These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#3141 - 2013-12-11 21:44:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Bouh Revetoile
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
I have a direct question for you and I want a direct answer.

Do you think it's acceptable for a heavy missile launcher with no damage application bonuses of any kind to only apply 67.2% of its damage against a Rupture using no prop mod? Do you think a cruiser should be able to speed tank a third of the damage away without any prop mod?

And let's be clear, turret cruisers under the same conditions have pretty much 100% damage application through the majority of their optimal range in most cases.
You see, that's exactly the half picture I'm talking about since the begining : if you tank that Rupture with shield, you'll get full damage. If you tank it with armor, you'll get 89% of your full dps, and the damage reduction will be less when AB/MWDing.

So yes, I think it's fine, because untanked Rupture are ballsy enough to deserve something...

Yes, numbers are that different between a tanked and untanked cruiser for missiles damage application, that's why I'm highly criticizing these numbers on untanked hulls.

PS : normal speed is what a cruiser will have when he something with scram+web. In these circumstances, the cruiser can avoid some turret dps, even with short range ones.
Chigurh Friendo
Fight The Blob
#3142 - 2013-12-11 21:55:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Chigurh Friendo
I was a heavy RLML user prior to the Rubicon release. In my own experience, I have abandoned the weapon system since Rubicon's launch. In its place, I have substituted LMLs, or I am flying different hulls...

In my view, the 40 second reload timer, as it pertains to ammo switching, is prohibitive, and I will not be using this weapon system until this change is made.

In terms of power level, the RLMLs and LMLs are fairly comparable at this point. It is a heavy nerf to the RLML system as a whole, but, for the role of small tackle killing, having a range and transversal independent weapon system is still of considerable value against small, fast targets.

Rise, please stand by your original commitment to allow for a separate ammo selection timer on the order of 5-10 seconds... as opposed to maintaining the current status quo where it takes 40 second to swap ammo types.
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
#3143 - 2013-12-11 22:02:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Fourteen Maken
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Moonaura wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Actually I am gathering and compiling data, but that takes time and efforts and I have a life too.


Does this mean you'll come on SISI too? I can tell you now, that is the only way to really see if the guns work as expected. I'll bring beer and women if you do.


I went on sisi and fought 2 cruise-missile ravens in my deimos (125m2 sig radius). The cruise missiles (coupled with target painters) obliterated the (fully gang-linked) deimos while it was moving at max speed. The gang links included evasive maneuvering so the deimos' sig radius was under 100.

I would encourage die-hard missile fans who are disappointed with HMs to try cruise missile fitted ships if possible. I think you'll be really pleased.

It's a case of life giving you lemons, so make lemonade.



Cruise missiles are definitely better than heavy missiles, but there are reasons you don't see them in PVP much. I'm guessing those fits were completely maxed out for damage application at range. Also did you try a 1v1 fight against just one raven?


A deimos can comfortably perma tank 1 Raven. Megathron vs Deimos would be a more interesting fight, then it comes down to who is the better able to control range and angular. Assuming that Deimos has an AB judging by his sig size, if you put an MWD on a blaster fit megathron you could control range and if you are burning directly away from him and making him chase by keeping him in disruptor range you could keep the dps at between 4-600dps.

Cruise missiles are not OP, certain people just want to use HML as the yardstick by which all missiles should be measured so they are effectively removed from pvp completely.

EDIT: Precision cruises will do between 120-180 dps against an orbiting Deimos, compared with HML's thats decent but compared to any other large turret, or drone weapon system it is the lowest by far.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#3144 - 2013-12-11 22:10:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Zvaarian the Red
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
I have a direct question for you and I want a direct answer.

Do you think it's acceptable for a heavy missile launcher with no damage application bonuses of any kind to only apply 67.2% of its damage against a Rupture using no prop mod? Do you think a cruiser should be able to speed tank a third of the damage away without any prop mod?

