These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Heavy Missiles, lets make them interesting

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2015-01-09 07:46:10 UTC
Soraelion actually seems to know what he is talking about. I wouldn't dismiss his comments.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#102 - 2015-01-09 07:58:00 UTC
If he is correct, it shouldn't be hard to produce decent charts with proofs.

Trouble here is, doing so /correctly/ reveals the glaring holes in heavy missiles.

For instance no one has contested that they do damage at 0m and you can get under guns HOWEVER the point is that advantage is not worth the loss of effectiveness from 10-max range.

Attempting to argue they are 'fine' whilst being sub par in all common engagement types and ranges is hard to believe.

That is but one example.

Also - for really chuckles, add skirmish links to the mix and...wow.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2015-01-09 08:15:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
afkalt wrote:
If he is correct, it shouldn't be hard to produce decent charts with proofs.

Trouble here is, doing so /correctly/ reveals the glaring holes in heavy missiles.

For instance no one has contested that they do damage at 0m and you can get under guns HOWEVER the point is that advantage is not worth the loss of effectiveness from 10-max range.

Attempting to argue they are 'fine' whilst being sub par in all common engagement types and ranges is hard to believe.

That is but one example.

Also - for really chuckles, add skirmish links to the mix and...wow.



Properly fitted HML ships deal comparable damage with a relative turret fitted counterpart.

I will concede that skirmish links break the whole situation because they are wholly broken.

At an absolute push I would say HML's could use an explosion radius reduction of between 5-10% (probably around the 8% mark would work best)
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#104 - 2015-01-09 08:18:33 UTC
afkalt wrote:
If he is correct, it shouldn't be hard to produce decent charts with proofs.

Trouble here is, doing so /correctly/ reveals the glaring holes in heavy missiles.

For instance no one has contested that they do damage at 0m and you can get under guns HOWEVER the point is that advantage is not worth the loss of effectiveness from 10-max range.

Attempting to argue they are 'fine' whilst being sub par in all common engagement types and ranges is hard to believe.

That is but one example.

Also - for really chuckles, add skirmish links to the mix and...wow.


Hence why I said 4 pages ago that HML need to stop being treated as a viable solo weapon. They're "not bad" when used to pound the **** out of stuff that's already hard tackled. Functionally you could have a couple of brawlers (or just arazu/rapier combo) disabling the enemy and keeping your dps safe while they work from 50km off and apply very easy dps.

Which still isn't very good gameplay but at least it requires some teamwork to be effective which is what I guess the original HML fleets lacked (diverse fleet composition).

No matter the outcome of all these threads I will still regard missile systems in EVE as being inferior to their form in nearly every other game as they feel to me like they're playing the turret game in a game of turrets and then being upset when they come up short. If missile launchers in EVE worked more realistically then this discussion today would no doubt be calling for a nerf (based on their current stats) and that would be completely justified.

If it were my call no matter what I would increase volley and decrease ROF for all regular launchers, then lower maximum capacity for RLML/RHML and boost their ROF to the max possible but also decrease cartridge sizes. It's only my opinion and one that will most likely never happen. These missile launchers are not belt-fed their ammunitiion, the missiles are quite clearly just sitting there waiting to be told to activate. It's a suspension of disbelief I'm no longer willing to make and I'm also no longer willing to concede that it's good gameplay when my volleys are so weak and slow that my enemies can rep through them despite being hard tackled and outnumbered.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#105 - 2015-01-09 08:19:34 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
@Spugg: No, they really do not.

Toss up some fits and charts then, be sure to use different ammo types. Most people use worst possible transversal but maybe it is more realistic to use a 45 degree angle as keeping max transversal at all ranges at all times is all but impossible.

I've done it before but mine seem to be "not good enough", apparently neither are Mario's.



edit:

Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Hence why I said 4 pages ago that HML need to stop being treated as a viable solo weapon. They're "not bad" when used to pound the **** out of stuff that's already hard tackled. Functionally you could have a couple of brawlers (or just arazu/rapier combo) disabling the enemy and keeping your dps safe while they work from 50km off and apply very easy dps.



Absolutely, just the thing is, guns also kick all kinds of ass in that scenario. You can close in, use short range ammo and not care that the tracking is meh because the target is scram/webbed. In open engagements you just go back to long range ammo.

This is entirely my point (and I'm not having a go at you here) that missiles are limited to extremely niche situations where the trade offs are absolutely not worth it in the real world.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2015-01-09 08:34:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
Caleb gets it.

HML is NOT a solo weapon system. The only ship it works really well on in the solo situation is the Orthrus. But that's "because of Orthrus".

