These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

RLML and HML balance pass

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ayallah
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2017-04-01 15:45:35 UTC
Nerfing the range will leave them still dangerous but not as overpowering so +1 to that.

Still concerned how they make HAM's worthless though

Goddess of the IGS

As strength goes.
Veishe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2017-04-01 15:50:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Veishe
I think this is April fool, but seriously just nerf RLML's clip size, not reload time or missile range lol


The problem is simple.

RLML is much better than HML/HAM when even shooting cruisers, and too oppressive when vs small ships; cause It has too much burst dps.


Nerfing missile range will be make Caracal can't hit 1 MWD frig so RLML will be useless dead weapon; so bad nerf. Nerfing reload time will be not primary solution; cause It has same burst dps and the RLML cancer is due to burst dps.


Just nerf clip size, and buff HML and HAM, Cruise missile plz.
Ripard Teg
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#23 - 2017-04-01 15:55:10 UTC
Assuming this is not an April Fool's Day joke, this is a terrible idea.

The whole point to giving missile ships light missile bonuses in the first place is the fact that they were running dead last by race in terms of damage application in a screen or light combat role where such ships -- particularly the Caracal -- are used most frequently. We're not exactly talking about a DPS powerhouse on its best day, perhaps 250 or 275, which you propose to reduce by increasing the reload time. If you're looking to adjust, that adjustment alone should meet your goals without removing the ammo bonus as well.

By removing the ammo bonus as well, you push the Caracal back to 150 DPS with very bad application, which you propose to increase by 4%... to 160 DPS, or 150 DPS and very poor range. This compares to the Omen, which has 280 DPS without its drones and much superior application, then the Thorax/Vexor at 250 DPS or so. Even the Minmatar options will be superior to the Caracal. You're in essence proposing to put a whole set of doctrines right out of business and I don't see a good compelling reason why and you don't state one.

If you're looking to work on a small/medium weapons system, how about working on a small/medium weapons system that is clearly and obviously completely broken: autocannons?

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#24 - 2017-04-01 15:55:42 UTC
**** i hate april the 1st

i'd be amazed if this was actually a joke but i don't think it is so

please give heavy+ missiles 4x their current ehp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Asher Elias
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#25 - 2017-04-01 15:56:22 UTC
Rapid heavies do not need a range nerf. As someone who has attempted a barghest fleet recently I can tell you the only sensible way to fit them is rapid heavies. I know cruise missiles being no good for PVP is outside the scope of this change but removing the range bonus on the barghest RHML setup is a pretty huge nerf.


I also don't think people really grasp how big a nerf the range removal is to rapid lights either, but that one is more debatable in my mind. The orthrus and osprey navy in particular will be hit hard by it because you'll remove their main defense if you remove range control. I'm worried these ships would become obsolescent.


I'd personally like to see a change that lowered the burst of RLML such as a less shots per reload. Even something like a double change of lowering reload time and lowering the clip would smooth out the damage more and address some of the burst concerns.
Captain Campion
Campion Corp.
#26 - 2017-04-01 15:58:02 UTC
I wrote my thoughts before reading your proposal:
- Light missile range is too strong. Propose about 30km.
- RLML dps is too strong. Propose 10% reduction in ROF.
- HAM range is too short. Should not be shorter than light missiles.
- HML explosion radius is too big. Propose 10% reduction.
Planet 6
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#27 - 2017-04-01 15:58:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Planet 6
there is a reason why nobody uses cruise and torps on a barghest...

edit: if your going to behead the barghest for no reason, at least make cruise/torps a viable weapon system for solo pvp, as of right now in the aftermath of 100mn era (thanks hics) these weapon systems are under performing to the obvious RHML (which were COMPLETELY fine in my eyes) which is the only weapon system thats good enough to use and still is, because the other options are terrible.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#28 - 2017-04-01 16:08:05 UTC
ProTip: With a longer reload time, you'll have more time to repair the heat damage to your RLMLs.


