These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Rubicon] Rapid Heavy Missile Launchers

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#341 - 2013-10-23 08:37:34 UTC
As far as that goes, I'm fine if they never release a missile tracking computer. Sure, it would be nice feature - but we're talking about a major rebalance for missiles (since it would no doubt add explosion radius, velocity and probably flight time). I like that missiles are somewhat unique from the other weapon systems, and EVE could really do with a bit more variety.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#342 - 2013-10-23 08:53:51 UTC
RHMLs + t1 geddon + heavies + logi = miles of lowsec pwnage?
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#343 - 2013-10-23 09:14:41 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
RHMLs + t1 geddon + heavies + logi = miles of lowsec pwnage?

I don't think so. With the warp speed changes in Rubicon, I think you're going to see a tendency towards small ships. As RHMLs don't stand to currently inherent explosion velocity, explosion radius or missile velocity - you're looking at the standard heavy missile with an explosion radius of around 100m. So against cruisers, sure - they'll do ok. Anything smaller and they'll struggle the same as always (albeit perhaps not quite as much). Caracals will still apply RLML damage the best along with Navy Drakes for HMLs.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#344 - 2013-10-23 09:59:03 UTC
so after cruisers get their buff to be useful again ... you bring out more anti cruiser weapons awesome plan!!!!!

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#345 - 2013-10-23 10:04:29 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
so after cruisers get their buff to be useful again ... you bring out more anti cruiser weapons awesome plan!!!!!

I suggest you look at the specs more closely. There's 20% less DPS and a huge range/speed loss as well, not to mention the fact that cruisers will still apply damage with HMs more effectively. RHMLs have a +38% (I believe) increased rate of fire, so outside of that there's still nothing preventing battleships from running HMLs or even RLMLs.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Valid Point
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#346 - 2013-10-24 04:31:27 UTC
Heavy rocket launchers?
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#347 - 2013-10-24 04:44:39 UTC
Valid Point wrote:
Heavy rocket launchers?

Huh? What?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#348 - 2013-10-24 09:28:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Catherine Laartii
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Catherine Laartii wrote:
RHMLs + t1 geddon + heavies + logi = miles of lowsec pwnage?

I don't think so. With the warp speed changes in Rubicon, I think you're going to see a tendency towards small ships. As RHMLs don't stand to currently inherent explosion velocity, explosion radius or missile velocity - you're looking at the standard heavy missile with an explosion radius of around 100m. So against cruisers, sure - they'll do ok. Anything smaller and they'll struggle the same as always (albeit perhaps not quite as much). Caracals will still apply RLML damage the best along with Navy Drakes for HMLs.


That's why the neut and drone bonuses on the 'Geddon make it so valuable; wouldn't it knock out said small ships with drones and the 30-40km neuts it has? Idea would be the 5 missile/2 neut setup on the highs. At the very least, they'd be better in larger fleets for anti-subcap support. RHML would just make that job a bit easier.

ALSO side note:
What possible reason could there be for not including all damage projection bonuses to the RHML? I know they do it for a few of the cruiser/BC class ships like the nosprey and the drake, but perhaps ships like the Navy Raven and Golem could get them? The price would balance out the inherent power of such a platform. Heavy missiles got nerfed fairly hard, so I don't see how this is so significant an issue to make NO ship have a damage projection bonus for this new weapon system...
Jonas Cooke
Frozen Silver.
Arkhos Core
#349 - 2013-10-24 14:02:16 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
GOB III wrote:
Does this mean that we can expect a rapid cruise phoenix in the future?


Something that would make the Phoenix useful? Blasphemy!


Just make it useful against other caps, not necessarily vs BS sized targets.
Jonas Cooke
Frozen Silver.
Arkhos Core
#350 - 2013-10-24 14:07:44 UTC
Boltorano wrote:
True Sansha missile launchers haven't existed since circa 2007-08 when the player flown hulls were changed to pure laser boats.

What's the point in making a TS version if nobody can ever get one? Roll


Across the universe, someone is holding all of them in a hangar waiting for that one buff when they can be the richest pilot in the universe.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#351 - 2013-10-24 16:29:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
CCP you really need to have a rethink here you wouldn't bonus medium blasters on a megathron so why are you doing it with missile ships do you not see the inconsistencies here?

just because RLML's are popular doesn't make them right and balanced its quite often the opposite ...

