These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2661 - 2013-12-03 20:46:11 UTC
Moonaura wrote:
That is fascinating. But it also interesting given how high the Tengu use is (although it can use Blasters).

Regarding what I said about improving Heavy Missiles and nerfing the Tengu, I'm talking about tweaking the bonuses it would get with missiles. If the missiles themselves hit better - which is the fundamental issue with Heavy Missiles - then sure it makes sense that the Tengu would still be just as powerful, even with a tweak to its bonuses? So in fairness, its not a nerf that would stop their use, but just keep it where it is at.

So essentially what I'm suggesting is that Heavy Missiles are improved for all missile ships (because they are woeful at present), vs. stopping the Tengu becoming even more powerful.

This is the heart of what makes good balancing, surely?

Generally speaking I like your idea but... if you buff heavy missiles insufficiently they will still be worse than they were before and you risk nerfing Tengu for HAM's as well. I don't believe CCP Hammer is able to do it without overdoing it, I just don't. Besides, Tengu with old heavies was never OP. Okay, perhaps range was a bit too much but that would be it.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#2662 - 2013-12-03 20:51:34 UTC  |  Edited by: scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Dr Sraggles wrote:

ps. Maybe I have been listening to too many conspiracies theories about server issues in huge missile fights but maybe it is time to change them to a new class of weapons (the Photon Missile) that has extremely high speeds (like projectiles) to instantly apply damage but otherwise retain the explosion velocity and radius characteristics (brought into better balance) so that they can be used in large scale battles without their slow flight and numbers creating lag.

I would rather see every weapon except the laser have a velocity, except missiles which would have an acceleration number, but I acknowledge the massive server load this would cause. I would like even more to see that programmed to run on another processor core to make best use of the multi-core processors we are using, but I also acknowledge that as a not insignificant feat.
With that being said, I actually really like your idea; on the surface it seems to solve a lot of the problems with missiles in general without creating any new issues that will make them overpowered. However something has to be done with the hull bonuses to missile velocity and flight time. Possibly change those to a very slight increase in explosion radius or velocity? Maybe a slight RoF increase or "enhanced missile tracking" that improves accuracy by a small percentage? Just off the top of my head while I take a break from homework.
I've also had a problem with "kinetic" missiles for a while, the name and damage type imply that they are not exploding, but rather ramming the target. I would like to see kinetic missiles have a lower "accuracy" than the other types, but also a higher potential damage. This provides a use for the kinetic bonused hulls in the sense that their kinetic boost applies to the accuracy of the kinetic projectile instead of the damage directly. So the explosive, thermal, and EM missiles will all explode and use the standard explosion radius/velocity figures to apply their damage with possibly a small effect from a skill/hull based accuracy number that can effect damage by +/- 2.5% and the kinetic missiles are not affected by explosion radius/velocity numbers and rely on the accuracy skill and hull bonus to affect their damage either way.
But that's just off the top of my head
Edit: The "accuracy" figure I speak of would allow for sub-optimal missile hits as well as "critical", full damage, hits while maintaining the reliable damage of missiles. The difference would be larger for the kinetic missile mechanics I proposed, but would still only vary by at most +-5% from base before being affected by a skill.
Not a refined idea at all, but I wanted to get it out there
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#2663 - 2013-12-03 21:32:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Zvaarian the Red
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Moonaura wrote:
That is fascinating. But it also interesting given how high the Tengu use is (although it can use Blasters).

Regarding what I said about improving Heavy Missiles and nerfing the Tengu, I'm talking about tweaking the bonuses it would get with missiles. If the missiles themselves hit better - which is the fundamental issue with Heavy Missiles - then sure it makes sense that the Tengu would still be just as powerful, even with a tweak to its bonuses? So in fairness, its not a nerf that would stop their use, but just keep it where it is at.

So essentially what I'm suggesting is that Heavy Missiles are improved for all missile ships (because they are woeful at present), vs. stopping the Tengu becoming even more powerful.

