt they want missile constantly checking of their target is withing X meters of themselves instead of just waiting for a direct hit. |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
362
|
Posted - 2017.04.07 01:13:07 -
[136] - Quote
The simplest answer would be to reduce the clip size by 1/3rd, and reduce the reload time by 5 seconds. this way they still have their utility, but will have more of a downtime between reloads. |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
173
|
Posted - 2017.04.07 01:46:07 -
[137] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: Just making missiles hit not always hit "at 0" on the target is much more calculation that what is currently done because it involve an sphere around each missile salvo checked each tick. Yes it's probably more realistic but CCP made boost pulses instead of a constant AoE to check who was affected so I really doubt they want missile constantly checking of their target is withing X meters of themselves instead of just waiting for a direct hit.
Where do you get that from? The calculations are always done at zero at moment of impact. I don't recall saying what I was suggesting having them explode before that point. Just because the math acts as if that is whats happening (like the current system) doesn't mean that's what happening. Guns calculate the moment the shot if fired. Missiles calculate at the moment of impact. It's still one calculation regardless of when it happens.
This whole thing is pointless as we're arguing a hypothetical that you aren't even following properly. I was literally just suggesting an idea that would allow for a change in how we use and defend against this weapon system.
EDIT- and please don't be one of those who ***** about missiles always doing damage. Missiles rarely do full damage (RLML excluded, and thats what they're trying to balace here) and can't do more than their cap damage and unlike guns. And you can actually outrun missiles and take zero damage no matter what. Even large/cap guns have a chance of getting a glancing blow. |
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
2762
|
Posted - 2017.04.07 20:22:57 -
[138] - Quote
would it be possible to keep the velocity bonuses on missiles fired from rapid launchers but nerf the flight time, like the mordus bonus but a bit weaker. For sure some of the RLML ships have oppressive range but missiles without a speed bonus are kinda meh. not sure about RHML
And +1 for what suitonia said, long reload times are boring increasing them isn't a great thing.
selling officer BCUs! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6872141
@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
|
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
258
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 16:57:29 -
[139] - Quote
Hendrink Collie wrote:Quote:Change ship missile range bonuses to not apply to undersize missiles This one I disagree with completely. The missile range bonus tied along with the burst nature of the rapid line defines a lot of those ships. Now it is possible there are other buffs etc etc that we have not seen yet related to these hulls, but as of now... I'm not a fan. Perhaps concentrate more on nerfing the particular problem ships in this case, not the particular missile bonus. Or just increase the PG requirements of the launchers a bit.
This is the most on-point post I've seen. This change is ridiculous. |
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues
Hookers N' Blow
34
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 18:08:48 -
[140] - Quote
Mr Rive wrote:So before the changes, the barghest has on faction missile:
30.3km on siege missiles 94.3km on rapid heavies 222km on cruise missiles
After the changes, the bargest will have on faction missiles: 30.3km on siege missiles. 62.9km on rapid heavies. 222km on cruise missiles.
It just highlights the problem with large missile ships all over. They just dont have a decent mid-range option. You either go cruise, which hit like garbage on even BC's, OR you go so close range, there is no point in using them in the first place.
Suggestion: Make siege missiles a viable mid-ranged option. Why on earth siege missilles are SO short range in the first place is a bit wierd. You're basically incentivising people not to use them because turrets are so much more versatile.
I don't think you are going to get to the core of why missiles need balancing by just looking at heavy missiles tbh.
Torps need better range I think is your issue.
|
|
Romvex
Jump Drive Appreciation Society Jump Drive Appreciation Alliance
578
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 05:34:00 -
[141] - Quote
I'm actually impressed by how bad these changes are. It isn't a good sign when your playerbase can't tell if an idea is legitimate or an april fools joke.
How do the RLML nerfs address the core problem of the weapon system? They are overpowered because they can kill most cruisers in a single clip while still being able to nuke frigates as per their intended role. This change makes ships with the defined role of anti-tackle useless by forcing them to use unbonused RLML range and missile velocity. Without the velocity bonus on the Orthrus for example, it can't apply half of its' current damage to an interceptor post-patch. But it CAN still 100-0 most t1 cruisers in a single clip.
The clear solution to this would be to simply leave the hull bonuses (ironically enough the mordu line was introduced to be proficient at using rapid missile systems because of the role bonus) but reduce the clip size of RLML and RHML launchers significantly. Just as tackle frigates can play around the tracking of turret-based anti-tackle, they will be able to play around the reload of an RLML ship if it could only fire 12-15 missiles per clip. They could also use an increase in fitting requirements since they are too low compared to other launcher types of the same size. This fixes the core problem of RLML without simply half-assing a braindead fix and just making the weapons system completely useless.
But hey HMLs get 5.6% increased damage, that changes everything! |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2882
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 15:33:38 -
[142] - Quote
Rapid Lights need to have a significantly smaller clip size and a shorter reload time. Something like 50% clip size, faster ROF, and 20 seconds reload, adjust damage as appropriate (numbers are not exact). Then it truly is a burst of high damage, but without a soul-destroying reload timer. A RLML Caracal in a 1v1 against another properly fit Cruiser, would probably come short of killing it before the reload. In a fleet situation against another Cruiser fleet, a RLML Caracal fleet could have some issues due to delayed damage, but would put out high bursts of damage akin to an artillery alpha strike. Basically, it makes the RLML more engaging for the user than it will be soon (shorter reload times), still capable of killing support, but not a really a viable main line doctrine ship or the go-to choice for Cruiser-class weapons.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2882
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 15:34:57 -
[143] - Quote
Romvex wrote:I'm actually impressed by how bad these changes are. It isn't a good sign when your playerbase can't tell if an idea is legitimate or an april fools joke.
How do the RLML nerfs address the core problem of the weapon system? They are overpowered because they can kill most cruisers in a single clip while still being able to nuke frigates as per their intended role. This change makes ships with the defined role of anti-tackle useless by forcing them to use unbonused RLML range and missile velocity. Without the velocity bonus on the Orthrus for example, it can't apply half of its' current damage to an interceptor post-patch. But it CAN still 100-0 most t1 cruisers in a single clip.
The clear solution to this would be to simply leave the hull bonuses (ironically enough the mordu line was introduced to be proficient at using rapid missile systems because of the role bonus) but reduce the clip size of RLML and RHML launchers significantly. Just as tackle frigates can play around the tracking of turret-based anti-tackle, they will be able to play around the reload of an RLML ship if it could only fire 12-15 missiles per clip. They could also use an increase in fitting requirements since they are too low compared to other launcher types of the same size. This fixes the core problem of RLML without simply half-assing a braindead fix and just making the weapons system completely useless.
But hey HMLs get 5.6% increased damage, that changes everything!
This is another good post that gets at the core of the problem.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
White 0rchid
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
26
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 19:06:35 -
[144] - Quote
I also can't really tell if this is a joke or not.
That's pretty bad.
You need to overhaul missiles entirely. Do you know why most people use RLMLs on cruisers and RHMLs on battleships? It's because their size weapon systems are terrible.
If you fix HMLs/HAMs/Cruises/Torps before you implement this change then that might be a different story. |
Helene Fidard
CTRL-Q
52
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 19:43:28 -
[145] - Quote
The "intended role" of RLMLs is terrible and these changes are pretty great.
Hey! I don't know about you
but I'm joining CTRL-Q
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3296
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 20:09:40 -
[146] - Quote
Helene Fidard wrote:The "intended role" of RLMLs is terrible and these changes are pretty great.
Those change modify nothing about the intended role of RLML. It will be used the exact same way except we will spend more time waiting for reloads after killing the enemy because there is still enough damage in a single clip to do so. |
Soldarius
O C C U P Y Test Alliance Please Ignore
1601
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 20:46:42 -
[147] - Quote
Players complain about range of light missiles. You response is to nerf range bonuses on all ships when using under-sized missiles?
Maybe just nerf light missile range by 25%? That would be a lot easier.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Helene Fidard
CTRL-Q
52
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 21:17:52 -
[148] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Those change modify nothing about the intended role of RLML. It will be used the exact same way except we will spend more time waiting for reloads after killing the enemy because there is still enough damage in a single clip to do so. you didn't read the whole op I guess
Hey! I don't know about you
but I'm joining CTRL-Q
|
Happy GoLucky
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 16:09:23 -
[149] - Quote
http://www.captiongenerator.com/451592/CCP-explains-the-upcoming-balance-patch
just so much of that
|
elitatwo
Dicker Quick and Hyde Defense Attorneys O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1729
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 20:13:19 -
[150] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Players complain about range of light missiles. You response is to nerf range bonuses on all ships when using under-sized missiles?
Maybe just nerf light missile range by 25%? That would be a lot easier.
No silly. Those ranges are for all intends and purposes for high velocity frigate kiting fights. Those 42km can become 25km really quick in a frigate fight.
The bad thing about rapid jesus launchers is that you can kill everything regardless of size with them.
The cruiser missiles are too terrible to be useful.
Cruise missiles are okay-ish but people here can only stare on the dps value and don't read the fine print.
Eve Minions is recruiting.
This is the law of ship progression!
Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
|
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1289
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 20:35:48 -
[151] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Players complain about range of light missiles. You response is to nerf range bonuses on all ships when using under-sized missiles?
Maybe just nerf light missile range by 25%? That would be a lot easier.
25% is not enough |
Helene Fidard
CTRL-Q
52
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 20:47:07 -
[152] - Quote
I can't fathom why people claim the problem with rapid launchers is high damage. Take the Caracal: 300 dps on a shield cruiser is objectively not a lot. 300 dps at 71 km on a cruiser using a weapon system designed to hit frigates, on the other hand, is ridiculous.
The problem has always been range and application.
Hey! I don't know about you
but I'm joining CTRL-Q
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
3053
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 05:14:39 -
[153] - Quote
Helene Fidard wrote:The problem has always been range and application. It has always been cruisers getting the range bonus. Without the bonus, everything is great. Kestrels still are sniper frigates, but now Caracals are not sniper frigates.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
829
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 05:39:04 -
[154] - Quote
Helene Fidard wrote:I can't fathom why people claim the problem with rapid launchers is high damage. Take the Caracal: 300 dps on a shield cruiser is objectively not a lot. 300 dps at 71 km on a cruiser using a weapon system designed to hit frigates, on the other hand, is ridiculous. The problem has always been range and application.
400dps using furies and 531dps with furies, heat and drones. Adding up fury damage per magazine is a little over 20k damage per magazine. 300dps is just using faction, which you'd use against a frigate. You'd use furies against anything that isn't a frigate, assuming the caracal pilot is somewhat smart. You'd have almost 50km to lay down 400dps no problem.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
Make the Muninn great again!
|
Lug Muad'Dib
Wise Humans Sword
58
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 11:27:13 -
[155] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Players complain about range of light missiles. You response is to nerf range bonuses on all ships when using under-sized missiles?
Maybe just nerf light missile range by 25%? That would be a lot easier.