The correct approach is too add new missile types that fulfill these roles instead of this OP approach of using smaller missiles and just buff the dps ... it also reduces the point of sig tanking somewhat on smaller ships

also precision cruises already track cruisers quite well in terms of explosion radius if not too well

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#352 - 2013-10-24 17:13:50 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
CCP you really need to have a rethink here you wouldn't bonus medium blasters on a megathron so why are you doing it with missile ships do you not see the inconsistencies here?

just because RLML's are popular doesn't make them right and balanced its quite often the opposite ...

The correct approach is too add new missile types that fulfill these roles instead of this OP approach of using smaller missiles and just buff the dps ... it also reduces the point of sig tanking somewhat on smaller ships

also precision cruises already track cruisers quite well in terms of explosion radius if not too well

The reason for RHMLs has been clearly stated: "Expands the fitting options for battleship sized missile users (currently there's not as much flexibility as turret systems get)".

Railguns: (3) 350mm, 425mm, Dual 250mm ... Missiles: (1) Cruise Launchers
Blasters: (3) Electron Blaster, Ion Blaster, Neutron Blaster ... Missiles: (1) Torpedo Launchers

Beam Lasers: (3) Dual Heavy Beam, Mega Beam, Tachyon Beam ... Missiles: (1) Cruiser Launchers
Pulse Lasers: (2) Dual Heavy Pulse, Mega Pulse ... Missiles: (1) Torpedo Launchers

Artillery: (2) 1200mm Artillery, 1400mm Artillery ... Missiles: (1) Cruise Launchers
Autocanons (3): Dual 425mm, Dual 650mm, 800mm Repeating ... Missiles: (1) Torpedo Launchers

So yeah, RHMLs are totally justified - even excluding the various ammunition types for turrets.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#353 - 2013-10-24 17:54:30 UTC
not really justified, something like this would be more balanced

small rocket launcher, light rocket launcher, Rapid light rocket launcher.
small light missile launcher, light missile launcher, Rapid light missile launcher

Medium assault missile launcher, HAM launcher, Rapid HAM launcher
Medium missile launcher, Heavy missile launcher, Rapid Heavy missile launcher

Large torpedo launcher, Heavy torpedo launcher, Rapid Heavy torpedo launcher
Large Cruise launcher, Heavy Cruise launcher, Rapid Heavy cruise launcher

frig size - small launchers NEW - easier fitting, new better tracking smaller missile versions of current missiles
cruiser size - medium launchers NEW - easier fitting, new better tracking smaller missile versions of current missiles
Battleship size - large launchers NEW - easier fitting, new better tracking smaller missile versions of current missiles

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#354 - 2013-10-24 18:26:26 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
not really justified, something like this would be more balanced

small rocket launcher, light rocket launcher, Rapid light rocket launcher.
small light missile launcher, light missile launcher, Rapid light missile launcher

Medium assault missile launcher, HAM launcher, Rapid HAM launcher
Medium missile launcher, Heavy missile launcher, Rapid Heavy missile launcher

Large torpedo launcher, Heavy torpedo launcher, Rapid Heavy torpedo launcher
Large Cruise launcher, Heavy Cruise launcher, Rapid Heavy cruise launcher

frig size - small launchers NEW - easier fitting, new better tracking smaller missile versions of current missiles
cruiser size - medium launchers NEW - easier fitting, new better tracking smaller missile versions of current missiles
Battleship size - large launchers NEW - easier fitting, new better tracking smaller missile versions of current missiles


A "light" (frigate-destroyer) class RHML would be heavily unbalanced, as would a "medium" (cruiser-battlecruiser) class RHML. The reason the fitting requirements for both are so high is that they need to be limited to cruiser and battleship classes, respectively. I'm fine with the proposed changes, I just wish we could get a bit of bonus to missile velocity.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#355 - 2013-10-24 18:31:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
not really justified, something like this would be more balanced

small rocket launcher, light rocket launcher, Rapid light rocket launcher.
small light missile launcher, light missile launcher, Rapid light missile launcher

