These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 Missile Launchers - v2

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1161 - 2013-11-12 22:33:37 UTC
Quote:
And before you say "use other weapons" the other missile choices that will fit on a cruiser are worse by much further degrees. Calculate damage application on HAM's and without a double web they can't keep up with lights. Run the same calculation on heavies and they have no chance to compete without at least a 3x paint scenario, and who can afford 3 option mids and still fit a decent shield tank?


"The other weapon systems cannot possibly compete without an absurd amount of extra support because the penalty against larger targets is so small and the upside against smaller targets is so big" is exactly why RLMLs are getting nerfed, yes.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1162 - 2013-11-12 22:35:18 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:

And what of the complete inflexibility of RLMLs in terms of damage type?

Agreed that is a disadvantage... ... but there it is.

BUT THERE IT IS SmileBig smileLolShockedRoll
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery
RAZOR Alliance
#1163 - 2013-11-12 22:36:06 UTC
A 10% rof nerf and a decent increase on powergrid would actually be great for rlm. It tones down the damage slightly while still alowing the ship using it to adapt to a changing situation. It would be massively better than poarizing the damage output in the way you have presently done.

I keep using the example of a frigate warping in mid fight while you have a low clip. This happens, people die and reship, they will get back in a new frigate and you will be stuck reloading. 40 seconds, as shown in the video is a long time, especially with the new warp changes. While you might be able to get similar dps with split weapons you are still ignoring the fact that light missiles especially because of their relatively low damage output (compared to pulse lasers and rails) need to be able to have the option of firing into a resist hole to actually deal the majority of their damage.

If you can not react to a changing situation in a ship, you have a very good reason not to fly the ship if you have any possible other option.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#1164 - 2013-11-12 22:40:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Harari
mynnna wrote:
Quote:
And before you say "use other weapons" the other missile choices that will fit on a cruiser are worse by much further degrees. Calculate damage application on HAM's and without a double web they can't keep up with lights. Run the same calculation on heavies and they have no chance to compete without at least a 3x paint scenario, and who can afford 3 option mids and still fit a decent shield tank?


"The other weapon systems cannot possibly compete without an absurd amount of extra support because the penalty against larger targets is so small and the upside against smaller targets is so big" is exactly why RLMLs are getting nerfed, yes.



http://pbrd.co/1anRRKG
Drake vs cane, no links, no drugs, etc.

The high damage region to the left is with dual webs on the cane.

http://pbrd.co/1anS3JV
Raven (fit pretty much as close to the drake as possible) and fury drake vs cane. Raven is not kin locked, is faster, has a heavy neut, etc.

And before you ask, dps with CN missiles is a bit higher at 384

Edit: Beam harb vs cane w/ maximal transversal. Notice how it does more damage at every single range, apart from the non-realistic very close range where a cane cannot actually mwd at max speed in an orbit.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1165 - 2013-11-12 22:40:25 UTC
Chessur wrote:


Hyperbole? Surely you're joking.


Maybe it was the other Chessur who posted

Chessur wrote:

Welp there goes the:

Cerb
Caracal
Scythe Fleet
Osprey Navy

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1166 - 2013-11-12 22:40:53 UTC
Connall Tara wrote:
so... despite various bits of better judgement i've come back here and decided to crunch some numbers.
. ^_^


Sorry Connal, judging by your post being completely ignored apparently silly things like "math" and "facts" have no place in this debate. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1167 - 2013-11-12 22:41:21 UTC
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:

And what of the complete inflexibility of RLMLs in terms of damage type?

Agreed that is a disadvantage... ... but there it is.

BUT THERE IT IS SmileBig smileLolShockedRoll


Quote mining: a respectable debate tactic.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1168 - 2013-11-12 22:42:29 UTC
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:

And what of the complete inflexibility of RLMLs in terms of damage type?

Agreed that is a disadvantage... ... but there it is.