Problem are only with cruiser |
Xain deSleena
Terra Australis. The Bastard Cartel
29
|
Posted - 2017.04.14 05:48:09 -
[156] - Quote
Reducing the amount of ammo per launcher is a good idea rather than increasing the reload time for all Rapid launchers. The reload time of Rapid launchers is quite painful and too large a penalty. The reload time penalty is similar to being jammed by a falcon for 30-40 secs? So for each Rapid launcher fit ship you field in a fleet you end up giving the enemy an extra 30-40 seconds free DPS time on each ship per reload. Countless times I have died while watching these Rapid launchers reload all the while having the enemy on the ropes laughing at me while they are in deep hull. Rather than winning a fight as a better skilled pilot you end up dying because your ship is rendered useless every time your ammo reloads. In PVP fights your ship should be allowed to at least have a similar chance of applying DPS during a fight. What fun is it flying around and not shooting? In most fights 30-40 seconds is a long time and this time becomes crucial if you have more than one ship to contend with. Reducing the range of Rapid launcher missiles turns the ship into something it was not designed for ie. close range PVP. Rather than two class of missile launchers being available such as normal and Rapid the good traits of both should be combined. This could be achieved by use of the overheat button on normal missile launchers receiving a slightly buffed increase to rate of fire similar to that of Rapid launchers. So when you want your missile system to behave like a Rapid one you overheat the launchers to achieve similar results. The downside would be a higher rate of overheat time the more you overheat them over time. Also if your guns are overheating while they run out of ammo your reload time is increased slightly than if you were not overheating. This way you get the best of both worlds and can be applying DPS more often rather than the 30-40 seconds of life you waste each time your Rapid launcher reloads. |
Nightfox BloodRaven
SQUIDS.
47
|
Posted - 2017.04.14 07:08:42 -
[157] - Quote
Romvex wrote:I'm actually impressed by how bad these changes are. It isn't a good sign when your playerbase can't tell if an idea is legitimate or an april fools joke.
How do the RLML nerfs address the core problem of the weapon system? They are overpowered because they can kill most cruisers in a single clip while still being able to nuke frigates as per their intended role. This change makes ships with the defined role of anti-tackle useless by forcing them to use unbonused RLML range and missile velocity. Without the velocity bonus on the Orthrus for example, it can't apply half of its' current damage to an interceptor post-patch. But it CAN still 100-0 most t1 cruisers in a single clip.
The clear solution to this would be to simply leave the hull bonuses (ironically enough the mordu line was introduced to be proficient at using rapid missile systems because of the role bonus) but reduce the clip size of RLML and RHML launchers significantly. Just as tackle frigates can play around the tracking of turret-based anti-tackle, they will be able to play around the reload of an RLML ship if it could only fire 12-15 missiles per clip. They could also use an increase in fitting requirements since they are too low compared to other launcher types of the same size. This fixes the core problem of RLML without simply half-assing a braindead fix and just making the weapons system completely useless.
But hey HMLs get 5.6% increased damage, that changes everything!
1st of all u complain about a pirate cruiser killing t1s... so please no poors if u cant afford it.
2nd of all u clearly have no clue about rlml.. you cannot kill a properly fit t1 cruiser in an orthrus without reload. only cruiser u can kill is stabber without reload cuz its a piece of ****.. Properly tanked Thorax and Vexor can survive at least one reload. plenty of time to get help.
3rd.. an amor repper fitted combat exequer can tank an orthrus ez.
Honestly RLML is not over powered by any means.. only problem is that there are legions of **** pilots with **** fits and mwd straight at u in frigs and expect to live.
If CCP truly wants to fix this problem buff the HAMs and Heavies in terms dmg application so that the trade off is worth it. |
Eric Creed
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2017.04.14 18:26:01 -
[158] - Quote
Personally Fozzie I would like to see other cruiser missile systems, Have their application changed. I am a fan of HAMs. I would love to see the range increased for HAML. HML I would like to see better fire rate. As for the RLML I see no real reason to change them. We still have to wait for Damage to hit targets.
|
Cade Windstalker
1309
|
Posted - 2017.04.14 18:52:13 -
[159] - Quote
Romvex wrote:... Without the velocity bonus on the Orthrus for example, it can't apply half of its' current damage to an interceptor post-patch. But it CAN still 100-0 most t1 cruisers in a single clip. ...
This doesn't make much sense, the actual velocity of the missile projectile doesn't factor into the applied damage beyond whether or not the missile hits and very few ships are able to outrun a Light Missile while still having a practical combat fit.
It can be done but the effect of that wouldn't be a 50% reduction in damage.
I think you may have confused Missile Velocity for Explosion Velocity which are two entirely different and unrelated stats. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2886
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 00:11:40 -
[160] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Romvex wrote:... Without the velocity bonus on the Orthrus for example, it can't apply half of its' current damage to an interceptor post-patch. But it CAN still 100-0 most t1 cruisers in a single clip. ... This doesn't make much sense, the actual velocity of the missile projectile doesn't factor into the applied damage beyond whether or not the missile hits and very few ships are able to outrun a Light Missile while still having a practical combat fit. It can be done but the effect of that wouldn't be a 50% reduction in damage. I think you may have confused Missile Velocity for Explosion Velocity which are two entirely different and unrelated stats.
I have watched two combat fit Garmurs try to kill each other and score no hits on each other due to being so much faster than the missiles they were using.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
178
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 00:55:25 -
[161] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Romvex wrote:... Without the velocity bonus on the Orthrus for example, it can't apply half of its' current damage to an interceptor post-patch. But it CAN still 100-0 most t1 cruisers in a single clip. ... This doesn't make much sense, the actual velocity of the missile projectile doesn't factor into the applied damage beyond whether or not the missile hits and very few ships are able to outrun a Light Missile while still having a practical combat fit. It can be done but the effect of that wouldn't be a 50% reduction in damage. I think you may have confused Missile Velocity for Explosion Velocity which are two entirely different and unrelated stats.
What Diomedes said above me. It's the fact that missiles can actually be outran by the target they are trying to hit.
It's why the missile system as a whole needs a revamp because velocity plays a dual role when it comes to applying your damage. First, can you even score a hit at all or will you missile time out before it reaches them. Note that you don't need to move faster than the missile to avoid being hit, you just have to be able to keep up the difference in speed up long enough that it can't close the gap in the missile's flight time. Second, % of damage done combined with sig radius. If your missile reaches the target at all, you can find yourself hitting for less than 5% very easily if they are moving quickly or are small. Light missiles are pretty much the only missile of choice that doesn't take as hard of a hit in this department atm.
Those above reasons are why I get so agitated when people try to say "missiles always do damage" because it's blatant ignorance. The math behind missiles and how they fly through space needs a complete revamp. Otherwise missiles will always be too good or too bad for their desired hull/target. As it stands it's just a clusterfuck to try and balance as is with hulls of all types moving at such a wide variance of speeds and sig radii. It's why i suggested looking at mass, something that has a relatively small degree of variance between hulls of the same classification. |
Kelly Riley
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 12:13:26 -
[162] - Quote
Buffing the damage on HM's & HAM's isn't the issue, they have terrible explosion radius/velocity & most of the time cruiser sized ships are able to outrun the DPS.
People use RLML/RHML because the other systems need lots of application mods, rigs & a crash booster to make them hit properly. Please fix HM's, HAM's, Torp & Cruise before making these changes |
Pancocco
The New Eden Yacht Club Hole Control
19
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 13:05:48 -
[163] - Quote
I see the rapid lights discussion is diverse and constructive, but like nothing on the rapid heavy nerf? Is that cause there's consensus on the matter? Personally that part is the most confusing change. Is the some meta I don't know about where rapid heavies are op or is the reasoning to only bring the system in line with rapid lights?
Extra Foramen vermis nulla salus
|
PhosGate
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 02:54:21 -
[164] - Quote
Pancocco wrote:I see the rapid lights discussion is diverse and constructive, but like nothing on the rapid heavy nerf? Is that cause there's consensus on the matter? Personally that part is the most confusing change. Is the some meta I don't know about where rapid heavies are op or is the reasoning to only bring the system in line with rapid lights?
Heavy missiles are getting a 5.6% buff to damage and an overall ~4% nerf to sustained dps.
they should come out of this balance pass a little better then they are now.
|
alpha adrian
Etherium Beach Cohortes Triarii
0
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 09:33:47 -
[165] - Quote
Please don't make RHML's even more limiting. You're limiting fitting options with these proposed changes, not improving them. It's nice to have a viable RHML fit with the barghest but these changes would nerf that and means that nobody would use it. Furthermore some of us like ratting as well as PvP, and it's nice to be able to field a variety of fittings and not constantly being nerfed due to changes that only consider the PvP aspect of the game. Think also that you're nerfing the defensive ability of the barghest against smaller attackers with this change. There are other aspects of this which seem to have been overlooked. Please reconsider these changes as the "buff" you're mentioning doesn't really make up for these changes, more is being lost than added. |
Lexx Devi
Freeport . 7
4
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 18:22:11 -
[166] - Quote
Can we change the kinetic lock on Guristas ships while were here? All 4 types of Damage or 2 types, i can work with 2. |
Valleria Darkmoon
No Salvation Top Belt for Fun
351
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 21:02:02 -
[167] - Quote
Suitonia wrote:Th e problem is the burst damage killing most attack cruisers and similar anti support options while having twice the EHP as those options, please reduce the reload time to 30 seconds but reduce the clip size to 17 instead for T2. This retains almost identical Dps to now but allows ships like the rail Thorax, stabber, omen and other anti support ships to survive a reload.
Also, please, please consider increasing the fittings because the main issue with rapid light ships right now is they can fit absolutely everything with no sacrifice, mid to long cruiser sniper ranges, close range turret burst DPS, with high EHP. Increasing the reload time won't address any of this. Most people ping and reload while in Warp in bigger fights. I read most of this thread but Suitonia really crushed it out of the park with this one. The grid really is a big issue because the reason you see so many Caracals being used is because they get great application and a really heavy tank compared with any other ship in the attack cruiser line and a lot of that has to do with the fact that a T2 rapid light launcher uses only 77 grid. The two with the next least grid usage are:
Dual 180mm Auctocannon II: 88 grid Quad Light Beam Laser II: 89 grid
Consider that these other two low grid users frequently under perform and so are rarely used especially the quad laser and yet both will take more out of your fit than rapid lights. Consider increasing the grid usage on rapid lights to the 90 - 100 grid range please and this is completely irrespective of other changes. Ships fitting rapid lights sacrifice nothing in their fits because the fittings are so low on them.
On another note, I like that you are at least looking at HMLs but their problem isn't really their damage it's the very poor application they get against small fast ships, which let's be honest, is going to be a situation that comes up often in pvp. Part of the reason people lean to rapid lights in the first place is that unlike HMLs or HAMs damage application is a non-issue. In the case of kiting fits especially crash boosters are not really going to be an option for HMLs because rolling that speed penalty is a really big deal, so don't expect those fits to swap over to heavies with these proposed changes, they'll either stay rapid lights or change ships. Missiles are not like turrets where you can at least try to fly in a way that will drop transversal and allow you to land hits on small ships. I'd even accept a small nerf to the damage of HMLs if it meant they could get mediocre damage application to small fast ships.
Reality has an almost infinite capacity to resist oversimplification.
|
Valkorsia
IONSTAR Yulai Federation
35
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 13:11:37 -
[168] - Quote
This thread is horrible.
Page one is everyone thinking this is an April Fool's joke and apparently it's not. Why does Fozzie hate Caldari so much? |
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
276
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 18:32:12 -
[169] - Quote
Valkorsia wrote:This thread is horrible.
Why does Fozzie hate EVE so much?