Medium assault missile launcher, HAM launcher, Rapid HAM launcher
Medium missile launcher, Heavy missile launcher, Rapid Heavy missile launcher

Large torpedo launcher, Heavy torpedo launcher, Rapid Heavy torpedo launcher
Large Cruise launcher, Heavy Cruise launcher, Rapid Heavy cruise launcher

frig size - small launchers NEW - easier fitting, new better tracking smaller missile versions of current missiles
cruiser size - medium launchers NEW - easier fitting, new better tracking smaller missile versions of current missiles
Battleship size - large launchers NEW - easier fitting, new better tracking smaller missile versions of current missiles


A "light" (frigate-destroyer) class RHML would be heavily unbalanced, as would a "medium" (cruiser-battlecruiser) class RHML. The reason the fitting requirements for both are so high is that they need to be limited to cruiser and battleship classes, respectively. I'm fine with the proposed changes, I just wish we could get a bit of bonus to missile velocity.


its just a rough framework to show there are other ways of adding options that would be more size relative ... the stats would ofc have be balanced but the point remains that there is no need for the RHML style line they are following as they are atm.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#356 - 2013-10-24 19:01:02 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
its just a rough framework to show there are other ways of adding options that would be more size relative ... the stats would ofc have be balanced but the point remains that there is no need for the RHML style line they are following as they are atm.

The problem with altering the stats means you have to look at rebalancing all missile systems. Again. RHMLs aren't going to be the "OP" weapon everyone thinks they are. For starters, on a RNI you're pretty much hitting at around 135m well past 200km already with cruise missiles, for at least 20% more damage. I've been testing a bunch of L4s out with standard heavy missile launchers and I'm just not seeing a lot of benefit even against cruisers. Then there's having to juggle different types of ammunition. Hard to say until Rubicon comes out, but I think RHMLs are really going to only be advantageous to specific classes of battleships that don't receive any explosion velocity or radius bonuses.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Vesan Terakol
Trollgrin Sadface
Dark Taboo
#357 - 2013-10-24 19:28:31 UTC
Why haven't anyone done this?

http://oi43.tinypic.com/29qjc0m.jpg

(Sorry, i have no idea how to embed images)

Damn, it looks sweet.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#358 - 2013-10-24 23:44:48 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
its just a rough framework to show there are other ways of adding options that would be more size relative ... the stats would ofc have be balanced but the point remains that there is no need for the RHML style line they are following as they are atm.

The problem with altering the stats means you have to look at rebalancing all missile systems. Again. RHMLs aren't going to be the "OP" weapon everyone thinks they are. For starters, on a RNI you're pretty much hitting at around 135m well past 200km already with cruise missiles, for at least 20% more damage. I've been testing a bunch of L4s out with standard heavy missile launchers and I'm just not seeing a lot of benefit even against cruisers. Then there's having to juggle different types of ammunition. Hard to say until Rubicon comes out, but I think RHMLs are really going to only be advantageous to specific classes of battleships that don't receive any explosion velocity or radius bonuses.



When someoen say taht somethign is goign to be overpowered they are not thinking about Level 4's.. they are thinking about EVE.. and that means PVP

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#359 - 2013-10-24 23:47:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Kagura Nikon wrote:
When someoen say taht somethign is goign to be overpowered they are not thinking about Level 4's.. they are thinking about EVE.. and that means PVP

I am thinking of PvP. With maximum skills, you're looking at 65km range, 105m signature radius, 80% DPS (compared to cruise) and horrible, horrible missile velocity. With cruise you only have a 30-40% larger signature radius, 20% more DPS and the speed is double out to a range of over 200km. Which would you choose?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#360 - 2013-10-25 00:26:24 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
When someoen say taht somethign is goign to be overpowered they are not thinking about Level 4's.. they are thinking about EVE.. and that means PVP

I am thinking of PvP. With maximum skills, you're looking at 65km range, 105m signature radius, 80% DPS (compared to cruise) and horrible, horrible missile velocity. With cruise you only have a 30-40% larger signature radius, 20% more DPS and the speed is double out to a range of over 200km. Which would you choose?


the problem you have here is you assume range is needed ... HM's will do much more damage against a webbed maller than cruises will .. perhaps cruise precision might give Fury/ Faction HM's a run for their money.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using