And let's be clear, turret cruisers under the same conditions have pretty much 100% damage application through the majority of their optimal range in most cases.
You see, that's exactly the half picture I'm talking about since the begining : if you tank that Rupture with shield, you'll get full damage. If you tank it with armor, you'll get 89% of your full dps, and the damage reduction will be less when AB/MWDing.

So yes, I think it's fine, because untanked Rupture are ballsy enough to deserve something...

Yes, numbers are that different between a tanked and untanked cruiser for missiles damage application, that's why I'm highly criticizing these numbers on untanked hulls.

PS : normal speed is what a cruiser will have when he something with scram+web. In these circumstances, the cruiser can avoid some turret dps, even with short range ones.


And damage application improves for guns too in that case. And for drones as well. You talk about half a picture, but that's all you ever present. You do understand that a ship being fit so that it is easier to hit applies to all weapon types right? If I blow up my sig when shield tanking I'm blowing it up for everyone. If I slow myself down with armor plates everyone shooting at me benefits. You get that right?

So we are left comparing weapon to weapon, and heavy missiles suck against medium long range turrets. If I add an afterburner to that Rupture the difference becomes truly pronounced, as turret boats will continue to apply damage well if competently flown and only start having similar issues to heavy missiles if literally flown at the worst possible traversal angles. At that point the only advantage becomes that the missile boat can continue to do damage a extreme close range. Though with heavy missiles that is generally neither here nor there because if a fight reaches that range you are dead because you are applying a tiny fraction of your max DPS while they obliterate you with their close range weapons.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#3145 - 2013-12-11 22:26:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Bouh Revetoile
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
So we are left comparing weapon to weapon, and heavy missiles suck against medium long range turrets. If I add an afterburner to that Rupture the difference becomes truly pronounced, as turret boats will continue to apply damage well if competently flown and only start having similar issues to heavy missiles if literally flown at the worst possible traversal angles. At that point the only advantage becomes that the missile boat can continue to do damage a extreme close range. Though with heavy missiles that is generally neither here nor there because if a fight reaches that range you are dead because you are applying a tiny fraction of your max DPS while they obliterate you with their close range weapons.
I already said it, but if you are "competent enough", you have nothing to do with missiles.

But remember that if it's your oponent who is "competent enough", you will hit himt for nothing.

And I don't forget half the picture : even when tanked a ship can still avoid turret dps, you "only" need to hug him close enough, which is "easily doable if you are competent enough".

Turret damage application is dynamic because linked to relative positions and speeds. When missiles hit for X damage a ship, they will hit him for X damage over the whole fight without fluctuations.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#3146 - 2013-12-11 22:27:43 UTC
Fourteen Maken wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Moonaura wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Actually I am gathering and compiling data, but that takes time and efforts and I have a life too.


Does this mean you'll come on SISI too? I can tell you now, that is the only way to really see if the guns work as expected. I'll bring beer and women if you do.


I went on sisi and fought 2 cruise-missile ravens in my deimos (125m2 sig radius). The cruise missiles (coupled with target painters) obliterated the (fully gang-linked) deimos while it was moving at max speed. The gang links included evasive maneuvering so the deimos' sig radius was under 100.

I would encourage die-hard missile fans who are disappointed with HMs to try cruise missile fitted ships if possible. I think you'll be really pleased.

It's a case of life giving you lemons, so make lemonade.



Cruise missiles are definitely better than heavy missiles, but there are reasons you don't see them in PVP much. I'm guessing those fits were completely maxed out for damage application at range. Also did you try a 1v1 fight against just one raven?


A deimos can comfortably perma tank 1 Raven. Megathron vs Deimos would be a more interesting fight, then it comes down to who is the better able to control range and angular. Assuming that Deimos has an AB judging by his sig size, if you put an MWD on a blaster fit megathron you could control range and if you are burning directly away from him and making him chase by keeping him in disruptor range you could keep the dps at between 4-600dps.

Cruise missiles are not OP, certain people just want to use HML as the yardstick by which all missiles should be measured so they are effectively removed from pvp completely.