^^ fixed it valk
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3312
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 18:33:18 -
[170] - Quote
Valleria Darkmoon wrote:Suitonia wrote:Th e problem is the burst damage killing most attack cruisers and similar anti support options while having twice the EHP as those options, please reduce the reload time to 30 seconds but reduce the clip size to 17 instead for T2. This retains almost identical Dps to now but allows ships like the rail Thorax, stabber, omen and other anti support ships to survive a reload.
Also, please, please consider increasing the fittings because the main issue with rapid light ships right now is they can fit absolutely everything with no sacrifice, mid to long cruiser sniper ranges, close range turret burst DPS, with high EHP. Increasing the reload time won't address any of this. Most people ping and reload while in Warp in bigger fights. I read most of this thread but Suitonia really crushed it out of the park with this one. The grid really is a big issue because the reason you see so many Caracals being used is because they get great application and a really heavy tank compared with any other ship in the attack cruiser line and a lot of that has to do with the fact that a T2 rapid light launcher uses only 77 grid. The two with the next least grid usage among cruiser weapons are: Dual 180mm Auctocannon II: 88 grid Quad Light Beam Laser II: 89 grid Consider that these other two low grid users frequently under perform and so are rarely used especially the quad laser and yet both will take more out of your fit than rapid lights. Consider increasing the grid usage on rapid lights to the 90 - 100 grid range please and this is completely irrespective of other changes (even focused medium pulse laser IIs take 125 grid). Sure, the ships that fit rapid lights tend to have less grid on average but not 40% less than average. How often do you see 180 autocannons or electron blasters being used without multiple reps or oversized ASBs? Ships fitting rapid lights sacrifice nothing in their fits because the fittings are so low on them. The point is that when fitting other weapon types to save on grid your downgraded weapons IS the sacrifice, for rapid lights this is not the case as they are the preferred weapon anyway. On another note, I like that you are at least looking at HMLs but their problem isn't really their damage it's the very poor application they get against small fast ships, which let's be honest, is going to be a situation that comes up often in pvp. Part of the reason people lean to rapid lights in the first place is that unlike HMLs or HAMs damage application is a non-issue. In the case of kiting fits especially crash boosters are not really going to be an option for HMLs because rolling that speed penalty is a really big deal, so don't expect those fits to swap over to heavies with these proposed changes, they'll either stay rapid lights or change ships. Missiles are not like turrets where you can at least try to fly in a way that will drop transversal and allow you to land hits on small ships. I'd even accept a small nerf to the damage of HMLs if it meant they could get mediocre damage application to small fast ships.
I think the limiting factor in term of fittings on missile is supposed to be CPU tho so the change should probably be there. Even the rig drawback is CPU unlike turrets. Beside that then yeah, fitting anti-support instead of main line should not grant that much fitting space. |
|
Valleria Darkmoon
No Salvation Top Belt for Fun
352
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 01:56:20 -
[171] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:
I think the limiting factor in term of fittings on missile is supposed to be CPU tho so the change should probably be there. Even the rig drawback is CPU unlike turrets. Beside that then yeah, fitting anti-support instead of main line should not grant that much fitting space.
In practice it seems to me that grid is the limiting factor. Rapid lights don't take a huge amount of CPU either though. A pretty standard Caracal fit can run with rapid lights, MWD, double T2 extender, hardners, damage control and 3 T2 BCUs all without even using so much as a rig slot for fittings, no other attack cruiser comes close to getting away with that. Even using all those BCUs and only the MWD being meta it all fits, this is what I mean by zero sacrifices.
It doesn't help either that light missiles apply so well that none of the Caracal's mids need to be used to help with damage application by use of webs or target painters or missile computers, even if you have to fit your own tackle you can go with a single hardner and a long point and you're golden.
This is why from where I'm standing the low fittings on the rapid lights is a really big part of the problem.
Reality has an almost infinite capacity to resist oversimplification.
|
oiukhp Muvila
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
171
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 20:13:38 -
[172] - Quote
This wouldn't be the first time the Devs "balanced" one thing because something else was broken.
Fix cruiser sized missiles so they are better able to engage their intended size targets better, then there won't be this over the top use of Rapid Lights so much.
Of course the whole damage model has become a bit too long in the tooth and should be put in the backlog for refactoring, at a design level. |
Valkorsia
IONSTAR Yulai Federation
35
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 05:07:24 -
[173] - Quote
oiukhp Muvila wrote:This wouldn't be the first time the Devs "balanced" one thing because something else was broken.
You've got this totally backwards. For years, devs have been breaking things that didn't need to be "fixed", one patch at a time. You've bought into the idea that somehow this game needs to be "balanced" over and over again, ad infinitum - a never-ending process.
Do you really need me to give you a list of ships that literally are never flown anymore? |
oiukhp Muvila
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
174
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 12:09:00 -
[174] - Quote
Valkorsia wrote:oiukhp Muvila wrote:This wouldn't be the first time the Devs "balanced" one thing because something else was broken.
You've got this totally backwards. For years, devs have been breaking things that didn't need to be "fixed", one patch at a time. You've bought into the idea that somehow this game needs to be "balanced" over and over again, ad infinitum - a never-ending process. Do you really need me to give you a list of ships and weapons system that literally are never used anymore?
Neither my statement or yours are mutually exclusive.
They have done both.
|
Nightfox BloodRaven
SQUIDS.
47
|
Posted - 2017.04.22 06:02:26 -
[175] - Quote
Valleria Darkmoon wrote:Suitonia wrote:Th e problem is the burst damage killing most attack cruisers and similar anti support options while having twice the EHP as those options, please reduce the reload time to 30 seconds but reduce the clip size to 17 instead for T2. This retains almost identical Dps to now but allows ships like the rail Thorax, stabber, omen and other anti support ships to survive a reload.
Also, please, please consider increasing the fittings because the main issue with rapid light ships right now is they can fit absolutely everything with no sacrifice, mid to long cruiser sniper ranges, close range turret burst DPS, with high EHP. Increasing the reload time won't address any of this. Most people ping and reload while in Warp in bigger fights. I read most of this thread but Suitonia really crushed it out of the park with this one. The grid really is a big issue because the reason you see so many Caracals being used is because they get great application and a really heavy tank compared with any other ship in the attack cruiser line and a lot of that has to do with the fact that a T2 rapid light launcher uses only 77 grid. The two with the next least grid usage among cruiser weapons are: Dual 180mm Auctocannon II: 88 grid Quad Light Beam Laser II: 89 grid Consider that these other two low grid users frequently under perform and so are rarely used especially the quad laser and yet both will take more out of your fit than rapid lights. Consider increasing the grid usage on rapid lights to the 90 - 100 grid range please and this is completely irrespective of other changes (even focused medium pulse laser IIs take 125 grid). Sure, the ships that fit rapid lights tend to have less grid on average but not 40% less than average. How often do you see 180 autocannons or electron blasters being used without multiple reps or oversized ASBs? Ships fitting rapid lights sacrifice nothing in their fits because the fittings are so low on them. The point is that when fitting other weapon types to save on grid your downgraded weapons IS the sacrifice, for rapid lights this is not the case as they are the preferred weapon anyway. On another note, I like that you are at least looking at HMLs but their problem isn't really their damage it's the very poor application they get against small fast ships, which let's be honest, is going to be a situation that comes up often in pvp. Part of the reason people lean to rapid lights in the first place is that unlike HMLs or HAMs damage application is a non-issue. In the case of kiting fits especially crash boosters are not really going to be an option for HMLs because rolling that speed penalty is a really big deal, so don't expect those fits to swap over to heavies with these proposed changes, they'll either stay rapid lights or change ships. Missiles are not like turrets where you can at least try to fly in a way that will drop transversal and allow you to land hits on small ships. I'd even accept a small nerf to the damage of HMLs if it meant they could get mediocre damage application to small fast ships.
please stop talking out of ur ass... twice the ehp lol where u get that bs info from? |
Gustav Mannfred
Summer of Mumuit
159
|
Posted - 2017.04.22 06:49:07 -
[176] - Quote
The best solution for the RLML problem is to buff heavy and heavy assault missiles more to apply better to cruisers and smaller targets. Losing application against cruisers with T2 missiles sucks. With turrets loaded with T2 ammo you still can do full damage on a cruiser or even a frig when it is webbed enought. But with T2 missiles you only can do full damage on bigger ships.
T2 torps have like 580 sig with guided missile precision at 5, does someone know a subcapital ship that has such a big signature radius without a mwd?
Also, heavy missile damage should be increased by at least 20%, they do extremly low dps compared to other cruiser weapons. The kinetic lock on Caldari ships has to go to. Why do amarr and minmatar missile ships have bonuses to all damage types, but caldari only to kinetic? I also don't understand why the Jackdaw, Golem and Phoenix still get a bonus to all damage types.
the solutions should be:
rapid missile launchers should just have about 30% better rof than the normal light missile and heavy missile launchers, change reload time to 10s and reduce magazine size to 15.
Increase heavy missile damage by AT LEAST 20%(better 30%) Increase explosion velocity of all missiles to mach the max non ab/mwd speed of the targets they are made for. Means Light missiles/rockets should have an explosion velocity of about 300-400m/s, Heavy/assault missiles around 250m/s and cruise missiles/torps around 150m/s.
Reduce explosion radius of torpedos to mach the same as cruise missiles and increase their speed by 50%.
Improve XL missile application against subcapitals
The damage bonus on the orthrus should be increased again to 20% per level
missile damage bonuses should always affect all damage type, not one or two.
With that this problem could be solved. When heavy missiles and HAM's do more dps against frigs than rapid lights they would be used more. Also buffing torp range by 50% makes them a good mid range weapon for battleships. decreasing torp explosion radius makes them more useful in both pvp and pve without fitting lots of target painters and missile guidance computers.
i'm REALY miss the old stuff.-á
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=24183
|
Valleria Darkmoon
No Salvation Top Belt for Fun
352
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 08:49:24 -
[177] - Quote
Nightfox BloodRaven wrote:please stop talking out of ur ass... twice the ehp lol where u get that bs info from? First of all, I didn't say twice the EHP, Suitonia did, and I take it he was being hyperbolic to some extent but he's not entirely off base either. Even fitting attack cruisers for EHP, a job you would typically use a combat cruiser for, a Caracal fit with the following has ~35.2k EHP:
High: Rapid light missile launcher II x5
Mids: 50MN Y-T Microwarp Drive Warp disruptor II Adaptive Invulnerability field II Large Shield Extender II x2
Low: Damage Control II Ballistic Control Unit II x3
Rigs: Medium Anti-EM screen reinforcer I Medium core defense field extender I x2
If you drop the warp disruptor II for a second invuln (which fits entirely without issue) the EHP jumps to ~43.9k and the warp disruptor fit is quite useable as is. At no point is anything given up for the sake of fittings nor are any fitting mods required for this fit, larger launchers cause fitting problems but are not desired anyway.
The next best I can do with a semi-practical fit attack cruiser is an Omen with the following and it has ~35k EHP:
High: Focused medium pulse laser II x5
Mids: 50MN Y-T Microwarp Drive Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Web I
Lows: 1600mm Rolled Tungsten plate I Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrand II x2 Heatsink II x2
Rigs: Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I x2
You better have good fittings for this Omen as well as it has less than 3 CPU to spare and I've had to claw back every single point of CPU I can to make it fit plus a fitting rig is required and you're still not getting best range by fitting heavy pulses or if you are insane and fly this thing with beams it's quads or it's R.I.P. powergrid (and CPU but not as badly).
