Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Correct, it's the same effectiveness against an AB Battleship as well as an AB Battlecruiser (89.9%). Is that unreasonable? Yes and no, as base HAMs are 100% effective against the same class of ships. For HMs, I don't think switching to either Fury or Precision ammunition will make any difference - although I'm going to throw those options up in a specific HML comparison later just to see how effective they are (my suspicion is that Faction and Precision will be a wash, with Fury under performing).


To be sure. I was actually surprised with where HMLs came in at, as I always assumed they were a bit better.


Yes. The idea that I put forward was a passive lot-slot 'Ballistic Enhancer' (although 'Guidance Unit' works too) that would give 20% missile velocity, 10% explosion radius and 10% explosion velocity. Looking at the current numbers, just one of these modules would probably be enough to make RLMLs and HAMLs very effective against smaller targets when combined with rigs and/or tackle. Whether to not this would be overbalanced is anyone's guess at this point.


Without any propulsion module (or scrammed), it's a given that all weapons (including missiles) will be more effective. But just as an example, RLMLs still only have a 75.6% base effectiveness against a scrammed MWD Interceptor. Yes, I'm not taking tank into effect because there are literally too many variations based on different races and hulls for an exhaustive comparison (and would also probably be TL;DR). If someone wants to compile a list of popular cruiser opponents (all I need is the modified signature radius and velocity) I'll be happy to do up a specific chart.

The entire purpose of an AB is to make a ship go faster, some people might chose them over MWD if they want to sig tank... but if your worried about sig tank don't fly a battle cruiser, and by the same token don't design a cruiser weapon system that's only effective against battle cruisers and bigger.

EDIT: My point is that standard cruiser weapons should be designed with standard cruiser targets in mind, not just the biggest ones like battlecruisers. You start by designing the stats against other t1 cruisers, and let battle cruisers fall where they may. So if you look at it this way; it is perfectly reasonable that a HML Caracal should expect to do full damage against ships a class bigger than it. Don't look at it as a weapon system that would be OP, look at it as a disadvantage that should come with flying a bigger hull, you shouldn't expect to be able to sig tank, or speed tank smaller ships when your in a battle cruiser regardless of whether you fit an AB or a MWD, or whether they are hitting with guns or missiles.

To address the "fun" factor of Rapid launchers, and ignoring (for now) corrections that should be made to base missile damage and precision;

The implementation of the rapid launcher change is not fun. Players (myself) do not like 40sec reload times, nor the inability to effectively utilize the advantage of ammo selection that is a large draw to missile use. Down time is not fun (see: primary complaint of ECM mechanics)

The "burst" mechanic of rapid launchers is very interesting (personal opinion). It's current implementation does not highlight it effectively. Turning rapid launchers into pseudo-alpha weapons is really cool. If the missiles were fired even more rapidly (2x), from an even smaller clip, with a reasonable reload time (10 - 20 seconds) and with rate of fire skills applied to reload times, it would be more fun (they would feel more like an alpha-type weapon system).

A slight reduction in DPS potential from rapid launchers was reasonable. Turning these weapons systems into an extreme headache to manage was not.


And I cannot stress enough, with the fact that nearly 50% of the engagement time with rapid launchers is dictated by reload time (as the damage potential from a clip of rapids is insufficient to destroy more than a single target, if that), rate of fire bonuses from the missile skill tree and hull bonuses lose nearly half of their potency. This is extremely disheartening.

I revised the original comparison with a 4th graph showing base damage application (no rigs or electronic warfare). I've included the amended portion here. The results are… intriguing, but I'll let viewers draw their own conclusions.
…..

Tengu Missile Comparison, T2 Missiles
As an added bonus, I've included a comparison with T2 ammunition (no rigs or electronic warfare). It's kind of an interesting graph, because it really shows under which scenarios Precision, Fury, Javelin or Rage really shine. I was actually surprised to see how well Fury LMs outperformed both Precision and Fury HMs on cruisers (truly scary…) HAMs seem to benefit most from Rage ammunition against battlecruisers and battleships.

HAM's and HML's are for cruisers, can you and Gypsio bear that in mind before making sweeping statements.

I'm happy for the space rich who can fly around in Tengu's, but spare a thought for those who have to make do with t1 caracals because we just lost our primary weapon system, Tengu's have other options.

Arthur, you have been posting graphs that both (reasonable) sides of this discussion have applauded for supporting the claims that we are making.
How many supercomputers and PhD candidates do you have conducting this research for you?
(I say supercomputers and research assistants because there has to be some reason that 1 person is able to post these data while the developers of the game can't even find their way into the forum without tripping over their egos.)

No the graphs are great, but you said HAM's are 100% effective against ships in the same class... certain people will sieze on that and run with it, when it isn't strictly true. Your own graphs show that they are not 100% effective against all cruisers, maybe some "Battle"cruisers but not all. Other than that I do appreciate the work your putting in with the graphs, really helps get a good idea of what weapons are useful for which jobs.

This is correct. HAMs don't reach 100% of unbonused damage application (rigs, electronic warfare) until you hit AB Battlecruisers. However, if we're comparing RLML and HAML damage application using RLMLs as a baseline:
• HAMs are 99% effective against MWD Destroyers
• HAMs are 126% effective against AB Cruisers
• HAMs are 142% effective against MWD AHACs
• HAMs are 215% effective against MWD Cruisers
• HAMs are 244% effective (max) against all Battlecruisers and Battleships

Basically this means you could go either way for destroyers, but HAMs will always outperform RLMLs against cruisers by a factor of 126-215%. With rigors and flares, the difference is even more obscene - because RLMLs essentially gain nothing beyond Frigates:
• HAMs are 173% effective against MWD Destroyers
• HAMs are 219% effective against AB Cruisers
• HAMs are 244% (max) effective against everything else

Webs offer the most benefit for increasing damage application, and they tend to lend themselves more to short-range weapons. A HAM setup with rigors, flares and a stasis web will truly be a force to be reckoned with - particularly on the Navy Caracal which receives an additional +25% explosion radius bonus to heavy assault missiles.

I think i'll fit a Caracal with HAM's and and see how it goes because they look decent judging from that

The only problem is that this potentially skews the new rapid heavy missile launchers, because they benefit most from damage - not rate of fire. Torpedoes are now effectively useless.