We are in total agreement. Cruise missiles are in a good place relative to most other missiles, but in the grand scheme of things even they are sub-optimal compared to competing turrets. At this point I'm relegated to hoping for that status for all missiles. They do have inherit advantages such as consistent damage at all ranges, no capacitor needs, and immunity to tracking disruption so I guess I can live with them being functionally a bit behind turrets, but right now most of them are light years behind instead.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#3147 - 2013-12-11 22:29:58 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
I already said it, but if you are "competent enough", you have nothing to do with missiles.


And this why you are not worthy of a response from anyone in this thread.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#3148 - 2013-12-11 22:35:43 UTC
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
I already said it, but if you are "competent enough", you have nothing to do with missiles.


And this why you are not worthy of a response from anyone in this thread.
Man, you want missiles to always operate with the same power than turrets in best case scenarios. What does that worth ?
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#3149 - 2013-12-11 22:40:37 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
I already said it, but if you are "competent enough", you have nothing to do with missiles.


And this why you are not worthy of a response from anyone in this thread.
Man, you want missiles to always operate with the same power than turrets in best case scenarios. What does that worth ?


I want them to operate better than the worst case scenario which is where HMs are at now.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3150 - 2013-12-11 23:25:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Mournful Conciousness
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Moonaura wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Actually I am gathering and compiling data, but that takes time and efforts and I have a life too.


Does this mean you'll come on SISI too? I can tell you now, that is the only way to really see if the guns work as expected. I'll bring beer and women if you do.


I went on sisi and fought 2 cruise-missile ravens in my deimos (125m2 sig radius). The cruise missiles (coupled with target painters) obliterated the (fully gang-linked) deimos while it was moving at max speed. The gang links included evasive maneuvering so the deimos' sig radius was under 100.

I would encourage die-hard missile fans who are disappointed with HMs to try cruise missile fitted ships if possible. I think you'll be really pleased.

It's a case of life giving you lemons, so make lemonade.



Cruise missiles are definitely better than heavy missiles, but there are reasons you don't see them in PVP much. I'm guessing those fits were completely maxed out for damage application at range. Also did you try a 1v1 fight against just one raven?


I did not, but from my experiences on Sisi I would certainly be happy to take on a single raven in a deimos. The only way he'd kill me is if he had 2 neuts.

But eve does not scale linearly in all directions. In the same deimos would do better against 2 gunnery battleships (not vindicators!) than it would against 2 ravens - particularly if they had long range weapons systems fitted. Simply because it can eliminate the DPS of one of the battleships by orbiting it at 500m. You can't do that against a raven - your only hope is to get to max velocity which, as already noted, is not enough to escape the effects of target painters coupled with the alpha strike of the cruise missiles.

One deimos could probably score a kill against 4 artillery battleships before being forced to warp out, but it would die in a horrible fireball to 4 battleships fitted with cruise.

The upshot of all this? Missiles are fleet weapons - excellent against skirmishers. Gunnery systems are specialised. They are better at either short or long range, when the gunner dictates range and transversal. I want both guns AND missiles in my squads.

When you meet me, so will you.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#3151 - 2013-12-11 23:39:15 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Moonaura wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Actually I am gathering and compiling data, but that takes time and efforts and I have a life too.


Does this mean you'll come on SISI too? I can tell you now, that is the only way to really see if the guns work as expected. I'll bring beer and women if you do.


I went on sisi and fought 2 cruise-missile ravens in my deimos (125m2 sig radius). The cruise missiles (coupled with target painters) obliterated the (fully gang-linked) deimos while it was moving at max speed. The gang links included evasive maneuvering so the deimos' sig radius was under 100.

I would encourage die-hard missile fans who are disappointed with HMs to try cruise missile fitted ships if possible. I think you'll be really pleased.

It's a case of life giving you lemons, so make lemonade.



Cruise missiles are definitely better than heavy missiles, but there are reasons you don't see them in PVP much. I'm guessing those fits were completely maxed out for damage application at range. Also did you try a 1v1 fight against just one raven?