Similar fits (T1 rigs, no implants and T2 or lower meta modules) for Thorax with armor gets 34.8k with electrons and ACR with shield you can get 34.6k with double extender hardner and ions and an ineffective and impractical fit.
The Stabber...well, if you want EHP on that you're going to sacrifice everything for it and it will still be inferior to a Caracal by a wide margin.
The rapid light Caracal is the standout favorite among attack cruisers for a reason, it's fit gives the most EHP by a small amount with an effective pvp fit or by a large margin in a fleet all without sacrificing anything. Other attack cruisers can only be competitive in some areas with the Caracal by sacrificing in others or have to become completely impractical. The low fittings on rapid light missile launchers is the source of this problem. This is also why Suitonia is not entirely off base; because generally speaking, you're not going to want to brawl with attack cruisers and the Omen for example will generally perform better by using it's relatively high base speed to kite and fit with heavy pulses though it is outclassed by the Navy Omen in this role for a laser platform. These cruisers fit more practically to kite and serve as anti-support will have vastly inferior EHP to the Caracal which gets both the fit it wants and the tank.
Reality has an almost infinite capacity to resist oversimplification.
|
Valkorsia
IONSTAR Yulai Federation
37
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 13:39:38 -
[178] - Quote
And when the everyone switches to a different ship and another weapon system, it will get hit with the nerf bat next. It's amazing to me that know one actually sees the pattern here by CCP.
Listen people. Your favorite ship and weapon system will be nerfed. Once players gravitate to the next best option, it always happens; it's been happening for years. It's a never-ending cycle of 'balance' that has driven players away from this game for as long as I can remember. |
oiukhp Muvila
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 21:12:14 -
[179] - Quote
Valkorsia wrote:And when the everyone switches to a different ship and another weapon system, it will get hit with the nerf bat next. It's amazing to me that know one actually sees the pattern here by CCP.
Listen people. Your favorite ship and weapon system will be nerfed. Once players gravitate to the next best option, it always happens; it's been happening for years. It's a never-ending cycle of 'balance' that has driven players away from this game for as long as I can remember.
Balanced game design means there are no truly favored ships. They all have equal advantage.
Of course, the nature of doctrinal fleet command these days, which certainly has its merits, means that something will get favored by default. And since this game is designed to have built-in counters, the most appealing ships to meet all your organizations needs will get used.
CCP just tries to ensure that all ships eventually have their day in the sun. They have done this to varying degree since launch.
Players who can't adapt to this may leave the game, but it is really best for a game with so many ship types and options.
Being able to adapt to a changing game environment has been a hallmark of this game, and that should be the case.
|
Lelob
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
247
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 10:42:43 -
[180] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone and happy Saturday! Today I'm here to start collecting community feedback on a potential package of missile balance tweaks. These changes aren't confirmed yet and don't even have a release date, but if we do decide to go forward with them they would potentially arrive sometime in the summer. The goal of these changes is to help improve the balance between the cruiser-sized missile systems and make the choice of what missiles to fit more interesting. We have also been hearing from you folks that Rapid Light Missiles are continuing to feel quite oppressive in their extremely strong combination of burst dps, range and application. Here's the package of changes we are considering at this time: - Increase Rapid Light and Rapid Heavy launcher reload time from 35s to 40s (~4% sustained dps reduction with no burst damage reduction). This change would reset the rapid launcher reload time back to the original values from when they were first converted to a burst damage system. It is a slight reduction to sustained dps while not impacting burst damage
- Change ship missile range bonuses to not apply to undersize missiles
- This would mean that the following ships would have their range bonuses only apply to Heavy and Heavy Assault Missiles: Orthrus, Caracal, Cerberus, Onyx, Osprey Navy Issue, Cyclone, Drake, Drake Navy Issue
- The Barghest range bonus would also be changed to only impact Cruise Missiles and Torpedoes
- The Mordu flight time reduction would also no longer apply to undersized missiles
- This change would only affect range bonuses (missile velocity and missile flight time) not damage bonuses
- Increase all Heavy Missile damage by 5.6%. This would be a general buff to HMLs and more than compensate for the longer reload time on RHMLs leading to a slight buff for them as well.
As I mentioned above we don't have a proposed release date for these changes yet but we want to start gathering community feedback and get the discussion started. Thanks and happy Saturday!
Ok so:
A. t1 cruisers across the board are now equally crap, because ??? Cool message to new players. You're now all equally useless and/or /get in t1 logi because that's all your good for! B. Barghest gets a nerf because its hugely ruining the meta of the game right now (/sarcasm) C. Heavy missiles are still total trash because they still cannot hit anything. You can buff the dps on them all you want, but until I can hit a frig with an onsteibly CRUISER SIZED WEAPON, you're accomplishing nothing. D. As far as I can tell, the only big offenders of rapids that are currently extensively used are caracals/orthrus/cerbs. As was already mentioned, fix the pgu on those ships or just on rapids and you've fixed the issue. |
|
Lidia Caderu
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 10:28:00 -
[181] - Quote
Any plans for Rapid Light Rocket Launcher?? |
Lost touch
Mining Industry Exile Foundation Plucky Adventurers
48
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 12:00:49 -
[182] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:Congrats CCP on ******* up the only missile system still efficient.
RLML are fine like they are. People complaining about the RLML being overpowered are the ones that fly paper tin fits that sacrifice everything to velocity. If a fit is decent enough to hold the burst damage from a RLML system most probably will beat the other ship using the RLML.
Then the HML buff ? Thats a bad joke. The problem is not the DPS or the Alpha or whatever it's their CRAP APPLICATION. If you fit a Afterburner, you laugh at a ship using whatever Missile system people have available. Except the now nerfed RLML.
Congrats once again CCP...
You want to talk about balance, balance the Keres or the Maulus or do you think they are balanced ships ?
Shut up moron
Fla5hy Red the wrong way, only faster
|
Valkorsia
IONSTAR Yulai Federation
37
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 13:03:44 -
[183] - Quote
Actually, if you read all of DeadDuck's comments in this thread, he's accurately described the entire issue. Buffing HML does nothing here. It is a joke, at best.
|
Delarian Rox
FHTAAAGN
24
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 13:18:44 -
[184] - Quote
Maybe explosion velocity or explosion signature should go away. Damage reduction rate should go higher to reward carefull choice of ammo. It will be easier to balance if we expell one of the explosion modifiers first.
This will be a nerf to RLML and RHML.
|
Cade Windstalker
1448
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 20:13:11 -
[185] - Quote
Valkorsia wrote:Actually, if you read all of DeadDuck's comments in this thread, he's accurately described the entire issue. Buffing HML does nothing here. It is a joke, at best.
It's not supposed to be a big change, HMLs don't need *that* big of a buff. If they got a big buff we'd be back to the days of before the original HML nerf where they had the best mix of damage, application, and projection of any Cruiser sized weapons system.
It's just a small buff to HMLs because apparently CCP feels that they're slightly under performing overall.
His comments on RLMLs are, um, no. They're abrasive at best and incredibly light on anything to back up his arguments.
He may have a point, he may not, he's not going to make a point though if he doesn't provide some numbers to back up his acidity. |
Valkin Mordirc
2769
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 20:16:32 -
[186] - Quote
Lidia Caderu wrote:Any plans for Rapid Light Rocket Launcher??
RLML are intended to be able to take on frigates.
RHML are intended to be able take out Cruisers
A Rapid light rocket launcher is meant to? Take out Rookie ships?
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Lelob
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
250
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 20:31:53 -
[187] - Quote
Rapid rockets doesn't even make sense. It's like asking for a rapid torpedo launcher rapid ham launcher |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3336
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 14:59:57 -
[188] - Quote
Lelob wrote:Rapid rockets doesn't even make sense. It's like asking for a rapid torpedo launcher rapid ham launcher
Well we do have rapid torpedo launchers... |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2888
|
Posted - 2017.04.27 01:08:13 -
[189] - Quote
Valkin Mordirc wrote:Lidia Caderu wrote:Any plans for Rapid Light Rocket Launcher?? RLML are intended to be able to take on frigates. RHML are intended to be able take out Cruisers A Rapid light rocket launcher is meant to? Take out Rookie ships?
Drones?
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Cade Windstalker
1459
|
Posted - 2017.04.27 02:04:56 -
[190] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Valkin Mordirc wrote:Lidia Caderu wrote:Any plans for Rapid Light Rocket Launcher?? RLML are intended to be able to take on frigates. RHML are intended to be able take out Cruisers A Rapid light rocket launcher is meant to? Take out Rookie ships? Drones?
Pretty sure this would end up being the Eve equivalent to a full auto 12-gauge shotgun loaded with bird shot...
You've got no range, it doesn't hurt very much, but it slings a *lot* of lead down range
Seriously though, there's a reason none of the high DPS short-range missiles get a launcher type. People would load them with Rage ammo and just end up blapping same-class ships. |
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium
201
|
Posted - 2017.04.27 07:42:32 -
[191] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Valkin Mordirc wrote:Lidia Caderu wrote:Any plans for Rapid Light Rocket Launcher?? RLML are intended to be able to take on frigates. RHML are intended to be able take out Cruisers A Rapid light rocket launcher is meant to? Take out Rookie ships? Drones? Pretty sure this would end up being the Eve equivalent to a full auto 12-gauge shotgun loaded with bird shot... You've got no range, it doesn't hurt very much, but it slings a *lot* of lead down range Seriously though, there's a reason none of the high DPS short-range missiles get a launcher type. People would load them with Rage ammo and just end up blapping same-class ships.
Phoenix/Leviathan would like to have word with you about savior known as Rapid Torpedo Launcher |
Lidia Caderu
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2017.04.27 11:42:32 -
[192] - Quote
Valkin Mordirc wrote:Lidia Caderu wrote:Any plans for Rapid Light Rocket Launcher?? RLML are intended to be able to take on frigates. RHML are intended to be able take out Cruisers A Rapid light rocket launcher is meant to? Take out Rookie ships? Nope, they needed to use less CPU and PG and to fit where RLML cant fit, but still provide same DPS on short range. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3338
|
Posted - 2017.04.27 16:54:49 -
[193] - Quote
unidenify wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Valkin Mordirc wrote:Lidia Caderu wrote:Any plans for Rapid Light Rocket Launcher?? RLML are intended to be able to take on frigates. RHML are intended to be able take out Cruisers A Rapid light rocket launcher is meant to? Take out Rookie ships? Drones? Pretty sure this would end up being the Eve equivalent to a full auto 12-gauge shotgun loaded with bird shot... You've got no range, it doesn't hurt very much, but it slings a *lot* of lead down range Seriously though, there's a reason none of the high DPS short-range missiles get a launcher type. People would load them with Rage ammo and just end up blapping same-class ships. Phoenix/Leviathan would like to have word with you about savior known as Rapid Torpedo Launcher
But torps also have arguably lesser application than cruise missiles. The explosion velocity is better on torp but extremely close to cruise while the explosion radius is much better on cruise.
EDIT : After graphing it to see the difference, it's actually extremely close with torps having a higher top end damage. |
Sanai Nobuseri
Alcoholocaust. Test Alliance Please Ignore
31
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 18:28:43 -
[194] - Quote
Will the heavy missile buff affect the Heavy FOF missiles as well? |
Valkin Mordirc
2774
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 07:34:17 -
[195] - Quote
Lidia Caderu wrote:Valkin Mordirc wrote:Lidia Caderu wrote:Any plans for Rapid Light Rocket Launcher?? RLML are intended to be able to take on frigates. RHML are intended to be able take out Cruisers A Rapid light rocket launcher is meant to? Take out Rookie ships? Nope, they needed to use less CPU and PG and to fit where RLML cant fit, but still provide same DPS on short range.