This is the heart of what makes good balancing, surely?

Those are probably fleet railgun Tengus. The Tengu bonuses aren't that out of balance when you look at the new Cerberus:

Tengu: 5% kinetic damage, 7.5% ROF, 10% HM/HAM velocity (only)
Cerberus: 5% kinetic damage, 5% ROF, 10% velocity (all), 10% flight time (all)

Cerberus will run 6 launchers (10 equivalent with bonuses) vs either 5 launchers (10 equivalent) or 6 launchers (12 equivalent) on the Tengu. Since running a 6th launcher on a Tengu is really only for PvE, you're basically at the same DPS for a Tengu. So why exactly does it need to be nerfed into the ground again?


I must have missed where he suggested it should be nerfed into the ground. I only saw him saying it should be adjusted down a bit to compensate for a heavy missile buff, basically keeping it at the same level while buffing all the other heavy missile ships.

Though I personally don't think it's necessary I get where he's coming from.
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#2664 - 2013-12-03 22:34:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenshi Hanshin
Dr Sraggles wrote:
Dear CCP Rise,

Previously we have expanded on the concept of "User Metrics" to assess the acceptance and effectiveness of certain weapon systems and your intent on considering this at least in part when looking at ship/weapon system balance.

I ask that you and the community take a look at these metrics compiled from 12/1 to 12/3.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20


Now, it is my understanding that these are self reported metrics (I could be wrong) and so there would be an inherent bias in this statistical compilation. However, I would welcome your comments and as well, in the spirit of game balance and an open dialogue, ask what it is that you would dispute in the accuracy of these statistics?

In particular I would draw your attention to the "Rank Weapons" where we find the only missile system dead last in the Top 20 and it is the Light Missile II launcher, a frig class weapon.

Note that the RLML and RHML are nowhere to be seen as well as the ships capable of mounting these systems. Needless to say there is not a sign of HAMS or HML or any Caldari ship other than our fine frigates.

Note in the "Rank Ships" list that there is a significant outlier (Dominix) that indicates profound balance issues but the one shining light for Caldari is the Tengu. However as it's perceived weapons system (missiles) is nowhere to be seen apparently they are Rail Tengus which (apparently?) are used in Null Blob fleet doctrine per report.

Regardless, the point is that something missile was not fixed with Rubicon, it was further broken in fact if these metrics have validity. If I knew how I would search pre-Rubicon statistics and expect to find the "old" RLML high on the list if it was in need a such a dramatic nerf? My actual sense is that it was no where to be seen as compared to other light/medium weapons systems.

What exactly is being "fixed" with Rubicon? My humble user sense of things that I am left with is that RLML got nerfed because it was all we used, so it must've been too good without looking at the pathetic performance of missiles over all.

I welcome your feedback and that of any others that can shed light on these issues and how these lists are compiled as there appears to be a disconnect between ship success and weapons success that is not apparent to me.

best

ps. Maybe I have been listening to too many conspiracies theories about server issues in huge missile fights but maybe it is time to change them to a new class of weapons (the Photon Missile) that has extremely high speeds (like projectiles) to instantly apply damage but otherwise retain the explosion velocity and radius characteristics (brought into better balance) so that they can be used in large scale battles without their slow flight and numbers creating lag.

Did you notice the Domix is 3x the number of kills of the 2nd place ship according to that data? Likewise the HML T2 has 750 kills to it compared to 2,747 of 200mm Autocannon T2s (~3.7x the HML). I do not see RLML or any other similar missile launcher system on there. The only other missiles are the Arbalest Torps which are at 1,926 kills. However, the torp figure has more to do with the SBs than anything else I suspect.

