These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Please buff HAMs versus small ships.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Diamond Zerg
Taking Solo Away.
#1 - 2014-02-12 12:32:44 UTC
Hello.

As someone who enjoys solo and small gang PvP, I think CCP should consider buffing HAMs.

Why? Rapid lights are good against small targets but simply impractical in many other situations.

HAM's should certainly be worse versus small ships than RLMLs but at the moment they barely scratch interceptors— even with a target painter.
In a gun based ship you can at least try to minimize angular velocity to help your guns track more effectively, but as a missile ship pilot versus interceptors there is almost nothing you can do except warp off.

This imo is a problem.
HAMs are only one weapon class up from light missiles. I would expect torpedos to be this useless at damaging frigates (as large turrets are) but not the medium sized missiles.

So in conclusion, I think the effectiveness of HAMs versus small targets should be increased, to make missile cruisers and battlecruisers more versatile.
Hi.
Angelica Dreamstar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2014-02-12 12:36:28 UTC
If a turret based ship manages to minimize angular enough to hit the interceptor, the interceptor pilot needs training sessions.

bingo, his pig not being a goat doesn't make the pig wrong, just him an idiot for shouting at his pig "WHY ARENT YOU A GOAT!" (Source)

-- Ralph King-Griffin, about deranged people playing EVE ONLINE
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2014-02-12 12:37:31 UTC
HAMs absolutely do not need to be buffed.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#4 - 2014-02-12 12:39:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Nah. It is as it should be. There's a reason why we have RLMLs.

Quote:
In a gun based ship you can at least try to minimize angular velocity to help your guns track more effectively, but as a missile ship pilot versus interceptors there is almost nothing you can do except warp off.

Yes, that's how missiles differ from turrets: with missiles, the piloting doesn't matter as much as the fitting; with turrets, the fitting doesn't matter as much as the piloting. Welcome to two completely different weapon systems.
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#5 - 2014-02-12 12:45:13 UTC
Diamond Zerg wrote:
Hello.

As someone who enjoys solo and small gang PvP, I think CCP should consider buffing HAMs.

Why? Rapid lights are good against small targets but simply impractical in many other situations.

thats called balance
Quote:

HAM's should certainly be worse versus small ships than RLMLs but at the moment they barely scratch interceptors— even with a target painter.
In a gun based ship you can at least try to minimize angular velocity to help your guns track more effectively, but as a missile ship pilot versus interceptors there is almost nothing you can do except warp off.

This imo is a problem.
HAMs are only one weapon class up from light missiles. I would expect torpedos to be this useless at damaging frigates (as large turrets are) but not the medium sized missiles.

try to shoot a fast moving interceptor with medium size turret pick any you like, then we talk

Quote:

So in conclusion, I think the effectiveness of HAMs versus small targets should be increased, to make missile cruisers and battlecruisers more versatile.

no you want to eliminate balance

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Karen Avioras
The Raging Raccoons
#6 - 2014-02-12 13:17:41 UTC
surely a warlord as yourself could adapt to things like these
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#7 - 2014-02-12 13:28:18 UTC
Karen Avioras wrote:
surely a warlord as yourself could adapt to things like these


This.

Also - why is almost every thread you make a buff this or nerf that thread?

Nerf highsec
Nerf baiting
Buff HAMs.

Am I missing something?

We should just nerf warlords.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#8 - 2014-02-12 13:33:51 UTC
Diamond Zerg wrote:
Hello.

As someone who enjoys solo and small gang PvP, I think CCP should consider buffing HAMs.

Why? Rapid lights are good against small targets but simply impractical in many other situations.

HAM's should certainly be worse versus small ships than RLMLs but at the moment they barely scratch interceptors— even with a target painter.
In a gun based ship you can at least try to minimize angular velocity to help your guns track more effectively, but as a missile ship pilot versus interceptors there is almost nothing you can do except warp off.

This imo is a problem.
HAMs are only one weapon class up from light missiles. I would expect torpedos to be this useless at damaging frigates (as large turrets are) but not the medium sized missiles.

So in conclusion, I think the effectiveness of HAMs versus small targets should be increased, to make missile cruisers and battlecruisers more versatile.



Webs, scrams, neuts painters. Geez. Stop screaming for game changes and learn to fit your ship for what you want.
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
#9 - 2014-02-12 14:27:03 UTC
Should almost always have a webifier of some type on your ship if you're actively looking to PvP. I'd think that would be the main defense against an interceptor because they depend on speed, and if you slow them down, your chances of getting them goes up.
BrundleMeth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#10 - 2014-02-12 14:33:45 UTC
Diamond Zerg wrote:
Hello.

