These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

RLML and HML balance pass

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Drigo Segvian
Black Fox Marauders
Pen Is Out
#61 - 2017-04-02 00:26:55 UTC
Good Changes.

Goodbye Navy Osprey and Orth. You will be remembered.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#62 - 2017-04-02 00:41:24 UTC
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.


Roll

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
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#63 - 2017-04-02 01:19:51 UTC
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
Funk'in Hole
#64 - 2017-04-02 01:58:18 UTC
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.


Roll

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. Roll
Korvin
Shadow Kingdom
Best Alliance
#65 - 2017-04-02 02:07:39 UTC
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
#66 - 2017-04-02 03:38:45 UTC
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
#67 - 2017-04-02 03:50:43 UTC  |  Edited by: KillCamSpecteR
Well ... Waiting Orth for 100kk , Bargh - 300kk . Ahahah It's time 100ab tengu ...
Creecher Virpio
AlcoDOTTE
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#68 - 2017-04-02 04:13:24 UTC
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
Cultural Enrichment and Synergy of Diversity
Stain Neurodiverse Democracy
#69 - 2017-04-02 04:27:41 UTC
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
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2017-04-02 05:21:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Falin Whalen
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 
Conmen
Syndicate Enterprise
Sigma Grindset
#71 - 2017-04-02 06:54:09 UTC
love the changes for eve hate the changes for the newbros rapid light platform low sp entry level to be effective.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#72 - 2017-04-02 08:10:15 UTC
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.


Roll

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. Roll


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
#73 - 2017-04-02 10:11:29 UTC
Really hope this is an April fool. HML's need application.
Okuu Reiuji
PEETOOSHKEE PRIMARY OK
#74 - 2017-04-02 11:00:49 UTC
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
Beyond Good and Evil.
#75 - 2017-04-02 11:12:56 UTC
as a soloist i am mad

as an fc i am hella happy

godbless
light heaven
JUST SET TIMES
#76 - 2017-04-02 11:23:23 UTC
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
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#77 - 2017-04-02 12:18:14 UTC
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
Pandemic Horde
#78 - 2017-04-02 12:45:28 UTC
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
State War Academy
Caldari State
#79 - 2017-04-02 12:57:42 UTC  |  Edited by: CyberJanus
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 explosion velocity buff on HMLs)
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#80 - 2017-04-02 13:51:07 UTC
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...