CCP Rise, these are user reported statistics. So you cannot tell me that Missiles are Balanced or that the Domi is not OP. Also I would love to hear your explanation for why 200mm Auto IIs and Light Neutron Blaster IIs are so popular compared to everything else.
Dr Sraggles
The Covenant of Blood
#2665 - 2013-12-04 00:06:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Dr Sraggles
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:

Did you notice the Domix is 3x the number of kills of the 2nd place ship according to that data? Likewise the HML T2 has 750 kills to it compared to 2,747 of 200mm Autocannon T2s (~3.7x the HML). I do not see RLML or any other similar missile launcher system on there. The only other missiles are the Arbalest Torps which are at 1,926 kills. However, the torp figure has more to do with the SBs than anything else I suspect.

CCP Rise, these are user reported statistics. So you cannot tell me that Missiles are Balanced or that the Domi is not OP. Also I would love to hear your explanation for why 200mm Auto IIs and Light Neutron Blaster IIs are so popular compared to everything else.


The outlier that is the Dominix should be a huge red flag. When you analyze stuff like this the outlier is always a concern. 3 times the number of kills as the next ship is a big issue for balance. The data says you take Domi's or you go home in a pod. The only caveat is that if everyone has Domi's then it is fair. Well, for Null fleets that is likely true. BS don't participate in small scale gang stuff much, which is a shame.

I would say when it comes to "killing blows" that blasters are possibly a little low due to range issues in a mixed fleet, in my experience (and Drones probably getting some KB that are not reported in this data set). If we look at the Rank Ships we can see blaster/drone boats are more than healthy. Nerf Drones and improve blaster range, imo.

However, we should compare HML to other "medium" weapons like those we find on other Cruiser/Battlecruisers like 250mm rails, 720mm Arty and Heavy Neutron II's etc.

If we do we basically find that HML are at the bottom of the list of that class weapon with some 3x less than my beloved 250mm rails etc. with projectiles and lasers all superior.

*If* we can accept these user reported stats as "actionable" (ie good data) then it is clear that HML need a buff as well as HAMs as they should actually make it on to this list especially if Rails/Blasters, Artie/Auto etc. make it from the same classes of ships.
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
#2666 - 2013-12-04 00:26:07 UTC
Dr Sraggles wrote:
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:

Did you notice the Domix is 3x the number of kills of the 2nd place ship according to that data? Likewise the HML T2 has 750 kills to it compared to 2,747 of 200mm Autocannon T2s (~3.7x the HML). I do not see RLML or any other similar missile launcher system on there. The only other missiles are the Arbalest Torps which are at 1,926 kills. However, the torp figure has more to do with the SBs than anything else I suspect.

CCP Rise, these are user reported statistics. So you cannot tell me that Missiles are Balanced or that the Domi is not OP. Also I would love to hear your explanation for why 200mm Auto IIs and Light Neutron Blaster IIs are so popular compared to everything else.


The outlier that is the Dominix should be a huge red flag. When you analyze stuff like this the outlier is always a concern. 3 times the number of kills as the next ship is a big issue for balance. The data says you take Domi's or you go home in a pod. The only caveat is that if everyone has Domi's then it is fair. Well, for Null fleets that is likely true. BS don't participate in small scale gang stuff much, which is a shame.

I would say when it comes to "killing blows" that blasters are a little low due to range issues in a mixed fleet, in my experience (and Drones probably getting some KB that are not reported in this data set). If we look at the Rank Ships we can see blaster/drone boats are more than healthy. Nerf Drones and improve blaster range, imo.

However, we should compare HML to other "medium" weapons like those we find on other Cruiser/Battlecruisers like 250mm rails, 720mm Arty and Heavy Neutron II's etc.

If we do we basically find that HML are at the bottom of the list of that class weapon with some 3x less than my beloved 250mm rails etc. with projectiles and lasers all superior.

*If* we can accept these user reported stats as "actionable" (ie good data) then it is clear that HML need a buff as well as HAMs as they should actually make it on to this list especially if Rails/Blasters, Artie/Auto etc. make it in the same class.


