These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Fixing HAM and HML

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#81 - 2013-11-05 22:30:02 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:

this guy just doesn't get it. When was the last time CPP addressed PVE activity - especially old content made 5+ years ago? There is a reason your heavy missiles still work in pve cage man and it's because pve hasn't been rebalanced yet. NPCs are characterised by a few things and chief among them are they're slow and have big signatures. Perfect for shooting with heavy missiles.

If pve were ever rebalanced to look like something a bit more modern you'd find heavy missiles do infact suck ass.

Nah, don't mind him - those sleeper site runners are used to endless semi-conscious/afk shootings and all that matters to them is that target eventually goes down. They are rarely if ever bothered with exact damage application - 10 or 15 volleys, well who's counting?
Cage Man
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#82 - 2013-11-05 23:40:12 UTC
Chessur wrote:
Cage Man wrote:
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:
Cage Man wrote:

Clearly you don't get out of HS much. They still work just fine, a little less dps and range, but HML tengu's are still the go to PVE ship for explorers of null and wh's. Yes ham's do more dps, but when you webbed and can't get to the target to apply any dps.. you will understand the need for range.

Reality is HML are nerfed to the ground. Comparing to RLML they have 2x slower explosion velocity and 2x larger explosion radius for almost the same dps. You get double the range though but your applied dps to cruisers and smaller ships is almost nonexistent.


Would really like to see someone run C5 anoms and ded plexes with RLML's. My RR tengu's with HML's work just fine. Yes it would be nice if they did more dps and , but they do work, and the "nerf" hasn't stopped people from using them.


If you would read the topic at all, you would realize that we are talking about PvP applications, not PvE. PvE Has nothing to do with PvP- and certainly not for weapon choice. So please, stop trying to tell me how great your HML's are doing vs the sleepers.


Really ???? Show me where it says PVP???Roll

Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Just seeking opinions on their problems and a few possible fixes for them.

IMO

HML: hasn't been worth using since it was patched. I think they lack the volley damage that would make them comparable to cruises and lights. If I could give them one change it would be set their explosion radius to 120 or so and up the damage.

HAM: going in the opposite direction their explosion radius should be about 90 and maybe gain a little explosion velocity. Their range is ok I think the only ship that really projects them a long way is the cerb. A hamgu doesn't have amazing range and the caracal is much the same.

Anyone else?

Cage Man
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#83 - 2013-11-05 23:47:00 UTC
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:

this guy just doesn't get it. When was the last time CPP addressed PVE activity - especially old content made 5+ years ago? There is a reason your heavy missiles still work in pve cage man and it's because pve hasn't been rebalanced yet. NPCs are characterised by a few things and chief among them are they're slow and have big signatures. Perfect for shooting with heavy missiles.

If pve were ever rebalanced to look like something a bit more modern you'd find heavy missiles do infact suck ass.

Nah, don't mind him - those stinking rich sleeper site runners are used to endless semi-conscious/afk shootings and all that matters to them is that target eventually goes down. They are rarely if ever bothered with exact damage application - 10 or 15 volleys, well who's counting?


Fix that for you.. and running sites in a wh is anything but semi conscious, especially ninj'ing someone elses. One obviously doesn't use tengu's in your own wh as there are far more efficient ways to do it, and of course you want the cap escalation in your own wh.. but you know all about that Blink

@ Caleb the question is for the here and now.. do they work.. well yes they do.. next patch.. who knows.. who cares anyway as smart players adapt.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#84 - 2013-11-06 00:49:30 UTC
I care because because unlike a quick reskill in WoW, EVE takes time. Everything can be measured in time and if you're of the opinion that your playtime is "free" then you're doing something horribly wrong.

My toon here, my only toon FWIW, has 41mil SP of MOSTLY combat related SP. If I find out tomorrow that Fozzie and co. want winmatar to be a thing again then guess what? I'm pretty much ******, it will be another good 4-6 months before I'm relevant to the meta again. In the mean time I get to fly my ****** subpar ships fitted with ****** supbar modules shooting ****** subpar ammo at ranges and tracking/whatever that is laughable compared to wtfop values of the FOTM bandwagon.

Extreme scenarios aside, I do care because all choices should be valid - provided you know where to use them.
Jonas Staal
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#85 - 2013-11-06 11:28:11 UTC
I just wonder why rebalance should not take pve into account...
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#86 - 2013-11-06 11:55:45 UTC
It's the pve that needs to change. The rebalance has several higher level goals to achieve that the pve was never designed to aspire to. When were those level 4s designed? Some of them are almost certainly nearly 10 years old
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#87 - 2013-11-08 16:02:59 UTC
So there, instead of fixing HML and HAM they're planning to nerf* RLML:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=294094

*(buff for short fights tho)
Chessur
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#88 - 2013-11-08 16:22:46 UTC
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:
So there, instead of fixing HML and HAM they're planning to nerf* RLML:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=294094

*(buff for short fights tho)


It is not a buff for short fights. i already made a long detailed post about the RLML changes in that thread. Suffice it to say- the changes are ill conceived. The only use for these missiles will be in huge fleet / blob fights. Which is horrible for solo / small gang and will simply make the list of usable weapon systems even shorter.