I did not, but from my experiences on Sisi I would certainly be happy to take on a single raven in a deimos. The only way he'd kill me is if he had 2 neuts.

But eve does not scale linearly in all directions. In the same deimos would do better against 2 gunnery battleships (not vindicators!) than it would against 2 ravens - particularly if they had long range weapons systems fitted. Simply because it can eliminate the DPS of one of the battleships by orbiting it at 500m. You can't do that against a raven - your only hope is to get to max velocity which, as already noted, is not enough to escape the effects of target painters coupled with the alpha strike of the cruise missiles.

One deimos could probably score a kill against 4 artillery battleships before being forced to warp out, but it would die in a horrible fireball to 4 battleships fitted with cruise.

The upshot of all this? Missiles are fleet weapons - excellent against skirmishers. Gunnery systems are specialised. They are better at either short or long range, when the gunner dictates range and transversal. I want both guns AND missiles in my squads.

When you meet me, so will you.


Very good points. Definitely makes me reconsider the PVP viability of cruise missiles a bit. Unfortunately much of what you just said does not apply to heavy missiles, nor the new rapid launchers, both of which need some serious work to be on par in their class with cruise missiles.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3152 - 2013-12-12 00:04:22 UTC
Zvaarian the Red wrote:

Very good points. Definitely makes me reconsider the PVP viability of cruise missiles a bit. Unfortunately much of what you just said does not apply to heavy missiles, nor the new rapid launchers, both of which need some serious work to be on par in their class with cruise missiles.


Thanks. Yes, the 2 missile systems we use are cruise and HAMs (on a sacrilege).

In my view the whole rapid light class of missile was ill-advised. Because it does not depend on transversal like a gun, there is no defence against it. It's either going to kill the frigate (its intended victim) or not.

* If it kills the frigate, it's always going to kill the frigate so it will be considered OP.

* If it fails to kill the frigate, it will be considered "useless".

There's just no way to win. It's not like that with guns. I have killed frigates with a hyperion using ion blasters - by applying a neut, web, scram and then kiting away under MWD while firing weapons. It takes some skill and timing, and the frigate pilot has a very real chance of surviving.

In my view, RLMLs should never have seen the light of day. The job of killing frigates should have been left to destroyers. If you create a successful RLML system, you have just eliminated the need to put someone in a destroyer so a whole ship class is rendered once again redundant. That's a shame I think.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#3153 - 2013-12-12 00:05:09 UTC
Updated Comparison
I's time get the discussion back on-track, it's chart time again! Target vessels have been sorted according to applied damage, and each line on the graph represents 20 applied DPS. First, the disclaimers...

Target Vessels: I revised the values for all ships up to and including strategic cruisers, utilizing the "worst-case scenario", ie: the fastest Minmatar ships with the lowest signature radius. Opposing ship fittings consisted of an applicable T2 propulsion module with V skills. As these do not reflect a signature increase or velocity decrease due to shield extenders, armor plating, associated rigs, implants (±) or the wide range of variations one will experience with different races - these should be taken with a grain of salt.

Missile Test Platform: This was a base Tengu with V skills and subsystems. A single T2 launcher with Faction Scourge ammunition was fitted along with 3x T2 Ballistic Control Systems. For the rig comparison, 2x T2 Medium Warhead Rigors and 1x T2 Medium Warhead Flare rigs were utilized. Electronic warfare was a single T2 Target Painter. DPS reflects both reload times and ammunition capacity.

Missile Comparison (with and without rigs)
Missile Comparison (electronic warfare, with and without rigs)
RLMLs - as has been previously stated, there's almost no benefit to running rigs against cruisers, and a single target painter is more effective against destroyers than full rigs.
HAMLs - a single target painter makes HAMs more effective against cruisers than LMs. With rigs, these are insane.
HMLs - these really need rigs and target painters to shine.