If you want to solo with medium missiles you use HAM for pure damage where you SHOULD have a scram and a web fitted with a rigor rig and you get the advantage of being completely immune to tracking disruptors.

RLML gives you a nice kiting platform for lower sustained damage.

This actually seems like it's by design!

HAM - brawling
RLML - kiting
HML - fleet



I don't understand why people want to use HML's in a solo situation. That's not really their design.



P.S @ afkalt they really do!
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#107 - 2015-01-09 08:52:12 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
So now they're a fleet weapon? Just a few posts back people were trying to tell us they are not a fleet weapon.

Which is it?

And if it IS a good fleet weapon, why are slippery petes not using them? Why are cerberus fleets not spanking the ishtars?

Because it all comes back to the fact that their application is poor, that ANY third party effect such as tackle or painting ALSO buffs guns (allowing the use of even HIGHER damage ammo or worse still...large guns) that the fringe benefits of missiles are never worth sacrificing the mainstream gun benefits.

Fleets also exacerbate the telegraphed DPS incoming negating all benefits of a target switch, a point which I've stayed away from up until now as these aren't used in fleets.

No-one I'm aware runs ANY missile based fleet, not a soul. There are ishtar fleets, there are BS fleets, there are T3 fleets, there are blap dread doctrines (seeing dreads hit linked T3 cruisers with guns is another story). They can't ALL be wrong.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2015-01-09 09:34:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
People don't use Cerb's because Ishtar's are massively overpowered.

A HML Cerb fleet would be like the days of olde HML Drake fleets. Only a lot better and faster.

Seriously. HML Cerbs en masse would be devastating. They actually outperform Ishtars at ranges >100km and less than 60km when using Mjolnir missiles vs Bouncer II's. Even when the Bouncer II's are in their sweet spot they're only maginally better than the cerbs HM's.

The main problem being that missiles have flight times. HM's could use a bit of a velocity buff and a flight time nerf to make them very useful at ranges >50km.

I think the only reason people don't use Cerbs is because of drone assist.
Soraellion
#109 - 2015-01-09 09:53:28 UTC
Drone assist is a silly concept anyway and I bet it causes a lot of head aches coding it all. Only assist should be from carriers with fighters etc. No other weapon system can be delegated to others like that and there is no need for it, the fringe "give intie your drones" isn't worth the hassle and game/balance breaking problems.

Remove drone assist, nerf ishtars and suddenly they stop being a menace.
Mario Putzo
#110 - 2015-01-09 17:15:39 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
People don't use Cerb's because Ishtar's are massively overpowered.

A HML Cerb fleet would be like the days of olde HML Drake fleets. Only a lot better and faster.

Seriously. HML Cerbs en masse would be devastating. They actually outperform Ishtars at ranges >100km and less than 60km when using Mjolnir missiles vs Bouncer II's. Even when the Bouncer II's are in their sweet spot they're only maginally better than the cerbs HM's.

The main problem being that missiles have flight times. HM's could use a bit of a velocity buff and a flight time nerf to make them very useful at ranges >50km.

I think the only reason people don't use Cerbs is because of drone assist.


People don't use Cerbs because Heavy Missiles suck. Period.

Its why people use Rail Tengu instead of HML Tengu
its why people use Rail Eagle instead of Cerb
its why people use Munnin, Zealot.

Ishtar is strong. But you know what else beats an HML Cerb. Any ship with a drone damage bonus using 5 Hobgob 2's

Vexor, VNI, Ishtar, Myrm, Stratios, Domi, and im sure I missed some.

HML are underused because their damage application is just straight up inferior to every other weapons platform in the game.
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#111 - 2015-01-09 17:46:03 UTC
CCP literally teases us with better missile use thanks to the new Mordus line of ships. For a long time I wondered if the reason they gave those ships a missile velocity bonus was to test the waters for a general buff across the board.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#112 - 2015-01-09 17:53:28 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
CCP literally teases us with better missile use thanks to the new Mordus line of ships. For a long time I wondered if the reason they gave those ships a missile velocity bonus was to test the waters for a general buff across the board.

Teaze is the right word. Someone needs to put some Ritalin in the water up there...
Remember the utility high missile mod that Rise teased us with a while back before he went a screwed with rapids until he saw something else shiny?
Mario Putzo
#113 - 2015-01-09 18:40:34 UTC
From CCP
Basically graphing what weapons and ship types have been most responsible for all damage done in PVP over the past year.

http://i.imgur.com/yfeQpc4.jpg

Look at all those missile chuckers representing.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#114 - 2015-01-09 19:09:54 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
From CCP
Basically graphing what weapons and ship types have been most responsible for all damage done in PVP over the past year.

http://i.imgur.com/yfeQpc4.jpg

Look at all those missile chuckers representing.