40 second reload time is unplayable. You can't change damage, you cant change missile type.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#89 - 2013-11-09 02:52:47 UTC
20second reload penalty would be long enough and still be very taxing. But in exchange charges should be boosted up by a margin too. 18 charges expended in under a minute and then 40 second reload time is like loading rocket launchers with defender missiles - stupid.
Chessur
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#90 - 2013-11-09 04:04:25 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
20second reload penalty would be long enough and still be very taxing. But in exchange charges should be boosted up by a margin too. 18 charges expended in under a minute and then 40 second reload time is like loading rocket launchers with defender missiles - stupid.


No, No, and NOOOOO.

Stop suggesting **** like this, and certainly don't mention it anymore in that ******* joke of a balance thread. I don't want Rize to somehow get it into his head, that having a long reload time (decreasing missile selection / damage type) is some how good for eve, or a positive step for the missile based ships to go.

******* disgraceful.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#91 - 2013-11-09 04:39:12 UTC
Regardless of your feelings I'm getting the impression that Fozzie and Co. might have already seen this thread and have decided from your killmails that RLML were overpowered and that the RHML would go much the same way. Instead of balancing other weapon platforms to be more appealing they're going to nerf the offender down..

My question is why?
Chessur
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#92 - 2013-11-09 14:17:35 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Regardless of your feelings I'm getting the impression that Fozzie and Co. might have already seen this thread and have decided from your killmails that RLML were overpowered and that the RHML would go much the same way. Instead of balancing other weapon platforms to be more appealing they're going to nerf the offender down..

My question is why?


You must be joking me, there is no way that a handful of the killmails that I have posted are causing the balance change. When the new T1 caracals first came out, almost 1 year ago- I was slaughtering things left and right for weeks on end. Do you think that it took them this long, and specificaly this thread to see this? RLM's are not imbalanced in any way. They have less overall DPS than some other options, however they have very consistant DPS- which provided you can fly well is very potent in the hands of a good pilot.

I am sick and itred of rize taking every new balance patch and making it more and more difficult for solo / small gang to find usable ship hulls.
Chessur
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#93 - 2013-11-10 04:32:49 UTC
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=88359&currentpage=1521#30415

Copy and paste that link into your browser, the CCP redirect fucks it up.

That is in its entirety, the ******* up missile algorithm. The TL;DR is this; Missiles are really bad, and mostly apply damage based on velocity, not signature.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#94 - 2013-11-10 06:13:35 UTC
Tested this against some npcs today. Got my ham cerb out and mwd bumped some ships around. A battleship at 400m/s was speed tanking 60% of my dps *after* resists. I've built ravens that can burn at 1400+ while pushing 700dps.. the possibility of one such ship speed tanking my dps is disturbing.

Do those equations vilify the golems tp bonus then? Is this why cal navy ships keep getting missile sig reductions to effect balance?
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#95 - 2013-11-10 08:40:44 UTC
Summary of that link for the silly: using TP's to modify a missiles damage application produces a much worse dps output than webbing a target.

Quote:
Take our original example, the Naga. R_v is .07109 and R_s is 7.1111. Recall that R_v is (Ev/Vel) and R_s is (Ts/Er). Why do target painters suck and why are webs so good?

Target painters affect R_s. They affect the Ts (target signature) term, multiplying it by 1.3. How does this affect the outcome?

R_s_new = R_s * 1.3.

Webs affect R_v. They affect the Vel term in R_v, multiplying it by .4 - and Vel is being divided.

R_v_new = R_v * (1/.4) = R_v * 2.5.

2.5 is a much bigger multiplier than 1.3. Doing (R_v * R_s)^k we get

Neither: .5478
Target Painter: .6905
Web: 1.229 (which forces the equation to pick the S term instead of V)

I think it'd be interesting if webs lowered your sig radius as well as your velocity. Then one day when the Elder Gods arise from the geothermal pits of Iceland and command CCP to make sig radius mean something, sig-tanking armor ships would be really cool.


In other words once a web is introduced the missile algorithm switches to comparing sig radius', under almost all situations though it's a comparison of explosion velocity vs the target ships nominal velocity which never ends well.

If you want to increase your missiles damage application significantly you need to be using webs or trying to force the opponent to change their vector and thus reduce their velocity on their own accord. A target painter will have little benefit by comparison.