Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You sir are awesome! Now you need to charge CCP several thousand dollars for that work. Then you will be like every other game-designer/engineer. But much better than Mr. 40sec and Fizzle, whom seem to cannot solve simple problems.

So basically, you just altered the explosion radius and or explosion velocity correct? Or did you use a ship bonus for that? I am curious how exactly you thought to do that fix.

I'd settle for a trip to FanFest.
Next on the list: torpedoes and capital missiles…

Edit: never mind I figured it out

HAM's seemed to get a good improvement but HML is still not right, I'm sorry.

Remember me when you get the job - I want my Citadel Torpedo's to hit out to 120k for 100% damage on one of those pesky interceptors.

Arthur, you have obviously spent many hours researching your posts and although a lot of it goes straight over my head, I have gleaned a lot of useful information from you and others in this thread.

.,.Thanks guys.,.

Why do you need a dev in the thread to share your fix with us? I know for a fact that they are reading this thread (via direct correspondence), so they will see it. Expecting them to post to ask for it is kind of strange to me. Hell if you don't want to share it with the non-developers for some reason but are sure it fixes the issue, mail it directly to Rise.

I was hoping to get them actively involved in a discussion to address these shortfalls, but here's the fix:

• The missile formula contains a variable called dry (damage reduction factor). This is set to 2.8 for light missiles, 3.2 for heavy missiles and 4.5 for heavy assault missiles.
• I changed this to 3.0 for heavy missiles and 3.2 for heavy assault missiles. That's it.

I should add this was far from my first attempt, and that I probably adjusted every other conceivable variable first. This was the only adjustment (ironically the last and simplest) that did what I wanted it to: buffed HAMLs and HMLs against smaller targets (only). It looks great on electronic paper (which is all I have to test from, unfortunately), but if it bears out I think it holds promise.


Faction, because I suspect that T2 ammunition will do less net DPS for a variety of factors. Yes, it was purely a buffer fit - which is why I didn't think it could be done against a competent Stabber setup. I think it could be done in 2 volleys if you pre-mixed some Faction Mjolnir and Nova ammo in addition to the scourge, and you were able to keep it confined to a 1:1. Easier said than done, though.

Light missiles have a drf value of 2.8, rockets 3, heavy missiles 3.2 and heavy assault missiles 4.5. If we agree that light missiles have excellent damage application, but that both heavy and heavy assault missiles suck - we have a little wiggle room (more for heavy assault missiles). Thus, I changed the value to 3 for heavy missiles and 3.2 for heavy assault missiles, to bring it more in-line with the difference between light missiles and rockets. So yes, it might seem like I buffed HAMs more than HMs, but it only seems that way… Drf isn't broken per say, it just needs a few minor adjustments.

There's another interesting variable called Detonation Proximity that might be fun to play with. I don't think it would have any bearing on the actual missile mechanics (at least I couldn't find any link), but it might be cool from a visual standpoint seeing cruise missiles and torpedoes exploding 100m or more from the target.

I don't think that HAMs will necessarily become OP against medium and smaller targets, for the sole reason that it takes full T2 rigs and a target painter to fully realize their potential. On the scale of tank to glass cannon, it's leaning more towards the latter. Also note that this is on a Tengu (not Caracals or Drakes), and T3s are slated for a rebalance… Also note that even though I don't necessarily like the mechanics of the rapid light and rapid heavy missile launchers, I can't ignore the fact that they exist. Buffing heavy missiles more than what I adjusted them would turn the Raven and Typhoon into absolute nightmares and thus unbalance another weapon system.

Heavy missiles become better against smaller targets, as they should. Against medium targets, they need rigs or target painters to achieve higher their full potential - which isn't necessarily any different than rails needing tracking enhancers or tracking computers. Heavy missiles still have a huge range advantage. Yes, a ballistic enhancer would be nice - but chances are missiles would then be subject to tracking disruptors. And once Pandora's Box is opened...

Hope that we'll yet redeem the SP we trained for missile skills… I've actually got a separate spreadsheet for the calculations; I'm just using pyfa for the ship and module stats.

I'm sorry but I have to be honest and the more I look at this proposal the less I like it, true they are far from OP against medium targets, in fact whatever you've done has hardly changed the application against other cruisers, but yet more than doubled their effectiveness against small targets. Doing it so that the changes are disproportionately impacting small fast ships like interceptors whilst barely changing their application against other cruisers is just the opposite of what needs to be done. I think using a blinged out ganky HAM Tengu is probably the wrong way to go about it, T2 rigors are not an option for most of the ships that use HAM's nobody will really use them on anything other than a Tengu for pvp. But now I've seen the numbers I'd rather leave them alone than have HAM Tengu's chewing up interceptors and ab frigates with such ease. For me personally it's a better argument against buffing HAM's than anything the turret fanboys managed in the whole thread lol.

I think if you look at it again you'll feel the same, a slight tweak is all HAM's need so they do more damage against other cruisers, not ~100% damage application buff against interceptors and the like, and HML is still useless even after the changes. so it's not doing it for me.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way because your on the right track and I do appreciate all your efforts.

If as you say, HAMs are usable - then why aren't they the medium of choice for PvP? The answer is damage application, and to a lesser degree the fact that Caldari cruisers aren't necessarily setup for brawling. Assuming you could even engage a MWD Interceptor with HAMs, the current damage application compared to RLMLs is 14.8%. After the proposed "fix" it's 31.2%. Also bear in mind that this is with a Tengu - and not a Caracal, so you're losing 25% kinetic damage, 12.5% ROF and a further 16.7% in overall damage (5 launchers). As I previously mentioned, T3s are getting rebalanced - so this should be viewed as the optimal scenario and subject to change in the near future. If you want, I'll be happy to do up a chart with a Caracal instead (it's not as impressive, though).


Not at all. The graph looks skewed because what you're seeing for RLMLs factors in reloads. So it looks like HAMs got an extreme buff, when in actuality they're only marginally better. I think to allow a fair comparison, I'll do another chart up with a Caracal.


What's the comparison with pulse lasers, blasters and drones?