These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Rubicon] Rapid Heavy Missile Launchers

First post First post
Author
Rovinia
Exotic Dancers Union
#21 - 2013-10-07 12:26:07 UTC
Like it Smile
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#22 - 2013-10-07 12:30:00 UTC
RLMLs are overpowered because light missiles are overpowered, but also just the role itself. We have these things called destroyers, which are supposed to kill frigates - it's what they do, and then the caracal comes along and does more damage at 5x the range, goes faster and has many times the tank.
Not sure why we need another class of ships that wrecks cruisers, we already have battlecruisers, and they're far more prominent than they probably should be.
Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#23 - 2013-10-07 12:43:05 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Is a Rapid Cruise Missile Launcher on project for capitals ?


Right when other capitals get a 6x Tachyon/Rail weapon with half the DPS of current dread weapons but battleship tracking (hint: you dont want this)
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#24 - 2013-10-07 12:46:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
TrouserDeagle wrote:
RLMLs are overpowered because light missiles are overpowered, but also just the role itself. We have these things called destroyers, which are supposed to kill frigates - it's what they do, and then the caracal comes along and does more damage at 5x the range, goes faster and has many times the tank.
Not sure why we need another class of ships that wrecks cruisers, we already have battlecruisers, and they're far more prominent than they probably should be.


Dude dont you think that you're slightly overreacting here ?
I've been in FW for a while now (this is where you're most likely to see t1 cruisers and frigates fighting eachother) and I can assure you that I've never seen nor been killed by RLMLs.
Remember that if you're at "5x times the range" you can still warp out. Also remember that since the ammo is the same and the range bonuses between frigs and cruisers are the same, a caracal won't hit from a longer distance than a frigate, if both are using light missiles. The range thing you're mentionning is thus invalid and a proof that you are objectively overreacting.

Also, battlecruisers don't wreck cruisers. At least not when BCs are using missiles. Have you ever tried to hit an AB cruiser with heavy missiles ?

About RHML, I believe that on a non target-painted BC they should do slightly less damage than a cruise would on a target-painted BC. On a cruiser they should probably outdamage cruise missiles regardless of if it's painted or not (= one paint, I'm not talking about crazy situations like 3 paints + motionless cruiser).
Versus other BS however, they should do less damages than cruise missiles even without paint. Seems obvious but I'm not entierly sure it would be the case if the BS is going fast. However perhaps cruise missiles should be buffed here, not the opposite.

Of course, since the only stat we can balance here is rate of fire, it only leaves limited options.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#25 - 2013-10-07 12:49:06 UTC
can we have rapid rapid lights instead?

jk these look cool, missiles getting the same options as turrets have with their low fitting, higher tracking guns.
but on the subject of missiles i think you should up heavy missile damage (and perhaps reduce application) because right now they are just worse than rapid lights in almost every case
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#26 - 2013-10-07 12:52:59 UTC
Altrue wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
RLMLs are overpowered because light missiles are overpowered, but also just the role itself. We have these things called destroyers, which are supposed to kill frigates - it's what they do, and then the caracal comes along and does more damage at 5x the range, goes faster and has many times the tank.
Not sure why we need another class of ships that wrecks cruisers, we already have battlecruisers, and they're far more prominent than they probably should be.


Dude dont you think that you're slightly overreacting here ?
I've been in FW for a while now (this is where you're most likely to see t1 cruisers and frigates fighting eachother) and I can assure you that I've never seen nor been killed by RLMLs.
Remember that if you're at "5x times the range" you can still warp out. Also remember that since the ammo is the same and the range bonuses between frigs and cruisers are the same, a caracal won't hit from a longer distance than a frigate, if both are using light missiles. The range thing you're mentionning is thus invalid and a proof that you are objectively overreacting.

Also, battlecruisers don't wreck cruisers. At least not when BCs are using missiles. Have you ever tried to hit an AB cruiser with heavy missiles ?