BUT TS SmileBig smileLolShockedRoll

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1169 - 2013-11-12 22:42:41 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Quote:
And before you say "use other weapons" the other missile choices that will fit on a cruiser are worse by much further degrees. Calculate damage application on HAM's and without a double web they can't keep up with lights. Run the same calculation on heavies and they have no chance to compete without at least a 3x paint scenario, and who can afford 3 option mids and still fit a decent shield tank?


"The other weapon systems cannot possibly compete without an absurd amount of extra support because the penalty against larger targets is so small and the upside against smaller targets is so big" is exactly why RLMLs are getting nerfed, yes.



http://pbrd.co/1anRRKG
Drake vs cane, no links, no drugs, etc.

The high damage region to the left is with dual webs on the cane.

http://pbrd.co/1anS3JV
Raven (fit pretty much as close to the drake as possible) and fury drake vs cane. Raven is not kin locked, is faster, has a heavy neut, etc.

And before you ask, dps with CN missiles is a bit higher at 384


If I'm going to ask anything it's "What do heavy missiles have to do with rapid light launchers", honestly. Ugh

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1170 - 2013-11-12 22:42:48 UTC
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:

And what of the complete inflexibility of RLMLs in terms of damage type?

Agreed that is a disadvantage... ... but there it is.

BUT THERE IT IS SmileBig smileLolShockedRoll

Now where did I lay that quote by Rise saying that would be the first thing addressed in the point release... never mind, continue to ignore that inconvenient fact.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
#1171 - 2013-11-12 22:43:36 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Mhari Dson wrote:
Run the same calculation on heavies and they have no chance to compete without at least a 3x paint scenario, and who can afford 3 option mids and still fit a decent shield tank?


You have succinctly summarised Rise's reason for making the change in the first place.

I argued very passionately against a flat RLML nerf; what we're seeing is the alternative he came up with.


I'll take the mentioned 15% ROF nerf, it's still viable for application in that form. and yes the current TQ iteration is a bit too powerful and that'd bring it more in line with where it should be.
There are points where a BLML would be an advantage as well and I'd like to see more of the system prior to it bieng the nailbat anal probe.

to summarize: Do Both
Kaeda Maxwell
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#1172 - 2013-11-12 22:45:07 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Michael Harari wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


Agreed that is a disadvantage, and it's a really difficult one to mitigate within the parameters of this change. It's a pity EVE weapons work so simplistically (Why can't I load my launchers with 10 EM missiles then 8 explosives?) but there it is. On the other hand as mentioned previously, this change does give you options like splitting your launchers into two groups with different missile types loaded, and still getting "like now" DPS with your first group whilst reloading your second.


People keep saying that. Its not true. You dont get DPS similar to now by splitting weapons.


How does it compare to eg: a flat 15% RoF nerf for RLMLs?


Would have taken that over this. I would have resisted a little but it beats the inflexibility this new front loaded damage mechanic brings with it.

I would prolly even have take it in combination with a PG increase over this. For example on my caracal fit I could have given up my nano or even my dcu for a third bcu, or rigged differently.

The way it is now I don't exaggerate that the weapon becomes a non-option to me, 40 seconds downtime potentially in the middle of a fight on ships that have no or very small drone bays (like the Caracal/Naracal/Cerberus) is just to much of a handicap. Reliability is valued more then anything by most really small gang pvpers in both the people we fly with and in our fits, if we can't count on a ship to perform it's role 'right f-ing now' it is of no use, unlike 0.0 fleets and larger gangs we have no margin for error because that margin instantly kills us.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#1173 - 2013-11-12 22:45:38 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Michael Harari wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Quote:
And before you say "use other weapons" the other missile choices that will fit on a cruiser are worse by much further degrees. Calculate damage application on HAM's and without a double web they can't keep up with lights. Run the same calculation on heavies and they have no chance to compete without at least a 3x paint scenario, and who can afford 3 option mids and still fit a decent shield tank?


"The other weapon systems cannot possibly compete without an absurd amount of extra support because the penalty against larger targets is so small and the upside against smaller targets is so big" is exactly why RLMLs are getting nerfed, yes.



http://pbrd.co/1anRRKG
Drake vs cane, no links, no drugs, etc.