I think those stats refer to what players were in when they got killed by other players, rather than the amount of kills they racked up. It shows the ships/weapons popularity in pvp rather than effectiveness, but the two are essentially the same thing since people generally use whatever is most effective; wisdom of crowds and all that. That would explain the absence of drones in the stats.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#2667 - 2013-12-04 00:43:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
I must have missed where he suggested it should be nerfed into the ground. I only saw him saying it should be adjusted down a bit to compensate for a heavy missile buff, basically keeping it at the same level while buffing all the other heavy missile ships. Though I personally don't think it's necessary I get where he's coming from.

I believe the exact quote was something to the effect of "...while T3s won't be nerfed to the point of uselessness..." Well, since Tengus are now pretty much useless outside of PvE with the RLML change and previous HM nerf, that translates into dead. Any further nerf equates to burying them 6 feet under. So when I said "nerfed into the ground", I really did mean dead and buried.

Fourteen Maken wrote:
That would explain the absence of drones in the stats.

I suspect a lot of these are fleet actions. But in fairness, we're only looking at a brief window of a few days here.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Dr Sraggles
The Covenant of Blood
#2668 - 2013-12-04 01:19:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Dr Sraggles
Fourteen Maken wrote:


I think those stats refer to what players were in when they got killed by other players, rather than the amount of kills they racked up. It shows the ships/weapons popularity in pvp rather than effectiveness, but the two are essentially the same thing since people generally use whatever is most effective; wisdom of crowds and all that. That would explain the absence of drones in the stats.



Yea, I really don't know to be honest. I just went with the "most kills by..." because every other stat listed is "most kills by...Corp, Player, Alliance etc....".

To be sure I would find it rather surprising that the Dominix was the most destroyed ship in eve by a factor of 3 over the next as well as that list of other very, very capable ships being the most destroyed. Certainly popular ships get risked in combat and do eventually come to an end so either way it should be meaningful....But it simply makes no sense that they are interested in the most destroyed rather than what is killing those Domis....unless it is other Domis and SB I guess....?

I keep searching around the site looking for info totaled for November but find no such link. This historical information would be very useful to the community. The "Top 20" is continually updated so at least we can follow this over the next month I think.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#2669 - 2013-12-04 01:26:35 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
I must have missed where he suggested it should be nerfed into the ground. I only saw him saying it should be adjusted down a bit to compensate for a heavy missile buff, basically keeping it at the same level while buffing all the other heavy missile ships. Though I personally don't think it's necessary I get where he's coming from.

I believe the exact quote was something to the effect of "...while T3s won't be nerfed to the point of uselessness..." Well, since Tengus are now pretty much useless outside of PvE with the RLML change and previous HM nerf, that translates into dead. Any further nerf equates to burying them 6 feet under. So when I said "nerfed into the ground", I really did mean dead and buried.

Fourteen Maken wrote:
That would explain the absence of drones in the stats.

I suspect a lot of these are fleet actions. But in fairness, we're only looking at a brief window of a few days here.

Ok, what I understood was that he was advocating a buff to medium missiles, and nerfing the Tengu to keep it in line with where it is now in relation to other ships. This would increase the effectiveness of all medium missile ships without making the Tengu OP.
The nerf would be applied after the HM/HAM buff to keep the Tengu balanced.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2670 - 2013-12-04 01:29:09 UTC
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:
Dr Sraggles wrote:
Dear CCP Rise,

Previously we have expanded on the concept of "User Metrics" to assess the acceptance and effectiveness of certain weapon systems and your intent on considering this at least in part when looking at ship/weapon system balance.

I ask that you and the community take a look at these metrics compiled from 12/1 to 12/3.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20


Now, it is my understanding that these are self reported metrics (I could be wrong) and so there would be an inherent bias in this statistical compilation. However, I would welcome your comments and as well, in the spirit of game balance and an open dialogue, ask what it is that you would dispute in the accuracy of these statistics?

In particular I would draw your attention to the "Rank Weapons" where we find the only missile system dead last in the Top 20 and it is the Light Missile II launcher, a frig class weapon.