The main issue with RLML is that they fit with everything.
You're just asking for a bypass, which would make adding extra fitting cost to RLML pointless.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
D'Om K'vash
Sheep Teet Industries
19
|
Posted - 2017.04.30 06:51:05 -
[196] - Quote
Suitonia wrote:Th e problem is the burst damage killing most attack cruisers and similar anti support options while having twice the EHP as those options, please reduce the reload time to 30 seconds but reduce the clip size to 17 instead for T2. This retains almost identical Dps to now but allows ships like the rail Thorax, stabber, omen and other anti support ships to survive a reload.
Also, please, please consider increasing the fittings because the main issue with rapid light ships right now is they can fit absolutely everything with no sacrifice, mid to long cruiser sniper ranges, close range turret burst DPS, with high EHP. Increasing the reload time won't address any of this. Most people ping and reload while in Warp in bigger fights.
He's been saying this forever and the fact it's taken you this long fozzie to fix the moronic addition of rapid anything missles just shows how much of a miserable douche you are. please please resign and make the rest of the staff coffee at least then you would be of some use. |
Markj2 Antollare
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry. Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
1
|
Posted - 2017.05.03 03:24:07 -
[197] - Quote
In addition to this nerf would it be possible to remove the damage bonus that is applied to rapid light launchers in wormhole system effects for example the wolf rayet effect. |
FT Cold
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry. Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
101
|
Posted - 2017.05.03 03:34:50 -
[198] - Quote
Agree with Mark here, rapid lights are really a medium weapon system and don't need to get a bonus from wormhole effects. |
FeistyOne
13. Enigma Project
13
|
Posted - 2017.05.03 12:00:17 -
[199] - Quote
Markj2 Antollare wrote:In addition to this nerf would it be possible to remove the damage bonus that is applied to rapid light launchers in wormhole system effects for example the wolf rayet effect.
Fix this oversight to Wolf-Rayet wormholes please |
Phaade
Perimeter Defense Systems
385
|
Posted - 2017.05.04 13:28:34 -
[200] - Quote
Increasing reload time is a terrible idea. Not a whole lot of fun to be had when you're sitting around for what may as well be an entire minute doing nothing... Sustained DPS is not the problem with this weapon system.
Why not lower reload time and reduce fire rate or damage accordingly?
You could also change bonuses on ships like the Orthrus that abuse the **** off of RLM's due to a massive LM damage bonus. ROF bonus isn't too problematic as your magazine does 33% less damage than the Orthrus, while emptying quicker causing the dreaded reload.
By the way, I'll be sure to fit my next Cerberus with a full rack of Heavy Missile Launchers after this balance pass..... |
|
Soldarius
O C C U P Y Test Alliance Please Ignore
1616
|
Posted - 2017.05.08 14:13:40 -
[201] - Quote
We could just revert RLMLs back to AMLs. Those were fine. I liked my AML Caracal back in 2012/13.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3904
|
Posted - 2017.05.08 14:59:51 -
[202] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:We could just revert RLMLs back to AMLs. Those were fine. I liked my AML Caracal back in 2012/13.
Sure you don't mean 2011/2012?
And why not explain what you liked particularly about them over the rlml
BLOPS Hauler
|
Aly Ankn
Check Your Sig
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.10 16:30:00 -
[203] - Quote
Increase fitting for rapid lights by 10 for power grid and drop clip size to 17 or 15. With current change u knock out several lines of ships from use. Rapid heavies could have the clip size dropped to 22 any more and it becomes useless. These missiles need the current range to compete in combat. With delayed dps, reload time and the fact u can out run missiles should be plenty of reasons not to Nerf range. |
Caitlyn Rempal
Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group
4
|
Posted - 2017.05.10 22:34:14 -
[204] - Quote
Starting to feel like a consensus in here :: it wass definitely not the Range that's the issue, and certainly not the re-load times which already feel punative ir the Rapid launchers -- the heart of the issue seems two fold -- the rapid Light missile launchers are just too easy to fit on the Caracal/Cerb/Orthrus line, making those ships too much of a powerhouse -- so change the fitting abilities of those ships to mitigate it -- not the weapon systems. and on the 2nd front -- the poor application of heavy missiles
You've already worsened the reloads on All Rapid launchers (which was un-needed to begin with not being the actual problem) -- and your buff, such that it is, to Heavies DMG is fairly pointless since they just can't apply w/o a ton of work.
Lastly, this notion that cannibalizing the flexibility of ships larger than our beloved Dessies is somehow a good idea feels like rubbish. Leave pilots the ability to fit their ships based on their piloting needs -- if they want to fit a 'smaller' weapon system, let them, they already sacrifice its hull bonuses for damage. I like, for example, having a battle ship with Rapid Heavies -- it allows them to go brawl with gangs of smaller ships.
Best regards all! |
Caleb Seremshur
Pineapple Pizza LLC
875
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 10:23:32 -
[205] - Quote
Why not just a tiny nerf to light missiles? Rockets you need webs to make them apply full damate to a frigate but somehow I can oush explo radius for lights down to 14.1 without much effort. Thats a huge amount of apllied damage to even a speed boosted inty running a decent mwd (remember they take AB damage). |
Cade Windstalker
1535
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 12:58:12 -
[206] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Why not just a tiny nerf to light missiles? Rockets you need webs to make them apply full damate to a frigate but somehow I can oush explo radius for lights down to 14.1 without much effort. Thats a huge amount of apllied damage to even a speed boosted inty running a decent mwd (remember they take AB damage).
Pretty much all missiles require some kind of application mod to apply full damage to a same-tier target.
Light Missiles aren't the problem, and Light Missiles on Frigates are pretty well balanced overall. The issue with RLML ships is that they can basically just nuke most smaller hulls, reload rinse and repeat because they have a much higher burst damage than normal Light Missile Launchers. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
830
|
Posted - 2017.05.12 16:41:19 -
[207] - Quote
Caitlyn Rempal wrote:Starting to feel like a consensus in here :: it wass definitely not the Range that's the issue, and certainly not the re-load times which already feel punative ir the Rapid launchers -- the heart of the issue seems two fold -- the rapid Light missile launchers are just too easy to fit on the Caracal/Cerb/Orthrus line, making those ships too much of a powerhouse -- so change the fitting abilities of those ships to mitigate it -- not the weapon systems. and on the 2nd front -- the poor application of heavy missiles
You've already worsened the reloads on All Rapid launchers (which was un-needed to begin with not being the actual problem) -- and your buff, such that it is, to Heavies DMG is fairly pointless since they just can't apply w/o a ton of work.
Lastly, this notion that cannibalizing the flexibility of ships larger than our beloved Dessies is somehow a good idea feels like rubbish. Leave pilots the ability to fit their ships based on their piloting needs -- if they want to fit a 'smaller' weapon system, let them, they already sacrifice its hull bonuses for damage. I like, for example, having a battle ship with Rapid Heavies -- it allows them to go brawl with gangs of smaller ships.
Best regards all!
Yeah, lets not reduce the fitting on those ships. Its already hard enough to fit HAMS or heavies onto a caracal or orthrus, plus tank and application. Problem is in the launcher fitting itself, period.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
Make the Muninn great again!
|
Caleb Seremshur
Pineapple Pizza LLC
878
|
Posted - 2017.05.12 21:21:10 -
[208] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:Why not just a tiny nerf to light missiles? Rockets you need webs to make them apply full damate to a frigate but somehow I can oush explo radius for lights down to 14.1 without much effort. Thats a huge amount of apllied damage to even a speed boosted inty running a decent mwd (remember they take AB damage). Pretty much all missiles require some kind of application mod to apply full damage to a same-tier target. Light Missiles aren't the problem, and Light Missiles on Frigates are pretty well balanced overall. The issue with RLML ships is that they can basically just nuke most smaller hulls, reload rinse and repeat because they have a much higher burst damage than normal Light Missile Launchers.
Well apart from increasing the . fitting costs of RLML to like 100 pg each your only other reasonablr recourse is to nerf light missile stats. I've been out of the loop for frigate pvp a while but I'd never suggest that lights needed an application mod to work properly. I'll have to graph it in pyfa when I get home tonight. |
ValentinaDLM
Remember The Fallen. Atlas. Alliance
915
|
Posted - 2017.05.13 12:51:23 -
[209] - Quote
Range is not the problem fitting is.
Right now we don't have to make any compromises with rapid lights aside form burst damage, but whatever, fleets will just warp while reloading. HMLs have less burst damage AND don't apply to anything, while also being hardrer to fit. How is there even a choice there?
Just make RLMLs have the same fitting as heavy missiles period. |
Caleb Seremshur
Pineapple Pizza LLC
878
|
Posted - 2017.05.13 21:21:17 -
[210] - Quote
Boost heavy missile damage by another 5percent while we're at it. Not that long ago the volley damage for heavy missiles and fury lights was almost identical... with fury lights still applying better. |
|
Aly Ankn
Check Your Sig
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.14 04:24:52 -
[211] - Quote
ValentinaDLM wrote:Range is not the problem fitting is.
Just make RLMLs have the same fitting as heavy missiles period.
If heavy missile fitting cost is not enough, bump it to heavy assault missile fitting. Would be a true sacrifice for ships to fit rapids for the great application over tank.
|
ValentinaDLM
Remember The Fallen. Atlas. Alliance
918
|
Posted - 2017.05.14 10:32:41 -
[212] - Quote
Aly Ankn wrote:ValentinaDLM wrote:Range is not the problem fitting is.
Just make RLMLs have the same fitting as heavy missiles period. If heavy missile fitting cost is not enough, bump it to heavy assault missile fitting. Would be a true sacrifice for ships to fit rapids for the great application over tank.
That would probably work too, but it might harm the Caracal and Bellicose a bit much, but it would be fine IMO on the Orth and cerb, which both fit just so much tank relative to the damage and application they push out, a fitting compromise would be very nice on those.
Really though, the bellicose is already a terrible ship, doesn't paint as well as a vigil (optimal range bonus on TPs FTW) doesn't really have the PG for an armor tank, and doesn't have the slots to fit EWAR and a solid shield tank, can't lock far enough to be a decent fleet painter, and has almost no chance of fitting HAMs or HML without being useless at it's EWAR role. So, I don't really mind throwing the bellicose under the bus if need be, it is already not used often. |
Ele Rebellion
Fat Dragon Mining Co. Darwinism.
75
|
Posted - 2017.05.17 15:12:19 -
[213] - Quote
Can we assume that Rapid Torpedo Launchers will be unaffected? |
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
272
|
Posted - 2017.05.18 19:34:22 -
[214] - Quote
another batch of changes that will further skew the faction war LP market to Gallente's favor.
still not touching the Navy Vexor but you're going to nerf the Navy Osprey back into oblivion again, no changes to the useless navy caracal either. why don't you just give galmil free victory points and isk every time someone spins a ship in a station. |
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
272
|
Posted - 2017.05.18 20:01:40 -
[215] - Quote
ValentinaDLM wrote:Range is not the problem fitting is.
Right now we don't have to make any compromises with rapid lights aside form burst damage, but whatever, fleets will just warp while reloading. HMLs have less burst damage AND don't apply to anything, while also being hardrer to fit. How is there even a choice there?