The high damage region to the left is with dual webs on the cane.

http://pbrd.co/1anS3JV
Raven (fit pretty much as close to the drake as possible) and fury drake vs cane. Raven is not kin locked, is faster, has a heavy neut, etc.

And before you ask, dps with CN missiles is a bit higher at 384


If I'm going to ask anything it's "What do heavy missiles have to do with rapid light launchers", honestly. Ugh


You are arguing that RLM are overpowered since HMLs are worse than them in most situations. This has to do with HMLs being worse than pretty much everyhing in most situations, and has nothing to do with RLMs.
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1174 - 2013-11-12 22:46:40 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:

And what of the complete inflexibility of RLMLs in terms of damage type?

Agreed that is a disadvantage... ... but there it is.

BUT THERE IT IS SmileBig smileLolShockedRoll

Quote mining: a respectable debate tactic.

No, that's called summary.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#1175 - 2013-11-12 22:47:11 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:


I would like to point out that you promised to post your defences and views right here where we could respond to them. I've mostly (an early on post in this thread excluded )seen you defend these changes anywhere but here (TMC and Failheap come to mind readily), so if my 'snippy' comment makes you double down on that promise that will actually be much appreciated.



That's fair comment. I honestly did think that I'd actually posted in the first few pages of this thread, but a quick skim through the first half dozen shows me that I must have mixed that up with the FHC thread. Apologies.

The tl;dr of my position on this change is that most fights don't occur between two stationary ships in an isolated constellation and who had no idea about what was going to happen. This change should and will reward smart tactics and piloting (to the extent that I'm trying to be discrete about my enthusiasm for the potential here in case Rise nerfs it back a bit), whilst penalising easy-mode frigate-murdering F1ing somewhat (and actually not even all that much)

The hyperbole of people like Chessur is not only impossible to take seriously, but actively confirms my faith in my support. One recalls similar comments - and threats - in the Titan and Supercarrier nerf threads.

On a tangential side note, one particular CSM member went to bat very hard indeed for the Cerb back when the HAC tiercide happened, and as a result it got a substantially better deal than it was going to. So the fact that the Cerb is so good - or OP, if you like - specifically with RLMLs is partly my doing in the first place.



And what of the complete inflexibility of RLMLs in terms of damage type?


Agreed that is a disadvantage, and it's a really difficult one to mitigate within the parameters of this change. It's a pity EVE weapons work so simplistically (Why can't I load my launchers with 10 EM missiles then 8 explosives?) but there it is. On the other hand as mentioned previously, this change does give you options like splitting your launchers into two groups with different missile types loaded, and still getting "like now" DPS with your first group whilst reloading your second.


In which case you get a flat DPS nerf and still suffer from poor flexibility in damage types, though to a lesser degree. You still won't be able to select ammo efficiently to hit a T2 frig's resist weakness (if one shows up that neither of your ammo types are good against) in which case you'll still be better off unloading everything as fast as possible and hoping for the best. So total inflexibility with a burst DPS buff or poor flexibility with a straight DPS nerf? Wow, what wonderful choices.

And let's extend this conversation to RHMLs, since they are getting mostly ignored in this debate. What is the point of these things at this point? They have all the well-documented weaknesses of HMs, don't benefit from range or explosion bonuses, and suffer from all the inflexibility issues mentioned above. How can you justify supporting the latest version of these things?
Connall Tara
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1176 - 2013-11-12 22:47:12 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Connall Tara wrote:
so for this example i'm assuming everything is 100% applied

now hold on connall! this is absurd? you're assuming 100% damage application and arglFLAR-

yes, i am. but i am a fair fellow so lets flip it around, how much damage would a current RLML caracal deal in the same timeframe? as we know from above the answer 12850.

so, with this little thought experiment we are dealing 12850/21700 damage to these suspiciously identical targets.

each "target" has 7300 hitpoints each.

1:7300/7300
2:7300/7300
3:7300/7300

so lets apply our current caracal to the various targets over 50 seconds and mark the points at which the dps will suceed in killing them.

