Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

If this is a joke then it's in poor taste after the March update joke...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



Shhhhhh, don't tell them that Ferox is still viable.

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.

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

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.