Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Still no answer on HML?

I Like it

Caldari have always been a joke at PVP when flying anything larger than a frigate

- slow ships,
- missile travel time
- anemic DPS from Rails

with this, hopefully the Moa and the ferox might actually see some use

Mr missile hater thank you for your concern.


Now, as someone who flies everything I welcome these changes to medium sized long range weapons but keep the same feedback:
HML need to be buffed.

Stop trying to balance hml ships (nighthawk, claymore, sacrilege etc when they don't use ham) while hml are in that utterly useless state.

And while you're at it, start considering rapid light missile launchers as proper cruiser sized weapons, and give bonus to all of missile using ship (cruiser/BC size).


That way missile users would have 3 weapon systems true:
-RLM with low dps, medium range, good damage application (100% on cruisers, good on frigs)
-HAM with hi dps, low range, medium damage application (100% on slow Cruisers and bigger, poor on frigs)
-HML with medium dps, long range, poor damage application (100% on BCs, bad on cruisers, horrible on frigs)

Compared to turrets which will have, after Odyssee 1.1
-close range, high dps, good damage application (100% on cruisers, good on frig except AB up close)
-long range, high dps (yes...), medium damage application (100% on cruisers at 25+km, 100% on mwd frig at 80+km)

Right now hml have too low of a dps to be even considered, and their range is not even interesting unless on bonuses ships. Add their poor damage application (no cruiser take full damage from them) on you really have the worst weapon system.

Besides, it would only be consistent with what you did to cruise missiles...

Train sarcasm detection up a lvl or two.

my bad. sawey

Yes, because one's targets never move. I know I know I should have gone short range guns because stupid me I moved too close to my target. Ugh, it's almost like fitting HMs or HAMs when I should have just fit RLML. I should have known the speed and sig parameters of all the ships I might run into. Turrets are easy. I'm just bad

I don't know if someone has already mentioned it, but...

Does anybody find it weird that Short guns with Long ammo have (approximately) the same DPS and Range as Long guns with Short ammo, but the Short gun still wins in terms of Tracking, Fitting and Cap Stability even after the ammo penalties?

There's simply no debating it here - unless your target is going to die on the very first volley, there is no reason to fit a Long gun with Short ammo because all you end up doing is gimping your everything for negligible gains. That's also why T2 Short Gun Long Ammo is considered the de-facto choice, well...across the board really. Sure it's a DPS loss compared to the -50% and -75% optimal ammo, but after considering damage projection and fitting requirements it's simply the best possible choice unless you can guarantee that you're literally on top of your target as soon as you warp on the grid.

Even if you consider Long with Long, there's still the other issue of the minimum warp range being 150 km, meaning that after a certain point you actually DON'T want to get further away even if your ship and guns would support > 150 km optimal. And while I'm a bit of a noob and only really EFT warrior it, it's ABSURDLY easy to break 150 optimal on anything that has a +Range bonus, and even easier if you're using Long ammo. This ends up making the -50% Optimal the ammo of choice of Long guns, simply because it's the highest DPS and alpha, without kissing the 150 km threshold nor gimping the range so hard that it drops to T2 Short Ammo.

In all honestly I'd much rather see sweeping AMMO balance changes instead of trying to fix the guns.

I can understand blasters needed tracking enhancers as they are designed for short range surely rails should be usable without TE's or TC's like missles.

This means that you have nerfed tracking but then assumes that people are going to fit 2 mods which each increase tracking by 9.5%

(Thorax and Talos also have tracking bonus whereas the Deimos doesn’t which kind of makes this comparison a bit odd)

This graph showing tracking is all well and good but it is not a real situation when both targets are moving with high transversal trying to move out of point range which makes rail deimos’s tracking go to **** (yes I own a rail deimos don’t judge). So unless your view is that they should only be used at 40km+ they really don’t need a tracking nerf.


Also why would you pick a talwar? The destroyer with the smallest sig, I tried your graph with a catalyst and the talos starts hitting better at 20KM, vs a thorax it hits better at 7km onwards…



That is all relative to the signature radius, it’s not a fixed 19% it’s a graph, Talwar sig with mwd on is 135, a catalyst’s sig is 408, a thorax is 720… so unless you are fighting a fleet of 100mn ships you are better off in a Talos.

More power grid is needed on the ferox though to properly fit a full rack of 250mms plus a tank and prop mods etc.

1. Caracals. They're very good despite missile travel time, and they're actually rather speedy.

2. The Moa is already used as a blaster platform in certain roles. The Ferox is a subpar battlecruiser to almost everything in nearly every way save for tank. It's pretty much the new Prophecy in that regard.

3. These changes will not incentivize the fitting of railguns on Caldari hybrid ships. The railguns that will fit on the Moa without absolutely ******** smashing of your defensive and mobility modules will still be doing crap damage, AFAIK. With WORSE TRACKING. You'll want the 250mms and nothing else, really, and even then they're a nightmare to fit- this aspect of railguns, their absolutely anemic performance for such outrageous fitting costs, was never really addressed.