Missile Comparison, HML Fix (with and without rigs)
Missiles Comparison, HML Fix (electronic warfare, with and without rigs)
Oh, and I fixed medium HMs. Completely. The change takes all of modifying 2 lines of code. I'll let the results speak for themselves…

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
#3154 - 2013-12-12 00:26:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Fourteen Maken
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


I did not, but from my experiences on Sisi I would certainly be happy to take on a single raven in a deimos. The only way he'd kill me is if he had 2 neuts.

But eve does not scale linearly in all directions. In the same deimos would do better against 2 gunnery battleships (not vindicators!) than it would against 2 ravens - particularly if they had long range weapons systems fitted. Simply because it can eliminate the DPS of one of the battleships by orbiting it at 500m. You can't do that against a raven - your only hope is to get to max velocity which, as already noted, is not enough to escape the effects of target painters coupled with the alpha strike of the cruise missiles.

One deimos could probably score a kill against 4 artillery battleships before being forced to warp out, but it would die in a horrible fireball to 4 battleships fitted with cruise.

The upshot of all this? Missiles are fleet weapons - excellent against skirmishers. Gunnery systems are specialised. They are better at either short or long range, when the gunner dictates range and transversal. I want both guns AND missiles in my squads.

When you meet me, so will you.


Cruise seem to be in a good place, several posters have already said in this thread alone that Light missiles and Cruise missiles are working fine, it's just everything in between and after that's the problem. RLML used to plug most of that gap but now it's been changed something should be done about the damage application of HAM's but especially HML's which are utter **** and nobody can deny that with a straight face. We are not asking for a DPS buff or an OP weapon just better application. In terms of battleships I think most of the weapon systems have a role, if you want to complain about cruise being OP go start a nerf cruise missiles thread and I'll start a nerf blasters and drones thread, but I will have pvp usage stats and dps charts to back up my claims not campfire stories about a hero in a raven blapping noobs in frigates that were stupid enough to stay even though they could have warped off at any time. Here's another youtube video showing a three man frig gang killing a raven:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBwSZMvKudg
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3155 - 2013-12-12 00:32:41 UTC
Fourteen Maken wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


I did not, but from my experiences on Sisi I would certainly be happy to take on a single raven in a deimos. The only way he'd kill me is if he had 2 neuts.

But eve does not scale linearly in all directions. In the same deimos would do better against 2 gunnery battleships (not vindicators!) than it would against 2 ravens - particularly if they had long range weapons systems fitted. Simply because it can eliminate the DPS of one of the battleships by orbiting it at 500m. You can't do that against a raven - your only hope is to get to max velocity which, as already noted, is not enough to escape the effects of target painters coupled with the alpha strike of the cruise missiles.

One deimos could probably score a kill against 4 artillery battleships before being forced to warp out, but it would die in a horrible fireball to 4 battleships fitted with cruise.

The upshot of all this? Missiles are fleet weapons - excellent against skirmishers. Gunnery systems are specialised. They are better at either short or long range, when the gunner dictates range and transversal. I want both guns AND missiles in my squads.

When you meet me, so will you.


Cruise seem to be in a good place, several posters have already said in this thread alone that Light missiles and Cruise missiles are working fine, it's just everything in between and after that's the problem. RLML used to plug most of that gap but now it's been changed something should be done about the damage application of HAM's but especially HML's which are utter **** and nobody can deny that with a straight face. We are not asking for a DPS buff or an OP weapon just better application. In terms of battleships I think most of the weapon systems have a role, if you want to complain about cruise being OP go start a nerf cruise missiles thread and I'll start a nerf blasters and drones thread, but I will have pvp usage stats and dps charts to back up my claims not campfire stories about a hero in a raven blapping noobs in frigates that were stupid enough to stay even though they could have warped off at any time. Here's another youtube video showing a three man frig gang killing a raven:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBwSZMvKudg


If I have given the impression that I want cruise nerfed then forgive me because that was not my intention. I am simply saying that HAMs and cruise are the best missile systems for my purposes, so I'll use them, and since I don't hold any ideology other than wanting to win every engagement, I'll use them alongside gunnery systems because I think both systems have a place in the same squad.