Note that the RLML and RHML are nowhere to be seen as well as the ships capable of mounting these systems. Needless to say there is not a sign of HAMS or HML or any Caldari ship other than our fine frigates.

Note in the "Rank Ships" list that there is a significant outlier (Dominix) that indicates profound balance issues but the one shining light for Caldari is the Tengu. However as it's perceived weapons system (missiles) is nowhere to be seen apparently they are Rail Tengus which (apparently?) are used in Null Blob fleet doctrine per report.

Regardless, the point is that something missile was not fixed with Rubicon, it was further broken in fact if these metrics have validity. If I knew how I would search pre-Rubicon statistics and expect to find the "old" RLML high on the list if it was in need a such a dramatic nerf? My actual sense is that it was no where to be seen as compared to other light/medium weapons systems.

What exactly is being "fixed" with Rubicon? My humble user sense of things that I am left with is that RLML got nerfed because it was all we used, so it must've been too good without looking at the pathetic performance of missiles over all.

I welcome your feedback and that of any others that can shed light on these issues and how these lists are compiled as there appears to be a disconnect between ship success and weapons success that is not apparent to me.

best

ps. Maybe I have been listening to too many conspiracies theories about server issues in huge missile fights but maybe it is time to change them to a new class of weapons (the Photon Missile) that has extremely high speeds (like projectiles) to instantly apply damage but otherwise retain the explosion velocity and radius characteristics (brought into better balance) so that they can be used in large scale battles without their slow flight and numbers creating lag.

Did you notice the Domix is 3x the number of kills of the 2nd place ship according to that data? Likewise the HML T2 has 750 kills to it compared to 2,747 of 200mm Autocannon T2s (~3.7x the HML). I do not see RLML or any other similar missile launcher system on there. The only other missiles are the Arbalest Torps which are at 1,926 kills. However, the torp figure has more to do with the SBs than anything else I suspect.

CCP Rise, these are user reported statistics. So you cannot tell me that Missiles are Balanced or that the Domi is not OP. Also I would love to hear your explanation for why 200mm Auto IIs and Light Neutron Blaster IIs are so popular compared to everything else.



That actually used to be the drake's spot.

All that in reference though, if eve kill listed sentry drones as weapons. it would be a totally different top 20.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#2671 - 2013-12-04 01:36:27 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:
Dr Sraggles wrote:
Dear CCP Rise,

Previously we have expanded on the concept of "User Metrics" to assess the acceptance and effectiveness of certain weapon systems and your intent on considering this at least in part when looking at ship/weapon system balance.

I ask that you and the community take a look at these metrics compiled from 12/1 to 12/3.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20


Now, it is my understanding that these are self reported metrics (I could be wrong) and so there would be an inherent bias in this statistical compilation. However, I would welcome your comments and as well, in the spirit of game balance and an open dialogue, ask what it is that you would dispute in the accuracy of these statistics?

In particular I would draw your attention to the "Rank Weapons" where we find the only missile system dead last in the Top 20 and it is the Light Missile II launcher, a frig class weapon.

Note that the RLML and RHML are nowhere to be seen as well as the ships capable of mounting these systems. Needless to say there is not a sign of HAMS or HML or any Caldari ship other than our fine frigates.

Note in the "Rank Ships" list that there is a significant outlier (Dominix) that indicates profound balance issues but the one shining light for Caldari is the Tengu. However as it's perceived weapons system (missiles) is nowhere to be seen apparently they are Rail Tengus which (apparently?) are used in Null Blob fleet doctrine per report.

Regardless, the point is that something missile was not fixed with Rubicon, it was further broken in fact if these metrics have validity. If I knew how I would search pre-Rubicon statistics and expect to find the "old" RLML high on the list if it was in need a such a dramatic nerf? My actual sense is that it was no where to be seen as compared to other light/medium weapons systems.

