These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Can we get a HML buff already?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#21 - 2016-04-04 06:14:17 UTC
The issue that I see with HMLs is that they're a cruiser class weapon that is balanced for a BC class hull.
This is the truth.
They were nerfed several times and buffed once because of the way the drake used to be and the way the tengu currently is.

Yes, the tengu is a 'cruiser', but we all know it's more of a BC or even BS than it is a cruiser.

The application sucks, the range sucks but bonuses on specific hulls make it seem OP, and the actual damage output isn't all that great.

Think of it this way; Other cruiser class weapons have two variations.
One that is specific to cruisers, and one that seems better suited towards BCs, but can be fit on cruisers if you're willing to give elsewhere (tank/ewar/velocity/ etc.)

This leaves a situation where all that is left for cruisers is rapid lights.
While rlmls are good, I don't believe they're OP.
They're just heavily used because there's not a better option.

Just look at the fitting costs.
Rapid Light - 77 - 39
HML - 105 - 55
HAM - 113 - 50

While this does fall in line with torp/cruise/rapid heavy - you must also consider that those weapon systems are balanced around a single class of ships while HML and HAM are balanced around 2 classes of ship.

Take a standard Caracal fit

[Caracal, test]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Damage Control II

50MN Cold-Gas Enduring Microwarpdrive
Warp Disruptor II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II

Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

You can't put HML and certainly not HAM on that fit... Thus, you must gimp the fit..
But Wait, There's More!!!!
You not only have to gimp the fit, but you must also fit a SIGNIFICANT amount of application in order for it to even be able to hit itself, while fury lights will apply full damage.

Even with the mwd off, HML fury only apply 143 dps of the available 343.
So, let me try to build a fit using HML...

[Caracal, test HML]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Missile Guidance Enhancer II

10MN Afterburner II
Warp Scrambler II
Stasis Webifier II
Medium Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 50
Medium Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 50

Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I
Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst II

This fit gets 298 applied dps against itself WITHOUT the AB on, and only 136 dps WITH the AB on.
.. And this is within the 10km web range, thus defeating the purpose of using a long range weapon system.

Now, let's try a HAM fit.

[Caracal, test HAM]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Missile Guidance Enhancer II

10MN Afterburner II
Warp Scrambler II
Stasis Webifier II
Medium Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 50
Medium Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 50

Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst II
Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst II

Oddly enough, the HAMs are easier to fit because of less CPU usage, and pwg not being as important on these types of ships.
It also gets better application than the HMLs, doing 298 against itself with prop on in web range, and full dps within web range with prop off.

Now, before you go arguing that this is factored with rage and fury; You must consider that these fits are with 3-4 application mods AND is against a like sized hull, which it should be able to apply better to.
In comparison

[Omen Navy Issue, test]
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Damage Control II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Medium Armor Repairer II
Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste

10MN Afterburner II
Warp Scrambler II
Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800

Focused Medium Beam Laser II, Gleam M
Focused Medium Beam Laser II, Gleam M
Focused Medium Beam Laser II, Gleam M
Focused Medium Beam Laser II, Gleam M
[empty high slot]

Medium Anti-Explosive Pump I
Medium Energy Metastasis Adjuster I
Medium Energy Metastasis Adjuster I

This can apply 200 at optimal with gleam and prop on, and over 300 at optimal with gleam and prop off.
.. And that's without a web.
Drop the cap booster and put a web, you're getting 325 at optimal, and full damage without prop.

Drop the tank rig, fit a pwg rig, and put heavy pulse onto that fit with a web and use conflag.
You're getting almost 400 with prop, and full damage without prop.


Yes, HMLs can hit for the same damage at all ranges, but in order to get any damage worth a crap, you have to be within web range.
Forget the idea of kiting, cause you can't fit an MWD onto and HML fit without giving up significant tank, damage, and/or application in order to make it fit.

On the Omen Navy, you can replace the damage control with a power diag. and easily fit a MWD. Though, why would you?

However, with the MWD on the beam...
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#22 - 2016-04-04 06:35:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
(Part 2)

WIth MWD on Beam, you can kite all day long, with faster speed than a Caracal, higher dps factoring reload, more tank, etc. etc. etc. than even the RLML Caracal.
A beam Omen (not even NOmen) would pwn a HML caracal at kite range and in brawl range.

However, the argument was made that no one uses beams.
This isn't because beams suck, it's because the vast majority of fights end up within brawling range.
If you factor the frig meta, brawling cruisers, and that you can have more sustained dps at kite range than a RLML boat using alternate ammo types, there's no reason why you'd ever choose beams over pulse.

This is similar to HML vs HAM, where the current meta dictates that HAMs perform better in most scenarios, but both cannot hold a flame to the effectiveness of rapid lights.


Here's what I think needs to change.
HAMs seem ok... Maybe slightly better application to all but rage, and may need their fitting costs reduced a bit.
HMLs need a significant application buff and need their fitting costs reduced, need their range buffed, range bonused hulls need their range bonuses nerfed, and BC class hulls need their fitting capability reduced by however much in order to compensate.

If this is done, players will begin to choose HMLs and HAMs on cruisers based on need.
HAMs for high damage and brawl range.
HMLs for... (was going to say snip, but no)... ranged combat.
RLMLs when your likely targets will be frigs and under-tanked cruisers.

Don't know what you're going to come up against?
Well, that's the beauty of playing Eve.
No one weapon can do it all....


While I'm at it, similar changes need to be made to torps and cruise missiles.
Torps are special ED slow, and can't hit the broad side of a planet.
Cruise missile application is little better than torps.
RHMLs will need to be counter-balanced to reflect any changes made to heavy missiles. Though, I don't know that they'll need too much, considering the only reason they're used is because torps and cruise suck in pvp...