But Mario, don't you see? They're ALL wrong. The people in the forum told me so. Overwhelming evidence from CCP, in game and damage charts be damned, missiles are fine!!!!!


/sarcasm.

And before anyone says 'power creep' it's not power creep to raise the outlier to the median.
Soraellion
#115 - 2015-01-09 19:11:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Soraellion
Mario Putzo wrote:
From CCP
Basically graphing what weapons and ship types have been most responsible for all damage done in PVP over the past year.

http://i.imgur.com/yfeQpc4.jpg

Look at all those missile chuckers representing.


That graph is misleading. It specifies all the different missiles types but on the other hand piles all the other weapon systems in one group. OF COURSE that is going to show heavy missiles (or any other missile type) are under used. If they would break up "hybrids" into "light blasters, light rails, medium blaster, medium rails" etc etc then that would create a different picture. Or, conversely, pile all the missile types onto one and then see how that works out.

Not saying it would suddenly sway it the other way but this is just a silly and misleading representation. On top of that, all this "proves" is what the current lol fleet blob meta is. Recons aren't bad, they're just not used in clown fleets.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#116 - 2015-01-09 19:13:18 UTC
You realise it's split by ship, or are you telling me undersized guns is a thing?
Mario Putzo
#117 - 2015-01-09 19:20:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Soraellion wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
From CCP
Basically graphing what weapons and ship types have been most responsible for all damage done in PVP over the past year.

http://i.imgur.com/yfeQpc4.jpg

Look at all those missile chuckers representing.


That graph is misleading. It specifies all the different missiles types but on the other hand piles all the other weapon systems in one group. OF COURSE that is going to show heavy missiles (or any other missile type) are under used. If they would break up "hybrids" into "light blasters, light rails, medium blaster, medium rails" etc etc then that would create a different picture. Or, conversely, pile all the missile types onto one and then see how that works out.

Not saying it would suddenly sway it the other way but this is just a silly and misleading representation.

Quote:

[–]CCP_QuantCCP[S] 6 points 2 hours ago
I wondered the same, I grouped by the group name of the typeID and it seems this is how it is in the database. I thought about grouping them manually but CCP_Cognac said no :) blame him

From Reddit.


But we can work around that. Adding up all the missile damages based on the values of the color coding and lumping them together as Missile Damage shows
1) Drones
2) Hybrids
3) Projectile
4) Laser
5) Missiles.

With the vast majority of all missile damage coming from a single source. SB Torps.

About the only misleading thing is Drones, because nearly every hull cruiser and up has a drone bay.
Soraellion
#118 - 2015-01-09 19:22:19 UTC
afkalt wrote:
You realise it's split by ship, or are you telling me undersized guns is a thing?


It's specifying missiles from rockets all the way to citadels. So while it's perhaps useful to figure how the different missiles types are represented it's misleading (to the average viewer anyway) in total representation.
Mario Putzo
#119 - 2015-01-09 19:24:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Soraellion wrote:
afkalt wrote:
You realise it's split by ship, or are you telling me undersized guns is a thing?


It's specifying missiles from rockets all the way to citadels. So while it's perhaps useful to figure how the different missiles types are represented it's misleading (to the average viewer anyway) in total representation.



Well its a good thing people who aren't average, and know what they are talking about are capable of deciphering the graph and understand that on every single ship level Missiles are woefully underrepresented...and why are they under represented...

Because they are ****.

Lone exception of course being the SB but there is no other option for weaponry on this ship class, so it is an exception to the rule anyway.
Soraellion
#120 - 2015-01-09 19:29:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Soraellion
Mario Putzo wrote:
But we can work around that. Adding up all the missile damages based on the values of the color coding and lumping them together as Missile Damage shows
1) Drones
2) Hybrids
3) Projectile
4) Laser
5) Missiles.

With the vast majority of all missile damage coming from a single source. SB Torps.

About the only misleading thing is Drones, because nearly every hull cruiser and up has a drone bay.


Sure, that makes sense but given the rather course legend and visualisation it's not really that easy. again, not saying that this would completely change the graph (it wouldn't, missiles are underused in lol blob fleets) but in and of itself it's misleading. Still, just because current blob inbred fleet meta doesn't use missiles doesn't mean they're inherently bad.

Don't get me wrong btw, I'm not going against just for the heck of it but I'm scared shitless of going back to a buffed lol range, lol easy to use, ****** proof weapon system fitted to ****** proof lol ship that will just blot out the sun, again. They're too easy to use with too much EHP and (if buffed) too powerful. If they'd be buffed to have their average applied dps to be even remotely on par to paper turret dps we'd see hundreds of fleets with clown drakes again. And no one wants that, I do hope.