Just make RLMLs have the same fitting as heavy missiles period.
>straight swap fitting cost of RLML with HAM's, and straight swap fitting cost of RHML with Torps, >damage bonus to heavies, >increase rapid launcher reload to 40 sec, >improve application on both Heavies and Torps.
Heavies, Torps, and to a lesser extent HAM's are not fit for purpose. Rapid lights need the range bonus to be effective against smaller faster ships or it's far too easy to outrun the missiles and that's especially true if you don't have perfect 5/5 skills in missile range, so nerfing the velocity bonus makes them useless against small fast ships, and apparently they're also supposed to be useless against other cruisers ... so what are they for countering punishers and merlins or something?
also why even nerf the RLML navy drake at all? it's the only pvp viable fit for the navy drake and i don't understand what's wrong with it, it's basically a crappy cerb for people who don't have hac skill trained. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
832
|
Posted - 2017.05.18 21:09:09 -
[216] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:ValentinaDLM wrote:Range is not the problem fitting is.
Right now we don't have to make any compromises with rapid lights aside form burst damage, but whatever, fleets will just warp while reloading. HMLs have less burst damage AND don't apply to anything, while also being hardrer to fit. How is there even a choice there?
Just make RLMLs have the same fitting as heavy missiles period. >straight swap fitting cost of RLML with HAM's, and straight swap fitting cost of RHML with Torps, >damage bonus to heavies, >increase rapid launcher reload to 40 sec, >improve application on both Heavies and Torps. Heavies, Torps, and to a lesser extent HAM's are not fit for purpose. Rapid lights need the range bonus to be effective against smaller faster ships or it's far too easy to outrun the missiles and that's especially true if you don't have perfect 5/5 skills in missile range, so nerfing the velocity bonus makes them useless against small fast ships, and apparently they're also supposed to be useless against other cruisers ... so what are they for countering punishers and merlins or something? also why even nerf the RLML navy drake at all? it's the only pvp viable fit for the navy drake and i don't understand what's wrong with it, it's basically a crappy cerb for people who don't have hac skill trained.
Velocity rigs, missile computer, missile TE all exist to resolve the issue you have with range. You sacrifice some tank or damage, which is fair. You dont need 350dps and 40k EHP to kill an inty now do?
Also, corax, kestrel, flycatcher. They all have range/application bonuses for light missiles. Maybe use those to blap inties instead of a caracal, orthrus, cerb?
Navy drake has more than 1 good fit. HAM navy drake is just fine.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
Make the Muninn great again!
|
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
272
|
Posted - 2017.05.18 23:23:50 -
[217] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Fourteen Maken wrote:ValentinaDLM wrote:Range is not the problem fitting is.
Right now we don't have to make any compromises with rapid lights aside form burst damage, but whatever, fleets will just warp while reloading. HMLs have less burst damage AND don't apply to anything, while also being hardrer to fit. How is there even a choice there?
Just make RLMLs have the same fitting as heavy missiles period. >straight swap fitting cost of RLML with HAM's, and straight swap fitting cost of RHML with Torps, >damage bonus to heavies, >increase rapid launcher reload to 40 sec, >improve application on both Heavies and Torps. Heavies, Torps, and to a lesser extent HAM's are not fit for purpose. Rapid lights need the range bonus to be effective against smaller faster ships or it's far too easy to outrun the missiles and that's especially true if you don't have perfect 5/5 skills in missile range, so nerfing the velocity bonus makes them useless against small fast ships, and apparently they're also supposed to be useless against other cruisers ... so what are they for countering punishers and merlins or something? also why even nerf the RLML navy drake at all? it's the only pvp viable fit for the navy drake and i don't understand what's wrong with it, it's basically a crappy cerb for people who don't have hac skill trained. Velocity rigs, missile computer, missile TE all exist to resolve the issue you have with range. You sacrifice some tank or damage, which is fair. You dont need 350dps and 40k EHP to kill an inty now do? Also, corax, kestrel, flycatcher. They all have range/application bonuses for light missiles. Maybe use those to blap inties instead of a caracal, orthrus, cerb? Navy drake has more than 1 good fit. HAM navy drake is just fine.
that's not been my experience with light missiles, they need that 50% bonus to speed or they often fall short of small fast targets. as for the amount of tank ehp etc you need to kill an inty do you want to use that on other anti-support cruisers as well? navy omen doesn't need so much dps and tank to blap inties, nor does the scyfi etc.
if you look at turret ships the close range variants have better tracking and lower fitting costs to allow for better tank etc, that makes sense, but when it comes to missiles everything it's back to front. especially where fitting costs are concerned, RLML has better tank, better range, and better application than HAM fits... but ham's are not far off being viable.
as for RLML navy drake that wasn't my point... my point is the navy drake is not a problem ship, if anything it's rarely used as it is so why nerf? do you think the navy drake needs a nerf and if so why?
this affects the calmil lp store, and that means everyone in the militia. calmil already have a weak lp store and these kind of changes just make it worse for them |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
832
|
Posted - 2017.05.19 00:47:05 -
[218] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Fourteen Maken wrote:ValentinaDLM wrote:Range is not the problem fitting is.
Right now we don't have to make any compromises with rapid lights aside form burst damage, but whatever, fleets will just warp while reloading. HMLs have less burst damage AND don't apply to anything, while also being hardrer to fit. How is there even a choice there?
Just make RLMLs have the same fitting as heavy missiles period. >straight swap fitting cost of RLML with HAM's, and straight swap fitting cost of RHML with Torps, >damage bonus to heavies, >increase rapid launcher reload to 40 sec, >improve application on both Heavies and Torps. Heavies, Torps, and to a lesser extent HAM's are not fit for purpose. Rapid lights need the range bonus to be effective against smaller faster ships or it's far too easy to outrun the missiles and that's especially true if you don't have perfect 5/5 skills in missile range, so nerfing the velocity bonus makes them useless against small fast ships, and apparently they're also supposed to be useless against other cruisers ... so what are they for countering punishers and merlins or something? also why even nerf the RLML navy drake at all? it's the only pvp viable fit for the navy drake and i don't understand what's wrong with it, it's basically a crappy cerb for people who don't have hac skill trained. Velocity rigs, missile computer, missile TE all exist to resolve the issue you have with range. You sacrifice some tank or damage, which is fair. You dont need 350dps and 40k EHP to kill an inty now do? Also, corax, kestrel, flycatcher. They all have range/application bonuses for light missiles. Maybe use those to blap inties instead of a caracal, orthrus, cerb? Navy drake has more than 1 good fit. HAM navy drake is just fine. that's not been my experience with light missiles, they need that 50% bonus to speed or they often fall short of small fast targets. as for the amount of tank ehp etc you need to kill an inty do you want to use that on other anti-support cruisers as well? navy omen doesn't need so much dps and tank to blap inties, nor does the scyfi etc. if you look at turret ships the close range variants have better tracking and lower fitting costs to allow for better tank etc, that makes sense, but when it comes to missiles everything it's back to front. especially where fitting costs are concerned, RLML has better tank, better range, and better application than HAM fits... but ham's are not far off being viable. as for RLML navy drake that wasn't my point... my point is the navy drake is not a problem ship, if anything it's rarely used as it is so why nerf? do you think the navy drake needs a nerf and if so why? this affects the calmil lp store, and that means everyone in the militia. calmil already have a weak lp store and these kind of changes just make it worse for them
Bellicose, scyfi and other RLML platforms that don't have a velocity bonus have often fit 1-2 velocity rigs and work fine at hitting faster moving ships. Sure the snaked, max speed exodus inty will still prob outrun their missiles, but there will always be outliers. Bring a hyena or other web ship if you need to counter those.
Scyfi and nomen are navy cruisers, i'd expect them to have more tank than a t1 caracal. A caracal can just sit ontop of another t1 cruiser and do more damage and have a better tank with a long range weapon that applies perfectly. If you catch the typical anti-support nomen with a scram, its dead. All it has is a single AAR, its not buffer fit. Same with Scyfi, it doesn't have the cap to run an invuln+MWD, so its often run dual LSE with cap booster to sustain kiting. A typical scyfi tank is 32k EHP when kiting with RLML (full tank rigs, tank will be less if you drop a rig for velocity rig).
Scorch nomen and scyfi dps is less or equal to an RLML caracal (before drones), but scyfi has no velocity bonus and nomen is turret based and pretty squishy as is (16k EHP before AAR).
I'm not denying that missile launchers need a proper look at in terms of their fittings, cause torpedo/cruise missiles are backwards in terms of fitting and the rapid launchers need their fittings increased to actually prevent these super high tank fits. I'm just stating that the velocity bonus not applying isn't the end of the world. Other ships have been using velocity rigs just fine to compensate.
What i'm saying about the navy drake is that the RLML fit isnt the only PvP fit being used. HAM fit exists and works fine at applying to frigates. It potentially could work as a decent HML kiter with heavy buff (i'm trying to be optimistic) that comes at same time. HAM and Heavy fits remain unchanged and will be getting a buff, RLML loses 25% range, which you can easily recover with missile computer or rig+MTE variation if its that big of a deal.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
Make the Muninn great again!
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
832
|
Posted - 2017.05.19 01:01:05 -
[219] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote: this change hits caldari missile ships and more important the calmil lp store hard, they'll never get it perfectly balanced, but if they make changes to t2 ships they look at the t2 economy, if they make changes to t3 ships they look at the t3/wh economy, why can't they make an effort to keep faction war lp stores balanced?
You have nosprey, caracal navy, RNI, SNI, hookbill, navy drake and griffin navy.
Maybe this isn't a problem with RLML, but they need to look at those hulls to make them more desirable? Tbh only a couple of those hulls need some help, like the caracal navy and RNI. Navy caracal is actually pretty fun to use, but its not nearly as good as a faction cruiser should be, but i put HAMs on it, not RLML. Not to mention, RLML CNI is unchanged with velocity nerf since it doesn't get a range bonus anyway. Nosprey will get hit, but can just as easily fit rigs like other ships for velocity.
Griffin navy and hookbills are all over, navy drakes get use (HAM fits too) and nosprey's are getting more use since they buffed the damage output on them. The battleships don't have much demand cause pirate battleships are so damn cheap and eclipse them, but both the SNI and RNI are good ships in their respective roles. But, thats not an issue necessarily with the LP market, its an issue because why buy a 500m SNI, when you can buy a 300m rattlesnake that does everything better? As for the RNI, a lot of people don't see the value in it, but its probably the best torpedo platform in the game, but it could use help in the tank/fitting department. Dropping the velocity bonus for a damage bonus and dropping some launchers to compensate would make it good for both RHML and torpedo's, plus it could fit a decent tank to go along with it.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
Make the Muninn great again!
|
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
273
|
Posted - 2017.05.19 11:09:19 -
[220] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Fourteen Maken wrote: this change hits caldari missile ships and more important the calmil lp store hard, they'll never get it perfectly balanced, but if they make changes to t2 ships they look at the t2 economy, if they make changes to t3 ships they look at the t3/wh economy, why can't they make an effort to keep faction war lp stores balanced?