1:0/7300 - 28.4 sec - 150dps
2:1750/7300 - not dead yet
3:7300/7300 - not dead yet

huzzah! one foe vanquished and another on the way! enemy dps has been reduced by 150 meaning that the caracal is now taking 300 incoming dps for another 6.84 seconds before having that dps go down to 150.

now, how about the same situation with the "new" RLML's?

1:0/7300 - 17.84 sec - 150 dps
2:0/7300 - 35.69 sec - 150 dps
3:1450/7300 - not dead yet

huh... well that's not too shabby now is it?

THIS is the advantage of the new system: burst dps.

remember firepower goes both ways both you shooting at them and them shooting at you. there is very much an advantage to dumping out a similar amount of damage in a shorter time frame as, if fighting multiple smaller targets LIKE THIS WEAPONS ARE INTENDED TO the faster you remove opponents from the field the less time they have to apply dps in return to you. yes, you are going to be "offline" for 40 seconds, but you have killed more of the enemy permitting them less time to deal damage to YOU. is

yes, i'm aware i'm being a little patronizing and YES i'm aware this is all "ideal situation" stuff, but the basic concept of burst damage vs prolonged needed some damn explaining and a thought experiment seemed the best way to explain it. ^_^



Your scenario consist on firign on badly fit frigs that cannto avoid a single point of incomming damage? On real game You woudl kill just 1 frigate and half with your damage at most! (I do not count scenarios were you fire in noobs in horribly fit ships. These woudl die anyway no matter how much you nerf the module, I am thinking on really well fit targetts always)


so... with 20450 damage you can only kill 1 frigate and a half.

but with 23130 damage you'll kill more than that?

please enlighten me more about how 3130 is another half of a frigate in the same time frame, I'd love to know more ^^

Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything"
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1177 - 2013-11-12 22:48:26 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Quote:
And before you say "use other weapons" the other missile choices that will fit on a cruiser are worse by much further degrees. Calculate damage application on HAM's and without a double web they can't keep up with lights. Run the same calculation on heavies and they have no chance to compete without at least a 3x paint scenario, and who can afford 3 option mids and still fit a decent shield tank?


"The other weapon systems cannot possibly compete without an absurd amount of extra support because the penalty against larger targets is so small and the upside against smaller targets is so big" is exactly why RLMLs are getting nerfed, yes.


I'd rather see them nerfed by straight-up reducing their damage (not application-- so that they reliably do medium DPS to small targets, but will always be inferior in terms of DPS compared to their bigger counterparts when used on on-size or bigger targets) than by increasing burst DPS and giving them a horrific reload. Rise's plan will only make gimmick fits (think Caracal with oversized ASB and RLMLs for jumping into a camp and killing a dictor / Daredevil or two before it explodes-- sort of like what people already do with Thrashers and that sort of thing) more potent while not providing a viable option for anyone who needs their ship to perform for more than 50 seconds at a time.

Basically Rise's plan fits into the whole theme of confining ships to "burst" type fittings for PvP. The concept was dumb enough for tanking and I'd really prefer if it didn't bleed over into weapons as well. The new RLMLs will be almost as dumb as giving cruisers an 800 dps, capless burst tank...
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1178 - 2013-11-12 22:48:45 UTC
I would not have thought it possible, but it seems a large section of the community either has completely forgotten how to properly apply hit and run tactics... or simply never understood how to do it in the first place.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#1179 - 2013-11-12 22:51:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Harari
Hmls vs cane, compared to medium beam laser naga (no, not a typo)

http://pbrd.co/1anTbgz

Edit: Naga is using IN standard, which most closely matches the drakes performance. With proper ammo selection, it does more dps at every range, except between 43km and however far the drake can shoot (about 60km in general)
Morwennon
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#1180 - 2013-11-12 22:54:40 UTC
Quote:
HMLs aren't much good, but that's nothing to do with the strength of RLMLs, it's because HMLs are colossal turdpiles that are outperformed by just about every alternative, including the various long-range medium turrets, the other medium missile types, scorch M, and typing bad words in local.