These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Romvex
TURN LEFT
HYDRA RELOADED
#141 - 2017-04-11 05:34:00 UTC
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
#142 - 2017-04-11 15:33:38 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
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
#143 - 2017-04-11 15:34:57 UTC
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.
#144 - 2017-04-11 19:06:35 UTC
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
#145 - 2017-04-11 19:43:28 UTC
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
#146 - 2017-04-11 20:09:40 UTC
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
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#147 - 2017-04-11 20:46:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Soldarius
Players complain about range of light missiles. CCP's 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
#148 - 2017-04-11 21:17:52 UTC
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
#149 - 2017-04-12 16:09:23 UTC
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#150 - 2017-04-12 20:13:19 UTC
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
#151 - 2017-04-12 20:35:48 UTC
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
#152 - 2017-04-12 20:47:07 UTC
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
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#153 - 2017-04-13 05:14:39 UTC
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
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#154 - 2017-04-13 05:39:04 UTC
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.
Lug Muad'Dib
Funk'in Hole
French ConneXion.
#155 - 2017-04-13 11:27:13 UTC
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 Roll
Xain deSleena
Tactically Challenged
Tactical Supremacy
#156 - 2017-04-14 05:48:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Xain deSleena
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.
#157 - 2017-04-14 07:08:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Nightfox BloodRaven
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
Caldari Navy Warfare Group
#158 - 2017-04-14 18:26:01 UTC
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
#159 - 2017-04-14 18:52:13 UTC
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
#160 - 2017-04-15 00:11:40 UTC
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.