What exactly is being "fixed" with Rubicon? My humble user sense of things that I am left with is that RLML got nerfed because it was all we used, so it must've been too good without looking at the pathetic performance of missiles over all.

I welcome your feedback and that of any others that can shed light on these issues and how these lists are compiled as there appears to be a disconnect between ship success and weapons success that is not apparent to me.

best

ps. Maybe I have been listening to too many conspiracies theories about server issues in huge missile fights but maybe it is time to change them to a new class of weapons (the Photon Missile) that has extremely high speeds (like projectiles) to instantly apply damage but otherwise retain the explosion velocity and radius characteristics (brought into better balance) so that they can be used in large scale battles without their slow flight and numbers creating lag.

Did you notice the Domix is 3x the number of kills of the 2nd place ship according to that data? Likewise the HML T2 has 750 kills to it compared to 2,747 of 200mm Autocannon T2s (~3.7x the HML). I do not see RLML or any other similar missile launcher system on there. The only other missiles are the Arbalest Torps which are at 1,926 kills. However, the torp figure has more to do with the SBs than anything else I suspect.

CCP Rise, these are user reported statistics. So you cannot tell me that Missiles are Balanced or that the Domi is not OP. Also I would love to hear your explanation for why 200mm Auto IIs and Light Neutron Blaster IIs are so popular compared to everything else.



That actually used to be the drake's spot.

All that in reference though, if eve kill listed sentry drones as weapons. it would be a totally different top 20.


Too bad Caldari aren't the drone race. If they had the most underpowered weapon systems combined with the most overpowered weapon systems it would kind of balance out...kind of.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2672 - 2013-12-04 01:44:36 UTC
Zvaarian the Red wrote:


Too bad Caldari aren't the drone race. If they had the most underpowered weapon systems combined with the most overpowered weapon systems it would kind of balance out...kind of.


I tell people that want to hybrid and caldari to start training gallente early. Merlin is outshined by Incruris on pretty much every level, the AFs are close, cruisers...moa vs thorax? Yeah rax all day, Diemost vs eagle? Do we need to go there. Ferox and Brutix? 820DPS brutix please Rokh vs mega/hype......what is that Rokh thing again.

Gallente do it better and they do it better across the board, you can make an argument for the Rokh, but like I said its a judgement call between Rohk and Mega.

....and I'm not sure what their issue with missiles is, every "balance" pass makes missiles less appealing, with the exception of cruise missiles, which are of dubious use outside of PvE.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#2673 - 2013-12-04 02:17:51 UTC
I'd imagine that RLML and RHML will get clip size buffs before the next expansion. 30-40 charges each. Expect the reload time to stay though.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2674 - 2013-12-04 02:29:12 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
I'd imagine that RLML and RHML will get clip size buffs before the next expansion. 30-40 charges each. Expect the reload time to stay though.



They will remain trash then.

.....the long cooldown thing is getting tiresome, "rapidly"
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#2675 - 2013-12-04 02:30:41 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
I'd imagine that RLML and RHML will get clip size buffs before the next expansion. 30-40 charges each. Expect the reload time to stay though.

Clip size doesn't matter if they're still crap.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#2676 - 2013-12-04 03:26:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Possible RLML Solution?
I spent the afternoon crunching some numbers, and I think I may (emphasis on "may") have arrived at a RLML solution (hat's off to Jayne Filion for providing his handy missile calculation spreadsheet, which helped immensely).
TL;DR - RLML fix.