You have nosprey, caracal navy, RNI, SNI, hookbill, navy drake and griffin navy. Maybe this isn't a problem with RLML, but they need to look at those hulls to make them more desirable? Tbh only a couple of those hulls need some help, like the caracal navy and RNI. Navy caracal is actually pretty fun to use, but its not nearly as good as a faction cruiser should be, but i put HAMs on it, not RLML. Not to mention, RLML CNI is unchanged with velocity nerf since it doesn't get a range bonus anyway. Nosprey will get hit, but can just as easily fit rigs like other ships for velocity. Griffin navy and hookbills are all over, navy drakes get use (HAM fits too) and nosprey's are getting more use since they buffed the damage output on them. The battleships don't have much demand cause pirate battleships are so damn cheap and eclipse them, but both the SNI and RNI are good ships in their respective roles. But, thats not an issue necessarily with the LP market, its an issue because why buy a 500m SNI, when you can buy a 300m rattlesnake that does everything better? As for the RNI, a lot of people don't see the value in it, but its probably the best torpedo platform in the game, but it could use help in the tank/fitting department. Dropping the velocity bonus for a damage bonus and dropping some launchers to compensate would make it good for both RHML and torpedo's, plus it could fit a decent tank to go along with it.
in terms of the amount of lp spent navy cruisers are the most important market, and until the nosprey changes caldari had two absolute lemons that were practically useless. the nosprey became one of the best navy cruisers after the changes but still nowhere near the navy vexor... and now it gets nerfed while the navy vexor never gets touched? you think this is balance?
4300 navy vexors were destroyed in april. that's ~200billion worth of gallente LP flushed 650 Navy Ospreys destroyed in the same month. that's ~30billion worth of caldari LP flushed
the frigate market isn't as big as cruiser market but again gallente comet dominates the hookbill. both ships are popular since the hookbill got a damage buff but hookbills are still only used half as much as comets
in april 3153 comets were destroyed = 31billion isk worth of gallente lp flushed same month 1857 hookbills lost = 19billion isk worth of caldari lp flushed.
the navy ewar frigates see about the same amount of usage, while navy battleships are pretty much irrelevant to the fw economy because they make up a tiny part of the LP destroyed, although caldari have 2 of the more useful it makes little difference. similar with navy battlecruisers, they're just too expensive to justify the cost in most pvp situations.
you can say loads of every caldari ship all over the place, but thats the reality. Caldari LP doesn't need more nerfs |
|
Aly Ankn
Check Your Sig
1
|
Posted - 2017.05.20 03:15:19 -
[221] - Quote
Rapid heavies don't need a fitting Nerf. Remember they still heavy missiles as ammo. The ROF is what makes it useful and it still needs web support to apply well. |
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory.
15878
|
Posted - 2017.05.23 01:05:48 -
[222] - Quote
Will Auto Target Heavies get a buff too? |
MOL0TOK
E.V.G.
950
|
Posted - 2017.05.23 14:56:14 -
[223] - Quote
Another overkill from the SSR, this time for heavy assault missiles. Now these rockets are dead...
-æ-+-+, -¦-î-Ä -+ -¦-â-¦-â -¦-+-é-î! / to Kerzhakoved /
|
Super Chair
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
723
|
Posted - 2017.06.02 09:26:08 -
[224] - Quote
I can kind of get behind rapid light and rapid heavy hull range bonuses not applying. People can still rig/fit range mods to get more range out of them if that is what they want. It makes kity anti tackle cruisers slightly less oppressive. However all this does is create an illusion of choice.
My main objection is that there aren't really any viable alternatives to the rapid light module for caldari cruisers especially. HML and HAM application is poor (Ok, lets be honest, it's not supposed to apply like rapid lights to frigates, but should at least apply to cruisers). The fitting requirement for these modules in relationship to the powergrid on the ship is too high. There will only ever be rapid light caracals because they can't fit HAMs or HMLs and the damage on these weapon systems is too low compared to rapid lights. A math nerd might argue that "but its the damage PER SECOND!". Let's be real though, people want damage that can break through logi/local reps, hell if it takes a minute reload after the burst so be it. So you have less application, less damage (5.6% buff to HML by itself is laughable), and higher fitting cost. Where is the choice? Clearly not between the weapon systems that's for sure.
The illusion is that people will be making a choice between what mid, low, or rig slow they want to sacrifice for more range on their rapid lights when the actual choice should ideally be between HAMs (do i want to brawl with high dps and mid-high application?) , HMLs (Do I want long range with pretty good dps and mid application? (Mid application being that it applies to a cruiser just fine) or Rapid Lights (Do I want really good application at the cost of range and some dps? *Hint* this should be lower than HMLs). This would be ideal and can be accomplished by doing a balance pass on the fitting requirements between these 3 weapons systems. Right now rapid lights enjoy the best of everything, they have the best fitting, best application, best damage (due to burst and enjoying the best application, therefore can just load fury), sure they might lose some range, but if the HML/HAM fitting costs stay as they are, even with losing some tank for range mods/rigs you will still have better tanks than trying to cram HML/HAMs on a caracal. It needs a more holistic approach to multiple missile systems, and possibly even the slot layout/fitting of some ships.
TL;DR Rapid Lights will still be the only viable option because of fitting/application/damage reasons. More needs to be done to make each missile system have its own unique flavor (thus actually creating a choice, not the illusion of one). Range nerf makes it less oppressive but not really people will still use it with range mods so nothing major is really going to be accomplished until other cruiser sized missile systems are addressed.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3989
|
Posted - 2017.06.03 15:44:45 -
[225] - Quote
MOL0TOK wrote:Another overkill from the SSR, this time for heavy assault missiles. Now these rockets are dead...
What? They are not even touching heavy assaults
BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
|
ARES DES1DERATA
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2017.06.03 21:11:14 -
[226] - Quote
SO WAIT, YOU'RE TELLING ME THIS WASN'T AN APRIL FOOL'S JOKE??? |
Zetakya
Echelon Research Goonswarm Federation
19
|
Posted - 2017.06.04 10:54:34 -
[227] - Quote
Rapid Light Missile Launchers are not an undersized weapon system. They are a fully standard cruiser-scale weapon system. Either make them work properly or remove them from the game.
ARES DES1DERATA wrote:SO WAIT, YOU'RE TELLING ME THIS WASN'T AN APRIL FOOL'S JOKE???
No, apparently it's just a regular stupid idea from CCP. |
Moozh Vozmozhno
Holesale Holesale Operations
6
|
Posted - 2017.06.05 22:15:21 -
[228] - Quote
The current cost/performance of the Orthrus and the Barghest seem pretty balanced. You can't really turn them into short-range ships when they have a range bonus to Warp Dispruptors and Scramblers. There's no synergy there.
If Rapid Lights are unbalanced, then nerf them and them alone. Don't pigeon hole a ship into a single weapon system (eg. HMLs). We want choices. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3993
|
Posted - 2017.06.06 11:11:10 -
[229] - Quote
Moozh Vozmozhno wrote:The current cost/performance of the Orthrus and the Barghest seem pretty balanced.
Either you suck with them or you're a lier.
Quote: You can't really turn them into short-range ships when they have a range bonus to Warp Dispruptors and Scramblers. There's no synergy there.
Oh, you're just an idiot
BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
3205
|
Posted - 2017.06.06 13:34:34 -
[230] - Quote
Super Chair wrote:...the actual choice should ideally be between HAMs (do i want to brawl with high dps and mid-high application?) , HMLs (Do I want long range with pretty good dps and mid application? (Mid application being that it applies to a cruiser just fine) or Rapid Lights (Do I want really good application at the cost of range and some dps? *Hint* this should be lower than HMLs). Quoting for emphasis.
If you want cruisers to use heavy missiles, you need to make them worth using at least some of the time. These changes are steps in the right direction, but they're not enough. I hope that this change is just a first step in the balance process.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
I predicted FAUXs
|
|
Adrick Celestes
Wormbro The Society For Unethical Treatment Of Sleepers
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 02:57:12 -
[231] - Quote
How would you even fit a ship like the Orthrus and still be combat effective with HM or HAMs? I can't find a fit that seems to be very efficient. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
835
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 14:45:46 -
[232] - Quote
Adrick Celestes wrote:How would you even fit a ship like the Orthrus and still be combat effective with HM or HAMs? I can't find a fit that seems to be very efficient.
XLASB, scram, dual prop. Can scram and web out to 15-18km, with decent application to cruisers under tjose conditions. Plus with AB and the range you can operate at, you are able to mitigate a lot of damage. Unless youre fighting a drone or missile boat.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
Make the Muninn great again!
|
Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
142
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 13:36:31 -
[233] - Quote
So is this change actually coming anytime soon? Would like to know for :reasons:. :) |
Adrick Celestes
Wormbro The Society For Unethical Treatment Of Sleepers
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 13:43:02 -
[234] - Quote
Just my thoughts on RLML balance, not a pro by any means. Looks like a lot of this has been mentioned before.
Rapid Light Missile Launcher
- Reduce capacity largely
- Decrease reload time slightly to make up for sustained dps loss with reduced capacity
- Burst damage remains high for frigs but not high enough to take out cruisers before reload is required
- Sustained DPS should remain lower than HAM and HM
Heavy Missile Launcher
- Change application to match HAM
- No change to damage done
- No change to burst or sustained dps
Heavy Assault Launcher
|
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
127
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 20:08:47 -
[235] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:Quote:This would mean that the following ships would have their range bonuses only apply to Heavy and Heavy Assault Missiles: Orthrus, Caracal, Cerberus, Onyx, Osprey Navy Issue, Cyclone, Drake, Drake Navy Issue the sacrilege and gets spared?
That would be because the Sac is that terribad. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
127
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 20:16:36 -
[236] - Quote
Reading all this makes me remember the 325+ page threadnaught over the creation of rapid lights as they exsist today. this Finger Of God effect was predicted when this whole burst idea hit the table. While I'd rather see them brought back to pre-CCP Rise status, that's not likely to happen. Here is what I would like to see: Rapid launchers (as a whole) brought in line fitting wise to match HML/Cruise. At the same time, heavies getting an application buff instead of damage. HAM's getting a range buff (preferrably in velocity) and a bit of an application buff as well.
Toying with the light missile's attribs will just screw up the frigs and dessys that use them and it'll take several years to get that fixed, then we'll be right back here a third time. |
O2 jayjay
Usque Ad Mortem Solyaris Chtonium
62
|
Posted - 2017.06.10 03:39:03 -
[237] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone and happy Saturday! Today I'm here to start collecting community feedback on a potential package of missile balance tweaks. These changes aren't confirmed yet and don't even have a release date, but if we do decide to go forward with them they would potentially arrive sometime in the summer. The goal of these changes is to help improve the balance between the cruiser-sized missile systems and make the choice of what missiles to fit more interesting. We have also been hearing from you folks that Rapid Light Missiles are continuing to feel quite oppressive in their extremely strong combination of burst dps, range and application. Here's the package of changes we are considering at this time: - Increase Rapid Light and Rapid Heavy launcher reload time from 35s to 40s (~4% sustained dps reduction with no burst damage reduction). This change would reset the rapid launcher reload time back to the original values from when they were first converted to a burst damage system. It is a slight reduction to sustained dps while not impacting burst damage
- Change ship missile range bonuses to not apply to undersize missiles
- This would mean that the following ships would have their range bonuses only apply to Heavy and Heavy Assault Missiles: Orthrus, Caracal, Cerberus, Onyx, Osprey Navy Issue, Cyclone, Drake, Drake Navy Issue
- The Barghest range bonus would also be changed to only impact Cruise Missiles and Torpedoes
- The Mordu flight time reduction would also no longer apply to undersized missiles
- This change would only affect range bonuses (missile velocity and missile flight time) not damage bonuses
- Increase all Heavy Missile damage by 5.6%. This would be a general buff to HMLs and more than compensate for the longer reload time on RHMLs leading to a slight buff for them as well.