About RHML, I believe that on a non target-painted BC they should do slightly less damage than a cruise would on a target-painted BC. On a cruiser they should probably outdamage cruise missiles regardless of if it's painted or not (= one paint, I'm not talking about crazy situations like 3 paints + motionless cruiser).
Versus other BS however, they should do less damages than cruise missiles even without paint. Seems obvious but I'm not entierly sure it would be the case if the BS is going fast. However perhaps cruise missiles should be buffed here, not the opposite.

Of course, since the only stat we can balance here is rate of fire, it only leaves limited options.


How much people use them is irrelevant. Try flying one yourself. I was using them before the cruiser and LML rebalance, and they were still very silly back then.
Caleb Seremshur
Mortis Angelus
The morgue.
#27 - 2013-10-07 12:53:44 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
RLMLs are overpowered because light missiles are overpowered, but also just the role itself. We have these things called destroyers, which are supposed to kill frigates - it's what they do, and then the caracal comes along and does more damage at 5x the range, goes faster and has many times the tank.
Not sure why we need another class of ships that wrecks cruisers, we already have battlecruisers, and they're far more prominent than they probably should be.


Have you debated the application of RHML in use against ABCs?

FWIW I can still push heavy missiles to 140km on a Cerberus. Assuming the bog-standard 50% range bonus on a raven that could mean what... 90km range at least? Also much better damage application against ABCs shouldn't be discounted, granted at significantly lower comparable DPS.

I agree with previous posters that HMLs need to be fixed. They were nerfed too hard and now aren't justifiable for common use.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#28 - 2013-10-07 12:59:47 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
I agree with previous posters that HMLs need to be fixed. They were nerfed too hard and now aren't justifiable for common use.

LR weapon is not supposed to have a common use but a defined use. HML are a long range medium missile. If you don't shoot cruisers past 30km, then you don't need HML, and that's fine, because you have HAM for this closer range.
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#29 - 2013-10-07 13:03:54 UTC
Updated the OP to fix the PG/CPU backwardsness and also to include the way we are dealing with bonuses.

@ccp_rise

ApolloF117 HUN
Cranberrie knuckles
Mordus Angels
#30 - 2013-10-07 13:09:39 UTC
make this launchers fittable for the naga
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#31 - 2013-10-07 13:13:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
ApolloF117 HUN wrote:
make this launchers fittable for the naga


Hey actually that would be a cool way to leave the option open to return to its original design.

Edit : No range bonus applied CCP Rise ? The range will be quite ridiculous :/

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#32 - 2013-10-07 13:16:12 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

Forgot to mention something important - Battleships with Damage bonuses (like Raven and Typhoon rate of fire) will have those bonuses applied to the new launchers. Any bonuses to damage projection or application will NOT be applied (such as Raven missile velocity or Typhoon explosion velocity).


Why.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#33 - 2013-10-07 13:18:04 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
...
  • Adds continuity with medium sized missile systems...
  • That the same kind of continuity CCP has avoided like the plague when it comes to pulse lasers?

    Give me/us/them Medium and Large Gatling lasers! Lol
    Altrue wrote:
    ..Dude dont you think that you're slightly overreacting here?...

    RLML wielded by a Caracal gives you a ~68 km range, range at which destroyers most commonly get to engage is around 10-15km .. seems like the x5 range is spot on.
    While that excessive range does allow you to warp out, keep in mind that the frigate/destroyer that is on the receiving end has to close to well within point range to apply any damage so that argument is null and void in most situations.

    When a ship with RLML is on the field it is basically a no-fly zone for anything small and even some cruisers (nano, light buffer). Everyone laughed at the FW Caldari die-hards when they starting running around in Caracals all those years ago, right up until the penny dropped and people realised that there is nothing one can do against them other than run away or ship up .. high-dps/high-tank AB frigates are you best bet and even then you are lucky to do any armour damage on him.