This remedy addresses the following:
• The OP status of light missiles in the previous RLMLs against, well - virtual everything
• The lack of ballistic damage application modules and the limited number of slots on light ship classes
• The new RLML "burst" launchers and 40-second reload time

RLML Launcher Changes
RLMLs are revised to their original (Odyssey) specs, with the exception of the new grid/CPU requirements and a reduction in ammo capacity by 1/3 (this places capacity between heavy and heavy assault missiles).
• T2 RLML ... 9.6s ROF, 0.80m3 capacity (53 rounds)

Light Missile Changes
Light missiles get a nerf... and a buff.
• Damage is reduced by 11% (before anyone peaks and freaks, light missiles were buffed 10% back when heavy missiles got nerfed - so this effectively puts them back to where they were; this is where the problems all started, so I'm returning to the scene of the crime...)
• Explosion radius is reduced 12%, so this is a buff (explosion velocity remains unchanged)

What does this achieve? While doing less "paper DPS", light missiles actually do more applied damage to smaller targets without the need for stasis webs and target painters. This benefits light class vessels in solo or small-gang PvP. Light missiles do become less effective against cruisers (by about 10%), which was one concern with the original RLMLs if I recall correctly.

The first thing we need to look at is damage application (and not DPS) vs. various targets, and is listed as a % of total applied damage possible. There were eight (8) different types of targets compared: the first % number is Odyssey (O) with the second % number the proposed (P); I'm not even listing the Rubicon % because the burst/40-second reload totally skews it (suffice it to say, when you factor-in the 40-second reload of the Rubicon version damage application is actually the worst - but no surprises there).

• Interceptor ... 80m signature, 4500m/sec velocity ... 20.8% (O) ... 20.2% (P)
• AB Frigate ... 40m signature, 1000m/sec velocity ... 33.9% (O) ... 32.9% (P)
• MWD Assault Frigate ... 135m signature, 2200m/sec velocity ... 43.9% (O) ... 42.6% (P)
• MWD Frigate ... 235m signature, 2800m/sec velocity ... 53.1% (O) ... 51.5% (P)
• MWD Destroyer ... 400m signature, 1800m/sec velocity ... 95.6% (O) ... 88.5% (P)
• AB Cruiser ... 175m signature, 600m/sec velocity ... 99.9% (O) ... 88.5% (P)
• MWD AHAC ... 500m signature, 1500m/sec velocity ... 99.9% (O) ... 88.5% (P)
• MWD Cruiser ... 800m signature, 1500m/sec velocity ... 99.9% (O) ... 88.5% (P)

As you can see, there's virtually no change from interceptors to frigates. It's only when you get to destroyers and higher that the "nerf" kicks in. Damage application drops 7.1% against destroyers and 11.4% against cruisers. Battlecruisers and battleships aren't in the mix, but the degree of damage applicable to those classes starts to fall into the law of diminishing returns.

Comments welcome.

PS. CCP Rise, if you're still following this - I have all the data/spreadsheets (so drop me a line and I'll be happy to forward them to you).

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#2677 - 2013-12-04 03:42:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Hasikan Miallok
The issue with looking at raw ship and weapon stats is its a game where people tend to flock to whats optimal.

Hence if something is only a few percent more effective it will suddenly appear in fleet doctrines and be the tool of choice across the board.

If something is three times more common than anything else its clearly more effective than the other choices, but that does not make it 3 times better. Even being 5-10% better would create that result.

As far as the original topic ... the current rapids are next to useless in PvE where fights are long duration, and even in PvP are only of interest in a situation where limited short durations engagements are envisioned ... suicide ganking comes to mind ... otherwise they are just meh .
General Jack Cosmo
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#2678 - 2013-12-04 04:17:44 UTC
here's my problem we seem to have too many ships doing to many things and now the missile launchers !

why not instead have t2 launchers have different t2 missile's to do different things and have faction missle do dmg!

With lord Xanex by my side I can do anything (Atleast with a smile) !!!!
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#2679 - 2013-12-04 04:28:51 UTC
General Jack Cosmo wrote:
here's my problem we seem to have too many ships doing to many things and now the missile launchers !

why not instead have t2 launchers have different t2 missile's to do different things and have faction missle do dmg!

I hope for the sake of any progeny you might have that you were not being serious with that.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#2680 - 2013-12-04 04:29:38 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
I hope for the sake of any progeny you might have that you were not being serious with that.

Let's hope.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.