As I mentioned above we don't have a proposed release date for these changes yet but we want to start gathering community feedback and get the discussion started. Thanks and happy Saturday!
SFI dodged the bullet! YES!!!!
|
GROUND XERO
Rennfeuer Project.Mayhem.
15
|
Posted - 2017.06.14 11:53:46 -
[238] - Quote
it is very easy ... give us back the old stats of the rapid light launcher...and we are all fine! .... (before burst dmg came in!!!)
NCPL (Necromonger of new Eden) will make EVE great again!
|
Lukka
33
|
Posted - 2017.06.14 12:15:26 -
[239] - Quote
Having read carefully the proposed changes, yeah it looks OK. |
My Cat Meows
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2017.06.15 14:40:52 -
[240] - Quote
There is some danger of going past the target here. Kiting ships that used 'fury' light missiles before will now have to use navy ammunition, since T2 ammo doesn't reach the target anymore. This implies a ~19% nerf to damage which is above the small and careful numbers you try to apply here.
As it was stated here quite some times already, nerfing RLM/RHM will not cause avoidance behavior of switching to heavy missiles in case of cruisers. If you use T2 ammo with heavy missiles, which you have to in oder to get acceptable DPS, only roughly half of the damage actually applies with best skills. It is the lack of alternitives that makes people use RLM. If we make missiles apply well to their own ship size, there will not be a reason to use RLM/RHM to fight the own ship size anymore.
With the lack of an exit option, this change would not balance out the meta in the means of people adapting within the available options for missiles, but towards gunnery systems.
With the issue of the 2 seperate branches of skill training for missiles and gunnery, this has the tendency to lock out some people from the game for a bit, especially solo pilots. It might sound strange, that a 19% change to damage would remove gameplay styles and their pilots from the active game, but you have to remember that PVP is a game between damage application and tanking, where the amount that the damage application is greater than the tank defines if a victor can be determined in a fight and who it is. This magnifies the effect.
Personally, as someone who is affected, i wouldn't know what to do in eve if this became real. But i do see the problem you are trying to fix, and it is good you worry about it. Please understand that the choice to use RLM against cruisers is a negative one, since the other weapon systems, which are intended for this use, aren't viable options for their own purpose. If you make HM and HAM viable options for the different fighting styles, the abuse of RLM will not be mandatory anymore. Thank you for reading. |
|
Morwennon
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
96
|
Posted - 2017.06.22 10:14:20 -
[241] - Quote
Lucas Quaan wrote:So is this change actually coming anytime soon? Would like to know for :reasons:. :)
I too have, uh, reasons for wanting to know whether these changes are going to be coming in, say, the next two months. |
Mattio11
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.22 20:13:35 -
[242] - Quote
I approve these proposed changes!
The Othrus will be a bit weaker, the Caracal will be more suited to it's cost, and the Scythe Fleet issue will be a bit more attractive to fly.
And perhaps the DRAKE FLEET will make a triumphant return!! Muahahahaha!!
...though the 35s reload time was painful enough already -_- |
guigui lechat
the no fock given
54
|
Posted - 2017.06.22 23:15:25 -
[243] - Quote
I think only the second part whould be applied, so 35s cooldown. 35s is enough to make bad misile selection enough of a pain.
actually, make it 60s. and double the damage of rapid. same overall dps, more selective and "hit and run". |
Lelob
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
250
|
Posted - 2017.06.28 01:26:01 -
[244] - Quote
RIP Bhargest, you are now utterly trash. :( |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
211
|
Posted - 2017.06.28 11:02:25 -
[245] - Quote
Lelob wrote:RIP Bhargest, you are now utterly trash. :(
Sold mine ages ago, as soon they posted these terrific ideas... |
ISD Stall
ISD STAR
76
|
Posted - 2017.07.01 02:35:34 -
[246] - Quote
Quote:Specifically restricted conduct.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to courteous when disagreeing with others.
In order to maintain an environment where everyone is welcome and discussion flows freely, certain types of conduct are prohibited on the EVE Online forums.
I have removed a thread for the following reason: Personal Attacks
ISD Stall
Member, STAR & CCL
Interstellar Services Department.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
SEE YOU ON THE NEW FORUMS
|
Jose Montalvo
PWT0 Fleet Fidelas Constans
7
|
Posted - 2017.07.02 02:52:30 -
[247] - Quote
CCP Foxie......Will this changes be implemented before the AT or by the end of the summer?? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14977
|
Posted - 2017.07.05 15:33:16 -
[248] - Quote
To update everyone, this proposal is currently on hold. We will continue to consider the feedback from the community here and determine whether to move forward with this particular proposal or something else.
Either way no changes in this area will be arriving over the summer, so I've changed the title accordingly.
Thanks.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
|
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
829
|
Posted - 2017.07.05 16:01:14 -
[249] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:To update everyone, this proposal is currently on hold. We will continue to consider the feedback from the community here and determine whether to move forward with this particular proposal or something else.
Either way no changes in this area will be arriving over the summer, so I've changed the title accordingly.
Thanks. Avoiding summer clusterf***?
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Quinlin Harpy
Maidens Of The Chalice Two Maidens One Chalice
0
|
Posted - 2017.07.05 16:19:08 -
[250] - Quote
Holy ****, this weren't actually an April fools joke?
Fozzie have you ever actually played this game? You do realise this change would make alot of ships such as the cerb/caracal/orthrus/barghest and pretty much all other rapid launcher based ships complete trash?
I can understand a slight increase to reload time but completely removing the range bonuses? Are you insane?
Also whats the point in even trying to give heavy missiles a damage increase? It wont dig them out of the pit of uselessness they are currently in, they need better damage application, not more raw damage. |
|
Caleb Seremshur
Pineapple Pizza LLC
885
|
Posted - 2017.07.06 07:32:22 -
[251] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:To update everyone, this proposal is currently on hold. We will continue to consider the feedback from the community here and determine whether to move forward with this particular proposal or something else.
Either way no changes in this area will be arriving over the summer, so I've changed the title accordingly.
Thanks.
Why not just update the test server with this? So we can take common fits and actually put them through their paces? |
Lug Muad'Dib
Wise Humans Sword
62
|
Posted - 2017.07.06 08:42:54 -
[252] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:To update everyone, this proposal is currently on hold. We will continue to consider the feedback from the community here and determine whether to move forward with this particular proposal or something else.
Either way no changes in this area will be arriving over the summer, so I've changed the title accordingly.
Thanks. Why not just update the test server with this? So we can take common fits and actually put them through their paces?
Cause they have listen feedback and won't make this change ? |
Alderson Point
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
104
|
Posted - 2017.07.07 14:45:00 -
[253] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:To update everyone, this proposal is currently on hold. We will continue to consider the feedback from the community here and determine whether to move forward with this particular proposal or something else.
Either way no changes in this area will be arriving over the summer, so I've changed the title accordingly.
Thanks.
I've got to admit, I am relieved by this news, the proposal was not something I would have wanted to see, it didn't address the issues, and it was the wrong solution on top of that.
Hopefully when we restart the discussions, it will start from a place far far away from this proposals starting point. |
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1622
|
Posted - 2017.07.10 16:52:54 -
[254] - Quote
Alderson Point wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:To update everyone, this proposal is currently on hold. We will continue to consider the feedback from the community here and determine whether to move forward with this particular proposal or something else.
Either way no changes in this area will be arriving over the summer, so I've changed the title accordingly.
Thanks. I've got to admit, I am relieved by this news, the proposal was not something I would have wanted to see, it didn't address the issues, and it was the wrong solution on top of that. Hopefully when we restart the discussions, it will start from a place far far away from this proposals starting point. You might want to consider why People fit these, and whether if the standard launchers were able to be effective, would there any need for rapids to exist at all?
I generally used RLML's on a Gila They are excellent for taking out small ships, leaving my drones to concentrate on the larger ships I used RHML's on the RS for the same reason. Even with several application mods and rigs, cruise missiles are not very effective against smaller (s/m) ships
I don't have an issue with current reload times, nor do I expect to have 1 with slower reloads (it will be mostly somewhere around how it used to be before they got a buff anyway)
As both systems utilise smaller ammunition loads, with a corresponding reduction in range, I found my self using a more brawler based approach which I found to be more engaging than sniping from extreme ranges. (this is the why)
The proposed reversion on the old HML nerf is good news, the original problem with them was their range and not the damage they could do.
My observations/thoughts on the 2 weapon systems RLML - A system that launches small missiles designed to be used on Medium (C/BC) sized hulls Effective range shout NOT outstrip the maximum effective range of the standard small launchers equipped on small (F/D) ships Fitting requirements should be much higher than for a standard small launcher, but may be a little lower than for a standard medium launcher. Maximum effective damage should be higher than a standard small launcher, but less than a standard medium launcher.
Using the RLML on a cruiser or BC should mean the player making a choice between having longer range and higher damage against m/l targets with poor performance against small (F/D) targets, or poor performance against m/l targets and improved application against small targets with a shorter effective engagement range.
For the RHML the same general concepts apply (and it saves me typing almost identical stuff :D)
|
GROUND XERO
Rennfeuer Project.Mayhem.
21
|
Posted - 2017.07.13 09:32:36 -
[255] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:Alderson Point wrote: I've got to admit, I am relieved by this news, the proposal was not something I would have wanted to see, it didn't address the issues, and it was the wrong solution on top of that.
Hopefully when we restart the discussions, it will start from a place far far away from this proposals starting point.
You might want to consider why People fit these, and whether if the standard launchers were able to be effective, would there any need for rapids to exist at all?
I generally used RLML's on a Gila They are excellent for taking out small ships, leaving my drones to concentrate on the larger ships I used RHML's on the RS for the same reason. Even with several application mods and rigs, cruise missiles are not very effective against smaller (s/m) ships I don't have an issue with current reload times, nor do I expect to have 1 with slower reloads (it will be mostly somewhere around how it used to be before they got a buff anyway) As both systems utilise smaller ammunition loads, with a corresponding reduction in range, I found my self using a more brawler based approach which I found to be more engaging than sniping from extreme ranges. (this is the why) The proposed reversion on the old HML nerf is good news, the original problem with them was their range and not the damage they could do. My observations/thoughts on the 2 weapon systems RLML - A system that launches small missiles designed to be used on Medium (C/BC) sized hulls Effective range shout NOT outstrip the maximum effective range of the standard small launchers equipped on small (F/D) ships Fitting requirements should be much higher than for a standard small launcher, but may be a little lower than for a standard medium launcher. Maximum effective damage should be higher than a standard small launcher, but less than a standard medium launcher. Using the RLML on a cruiser or BC should mean the player making a choice between having longer range and higher damage against m/l targets with poor performance against small (F/D) targets, or poor performance against m/l targets and improved application against small targets with a shorter effective engagement range. For the RHML the same general concepts apply (and it saves me typing almost identical stuff :D)
Or just give back the old stats before burst/reload thinngy!!!
NCPL (Necromonger of new Eden) will make EVE great again!
|
ivona fly
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
40
|
Posted - 2017.07.19 16:38:13 -
[256] - Quote
Light missile: a missile tuned to cause maximum damage to smaller ships
Give it a bonus vs smaller ships, reduce its overall damage. then caracal / cerb still have role, frigates can still use them etc. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: [one page] |