Edit...
Oh, and I forgot to mention one of the major issues with RLMLs.
The problem is that most cruiser hulls have a bonus to LM range and application.
In comparison, most BS class missile boats are not bonused to HM range and application.

The only BS i'm aware of that has bonuses that effect HM is the Barghest.
So, with that in mind, it should be the same for LMs on cruiser hulls.
No range bonus to any cruiser hull, except the Orthrus, and CERTAINLY no application bonus to LMs on ANY cruiser hull.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#23 - 2016-04-04 12:20:09 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:

@ nevyn
Assuming all else is equal, a target can just as easily maneuver to mitigate damage from a turret as a shooter can to increase it. It really depends on the circumstances.

Both pilots could web and scram eachother down and deal full damage with missiles to eachother, but be so close that they'd miss eachother with turrets.

No they really can't.
Ignore web & scram & prop mod. Take 2 bare hulls. Fit weapon systems on them.
The difference in speeds is not enough to mitigate any damage between hulls when using turrets when piloted sensibly (Rather than deliberately going the wrong way and claiming that means you can't track)
The speed & sig is enough to mitigate 33% of the damage (roughly for a T1 cruiser) when using HML.

That's the part I have the issue with, that a bare hull is mitigating 33% of damage before it has a prop mod. Webs should be used to counter the prop mod, not a necessity to simply get normal application vs a bare hull.
TP should be to counter sig boosters & sig fleet boosters, not a necessity to get application vs a bare hull of the correct size.

Obviously an AB cruiser in brawling range can out track a no prop mod arty cruiser, but in that situation both turret & missile application sucks. So no, application isn't equal, and this is where the entire issue comes from.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#24 - 2016-04-04 14:21:26 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:

@ nevyn
Assuming all else is equal, a target can just as easily maneuver to mitigate damage from a turret as a shooter can to increase it. It really depends on the circumstances.

Both pilots could web and scram eachother down and deal full damage with missiles to eachother, but be so close that they'd miss eachother with turrets.

No they really can't.
Ignore web & scram & prop mod. Take 2 bare hulls. Fit weapon systems on them.
The difference in speeds is not enough to mitigate any damage between hulls when using turrets when piloted sensibly (Rather than deliberately going the wrong way and claiming that means you can't track)
The speed & sig is enough to mitigate 33% of the damage (roughly for a T1 cruiser) when using HML.

That's the part I have the issue with, that a bare hull is mitigating 33% of damage before it has a prop mod. Webs should be used to counter the prop mod, not a necessity to simply get normal application vs a bare hull.
TP should be to counter sig boosters & sig fleet boosters, not a necessity to get application vs a bare hull of the correct size.

Obviously an AB cruiser in brawling range can out track a no prop mod arty cruiser, but in that situation both turret & missile application sucks. So no, application isn't equal, and this is where the entire issue comes from.


While i agree to an extent. Looking at a bare hull is misleading.

Shield cruisers will have significantly larger sig and armor cruisers (plated anyway) will have much reduced speed. Active armor cruisers would remain the same though.

Again, there is no doubt that HML need a buff, but using a naked ship as a basis can be misleading.

With RHML, messing with application could get messy. I was thinking either buffing only HML RoF to bump up available dps, or rework HAMs/HM application stats so that HAMs rely more on webs for application, and HML rely more on TP for application.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
#25 - 2016-04-04 14:29:04 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
What was it? A week ago nearly every cerb hull in Jita was sold? Less? HML's are definitely being used in large numbers in PVP. Don't really see how they need a buff, given they've proven 'good enough' that so many alliances use Cerbs that almost all the cerbs were sold in Jita.



Sounds to me like an Alliance is massing an attack somewhere on a group of ships that the Cerbs are easily able to tear through.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#26 - 2016-04-04 14:31:18 UTC
All missiles / torpedoes need an overhaul and it needs to come from the ground up so to speak with a change to the basic math used to calculate damage.

Some specific responses.
elitatwo wrote:
So speaking of a turret boat with my beloved medium beam lasers and the mighty Orthrus which I encounter often, how much % are 700 of 1100 damage and speaking of a heavy missile boat, how much % is ~270 of 1536 damage

In round numbers 700 out of a possible 1100 is about 63% and 270 out of a possible 1536 is about 17%.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
you cant buff the application of hml's without buffing the application of rhml's.

This statement makes me wonder if you even have a clue about the math going on in a missile damage calculation.
By adjusting the explosion velocity, explosion radius, damage reduction factor or some combination of the three CCP can easily adjust the damage application of the hml's without touching the rhml's.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#27 - 2016-04-04 14:58:17 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:


Daichi Yamato wrote:
you cant buff the application of hml's without buffing the application of rhml's.

This statement makes me wonder if you even have a clue about the math going on in a missile damage calculation.
By adjusting the explosion velocity, explosion radius, damage reduction factor or some combination of the three CCP can easily adjust the damage application of the hml's without touching the rhml's.


How? RHML use heavy missiles just like standard HML use heavy missiles. If you adjust damage application of heavy missiles, it WILL affect application of RHML. Meaning, RHML BS will absolutely murder frigs/cruisers, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.. but will be abused just like RLML's are.

Application is based on the ammo, not the launcher.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#28 - 2016-04-04 15:09:04 UTC
@nevyn
'when piloted sensibly' is irrelevant when the target can just as easily counter the shooters piloting.

@donna
Since those stats are dependent on the MISSILE and not the launcher. No you cant. Range included.
Launchers only affect rate of fire and magazine size.

What there maybe however is a way to put modifiers on the rhml's, like a built in guidance disrupter.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Previous page12