    In short:
    RLML Cruisers are better destroyers than destroyers and the dps hit is marginal against other cruisers due to what amounts to 100% applied damage using lights.
    There is no reason whatsoever to think that things will be any different with regards to a RHML. A one-stop weapon choice that outperforms all other options in the majority of scenarios.
    TAckermassacker
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #34 - 2013-10-07 13:23:43 UTC
    i want the missile velocity bonus as well like the caracal does it to rapid light
    Altrue
    Exploration Frontier inc
    Tactical-Retreat
    #35 - 2013-10-07 13:27:58 UTC
    Veshta Yoshida wrote:
    CCP Rise wrote:
    ...
  • Adds continuity with medium sized missile systems...
  • That the same kind of continuity CCP has avoided like the plague when it comes to pulse lasers?

    Give me/us/them Medium and Large Gatling lasers! Lol
    Altrue wrote:
    ..Dude dont you think that you're slightly overreacting here?...

    RLML wielded by a Caracal gives you a ~68 km range, range at which destroyers most commonly get to engage is around 10-15km .. seems like the x5 range is spot on.
    While that excessive range does allow you to warp out, keep in mind that the frigate/destroyer that is on the receiving end has to close to well within point range to apply any damage so that argument is null and void in most situations.

    When a ship with RLML is on the field it is basically a no-fly zone for anything small and even some cruisers (nano, light buffer). Everyone laughed at the FW Caldari die-hards when they starting running around in Caracals all those years ago, right up until the penny dropped and people realised that there is nothing one can do against them other than run away or ship up .. high-dps/high-tank AB frigates are you best bet and even then you are lucky to do any armour damage on him.

    In short:
    RLML Cruisers are better destroyers than destroyers and the dps hit is marginal against other cruisers due to what amounts to 100% applied damage using lights.
    There is no reason whatsoever to think that things will be any different with regards to a RHML. A one-stop weapon choice that outperforms all other options in the majority of scenarios.


    ... yet there are only so many cruisers seen with RLML.
    Also : You're comparing a ship using a short range weapon to a ship using long range weapons. In every situation the short range will have to close the distance while the other is applying DPS. That's you're point which is invalid :D

    Signature Tanking Best Tanking

    [Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

    Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

    BAJRAN BALI
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #36 - 2013-10-07 13:31:18 UTC
    Will their be a new skill with these launchers or will they piggy back off the heavy missile skills? Will there be t2 versions of these?

    YouTube: kds119 Twitter: @realkds119 Blog: derptw.blogspot.com

    TrouserDeagle
    Beyond Divinity Inc
    Shadow Cartel
    #37 - 2013-10-07 13:31:34 UTC
    Veshta Yoshida wrote:

    That the same kind of continuity CCP has avoided like the plague when it comes to pulse lasers?


    God, lasers make me so autistic. We have small focused lasers, and focused medium lasers, and we have both light lasers and small lasers. I don't remember which CCP guy thought this was a good idea. We also have pulse energy beams.
    Kane Fenris
    NWP
    #38 - 2013-10-07 13:34:08 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:

    Forgot to mention something important - Battleships with Damage bonuses (like Raven and Typhoon rate of fire) will have those bonuses applied to the new launchers. Any bonuses to damage projection or application will NOT be applied (such as Raven missile velocity or Typhoon explosion velocity).


    missile velocity not applying is inconsistent.
    Darling Hassasin
    Imperial Academy
    Amarr Empire
    #39 - 2013-10-07 13:35:20 UTC
    Go away people, nothing to see here, other than ridiculously pre-nerfed drivel. One will outdamge this ridiculously with the various cruise missiles on all ships classes.
    Kaarous Aldurald
    Black Hydra Consortium.
    #40 - 2013-10-07 13:37:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
    TrouserDeagle wrote:
    Veshta Yoshida wrote:

    That the same kind of continuity CCP has avoided like the plague when it comes to pulse lasers?


    God, lasers make me so autistic. We have small focused lasers, and focused medium lasers, and we have both light lasers and small lasers. I don't remember which CCP guy thought this was a good idea. We also have pulse energy beams.


    Confirming that the entire laser naming scheme is a bane to good grammar and to noobs trying to figure out what to fit.

    [Edit: Oh, and the word "maser" is ****ing stupid.

    "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.