I think I have been quite clear in an earlier post that my view is that missiles are a fleet weapon, not suitable for individual combat. So I am unsurprised that a frigate gang could overwhelm a single raven. (A frigate gang could of course easily overwhelm a dominix, or even a machariel too.)

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
#3156 - 2013-12-12 00:34:25 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


If I have given the impression that I want cruise nerfed then forgive me because that was not my intention. I am simply saying that HAMs and cruise are the best missile systems for my purposes, so I'll use them, and since I don't hold any ideology other than wanting to win every engagement, I'll use them alongside gunnery systems because I think both systems have a place in the same squad.

I think I have been quite clear in an earlier post that my view is that missiles are a fleet weapon, not suitable for individual combat. So I am unsurprised that a frigate gang could overwhelm a single raven. (A frigate gang could of course easily overwhelm a dominix, or even a machariel too.)



My bad then
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#3157 - 2013-12-12 00:41:40 UTC
HML fix, see above.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3158 - 2013-12-12 00:50:37 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
HML fix, see above.


Forgive me Arthur, what do you mean by "fix"? Are you proposing a fix to HMLs, or have you fixed the spreadsheet that generated the charts?

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#3159 - 2013-12-12 01:00:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Forgive me Arthur, what do you mean by "fix"? Are you proposing a fix to HMLs, or have you fixed the spreadsheet that generated the charts?

I was able to fix the non-modified damage application of HAMLs and HMLs against smaller vessels, and the second series of graphs show the results with and without rigs, and with and without rigs while using electronic warfare. As an example, against the MWD Interceptor HAMs previously did 4.55 DPS - they now do 9.37 DPS; HMs previously did 5.42 DPS - they now do 6.29. The benefit is more pronounced for HAMs, less so for HMs. The bottom line is that an unmodified original HML does 5.42 DPS against a MWD Interceptor; a modified HML (rigs, EW) now does 11.57. For comparison, the new RLML does 26.7 DPS similarly configured.

What's most important is that this particular fix doesn't alter the damage application of HAMs and HMs against cruisers and larger targets, so it won't skew damage application for the new rapid heavy missile launchers against large targets (they will be marginally more effective against smaller targets, however).

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#3160 - 2013-12-12 01:06:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenshi Hanshin
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Updated Comparison
I's time get the discussion back on-track, it's chart time again! Target vessels have been sorted according to applied damage, and each line on the graph represents 20 applied DPS. First, the disclaimers...

Target Vessels: I revised the values for all ships up to and including strategic cruisers, utilizing the "worst-case scenario", ie: the fastest Minmatar ships with the lowest signature radius. Opposing ship fittings consisted of an applicable T2 propulsion module with V skills. As these do not reflect a signature increase or velocity decrease due to shield extenders, armor plating, associated rigs, implants (±) or the wide range of variations one will experience with different races - these should be taken with a grain of salt.

Missile Test Platform: This was a base Tengu with V skills and subsystems. A single T2 launcher with Faction Scourge ammunition was fitted along with 3x T2 Ballistic Control Systems. For the rig comparison, 2x T2 Medium Warhead Rigors and 1x T2 Medium Warhead Flare rigs were utilized. Electronic warfare was a single T2 Target Painter. DPS reflects both reload times and ammunition capacity.

Missile Comparison (with and without rigs)
Missile Comparison (electronic warfare, with and without rigs)
RLMLs - as has been previously stated, there's almost no benefit to running rigs against cruisers, and a single target painter is more effective against destroyers than full rigs.
HAMLs - a single target painter makes HAMs more effective against cruisers than LMs. With rigs, these are insane.
HMLs - these really need rigs and target painters to shine.

Missile Comparison, HML Fix (with and without rigs)
Missiles Comparison, HML Fix (electronic warfare, with and without rigs)
Oh, and I fixed medium HMs. Completely. The change takes all of modifying 2 lines of code. I'll let the results speak for themselves…

I gotta say that is a nice change. CCP, hire this man to repair all the chaos and destruction that CCP 40sec and CCP Fizzle create. Thanks!