As someone who enjoys solo and small gang PvP, I think CCP should consider buffing HAMs. (stuff removed) I think the effectiveness of HAMs versus small targets should be increased, to make missile cruisers and battlecruisers more versatile.

Translation = You want easier kills...

Learn to use your gear better...
Silvetica Dian
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2014-02-12 14:35:09 UTC
The reason people are mentioning webs and scrams is that it is the speed inties travel at that makes the damage small rather than the sig radius. TP will make little difference. You need to make them slow down.
Stick your HAM's on a huginn and i will await the thread you make about why inties never engage anyone.

Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85
Deadonstick Puppyseeker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#12 - 2014-02-12 14:38:09 UTC
I agree that missiles are currently ******, esspecially against smaller targets. But I think that's mostly due to that missiles don't have tracking computer-equivalants. A turret ship can simply add more tracking through the use of these. A missile boat has nothing to increase explosion velocity or decrease explosion radius, hence they really can't fit as effectively as well-rounded as turret-based ships.

Giving them a hard-buff however would open up a world of exploits I'm afraid. I do understand your annoyance, but this is unfortunately not a good solution.

Despite what you may have heard there's only one rule of EVE:

Never stop learning and realise there's always a lot more to be learned. To this end, seek wisdom in everything.
WASPY69
Xerum.
#13 - 2014-02-12 14:43:56 UTC
I Love Boobies wrote:
Should almost always have a webifier of some type on your ship if you're actively looking to PvP. I'd think that would be the main defense against an interceptor because they depend on speed, and if you slow them down, your chances of getting them goes up.
This.
A web on a brawl range missile ship is pretty much mandatory in pvp. Missiles have amazing APPLIED damage once it's applied properly. But as mentioned, there's the formula of applying the paper damage. I can easily fit up a 500 DPS HAM Caracal, but against a fast frig, my DPS will be closer to maybe 50. Whereas if i were to find a Battlecruiser or larger I will be looking at my full paper DPS (sans the resists etc.. ).

Explosion Radius VS Ship Radius
Explosion Velocity VS Ship Velocity

This is a good article on missiles. Read it.

This signature intentionally left blank
unidenify
Deaf Armada
#14 - 2014-02-12 15:14:11 UTC
Deadonstick Puppyseeker wrote:
I agree that missiles are currently ******, esspecially against smaller targets. But I think that's mostly due to that missiles don't have tracking computer-equivalants. A turret ship can simply add more tracking through the use of these. A missile boat has nothing to increase explosion velocity or decrease explosion radius, hence they really can't fit as effectively as well-rounded as turret-based ships.

Giving them a hard-buff however would open up a world of exploits I'm afraid. I do understand your annoyance, but this is unfortunately not a good solution.


I don't mind, and in fact I would love to see mid-slot modules that increase missile's damage application
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#15 - 2014-02-12 15:16:54 UTC
If you have one painter and no web on a ceptor, then you shouldn't do anything more than light scratches.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Bertrand Butler
Cras es Noster
#16 - 2014-02-12 15:20:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Bertrand Butler
HAMs are fine.
HMLs need a little more love in the raw dps department to compensate the lower damage application.
LRMs need a bigger magazine hold or a 20s reload time.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#17 - 2014-02-12 17:21:43 UTC
HAMs are fine. Train your support skills. HAM Drake is an absolute murder machine at close range to pretty much everything. Too bad its so slow.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Obvious Cyno
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2014-02-12 17:48:00 UTC
Diamond Zerg wrote:
Hello.

As someone who enjoys solo and small gang PvP, I think CCP should consider buffing HAMs.

Why? Rapid lights are good against small targets but simply impractical in many other situations.

HAM's should certainly be worse versus small ships than RLMLs but at the moment they barely scratch interceptors— even with a target painter.
In a gun based ship you can at least try to minimize angular velocity to help your guns track more effectively, but as a missile ship pilot versus interceptors there is almost nothing you can do except warp off.

This imo is a problem.
HAMs are only one weapon class up from light missiles. I would expect torpedos to be this useless at damaging frigates (as large turrets are) but not the medium sized missiles.

So in conclusion, I think the effectiveness of HAMs versus small targets should be increased, to make missile cruisers and battlecruisers more versatile.


Please get better skills and use a web.
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#19 - 2014-02-12 18:02:44 UTC
CCP, please buff HAMs, so I can pwn all teh n00bs.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#20 - 2014-02-12 18:06:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
If you think HAMs are bad, then you've never flown (or been killed by) a Sacrilege. Those things are pwnmobiles, even against small ships.

Edit: I do agree that the new iteration of Rapid Lights are quite frankly pretty terrible.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
12Next page