If you aren't overheating your RLMLs and repairing during the long reloads, you're doing it wrong.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Methea Selenis
Dead Game.
HYDRA RELOADED
#29 - 2017-04-01 16:11:28 UTC
Makes me really sad that this could be both an April Fool joke and a serious idea. It highlights the state of RLML and the level of expectations we all have from PvP balance changes.

Please don't do that, there are so much bad ideas there... While no doubt opressive nobody thinks the kiting RLML meta should completely disappear (which will be the case if you remove the ship bonuses that influence LM range). Please do it like you did for T3Ds the nerf was overall well-thought and they are now still strong and usefull but require actual piloting and fitting sacrifices. Please take the same approach for RLML cruisers, make a focus group and let people discuss and explain to you the consequences of different options.

RLML are support-pawn-boats, that would be totally fine if they would not be able at the same time to be as tanky as brawly cruisers and kill them within one burst. As many above I'd rather see the clip being smaller and powergid requirement higher forcing to drop tank and be as kiters should be : easy kills when scrammed fast.
Sanai Nobuseri
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2017-04-01 16:20:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Sanai Nobuseri
Thank you CCP for making missile boats which are already nearly worthless that much more worthless. In a meta which only supports massive small roaming cheap ships or massive groups of supers taking out the only reasonable counter to the former is a fantastic idea. While your at it, please remove the drake navy issue and the caracal navy issue from the game entirely as they are essentially just vanity items now.

Edit: Instead of nerfing the hell out of missiles why dont you actually make defender missiles great again? Not the anti bomber bs but the real defender missiles. Most cruiser hulls have a utility slot they can stick an anti missile defender in that can mitigate Rapid light missile dps.
Tiberizzle
Your Mom Heavy Industries
#31 - 2017-04-01 16:20:51 UTC
tfw fozzie is such an awful game designer you can't decide if it's an april fools post or not What?
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#32 - 2017-04-01 16:34:42 UTC
Re: the Orthrus and Barghest, does the removal of the range bonus to these ships also remove a range malus? The Mordu's Legion ships have both a bonus and a malus (that averages to a net bonus.) Removing just the bonus would be sort of weird.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Hendrink Collie
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#33 - 2017-04-01 16:45:06 UTC
Man... all this salt on the thread. He asked for feedback, not 'lol ur dumb'. Roll Anyways.

Quote:
Increase Rapid Light and Rapid Heavy launcher reload time from 35s to 40s


I'm actually ok with this change tbh. I love the bursting nature of the rapid line and this particular nerf wouldn't hurt the feel of the weapon system.

Quote:
Change ship missile range bonuses to not apply to undersize missiles


This one I disagree with completely. The missile range bonus tied along with the burst nature of the rapid line defines a lot of those ships. Now it is possible there are other buffs etc etc that we have not seen yet related to these hulls, but as of now... I'm not a fan. Perhaps concentrate more on nerfing the particular problem ships in this case, not the particular missile bonus. Or just increase the PG requirements of the launchers a bit.

Quote:
Increase all Heavy Missile damage by 5.6%


I'd prefer a slight application bonus buff, but for mid-sized gangs and larger that can spare TPs, this particular buff is going to be sexy for cerbs, tengus, etc. Cool
Lucius Kalari
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2017-04-01 16:45:51 UTC
If it isnt a ruse, can you go one step further and remove wolf rayet effect from light missiles please. Things like cerb fleets with rapid lights are aids to fight.
FeistyOne
Inevitable Outcome
E.C.H.O
#35 - 2017-04-01 16:54:38 UTC
Lucius Kalari wrote:
If it isnt a ruse, can you go one step further and remove wolf rayet effect from light missiles please. Things like cerb fleets with rapid lights are aids to fight.


or specifically, the RLML's in a wolf Rayet :)
Sven Viko VIkolander
In space we are briefly free
#36 - 2017-04-01 17:01:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Sven Viko VIkolander
Quote:
The goal of these changes is to help improve the balance between the cruiser-sized missile systems and make the choice of what missiles to fit more interesting. We have also been hearing from you folks that Rapid Light Missiles are continuing to feel quite oppressive in their extremely strong combination of burst dps, range and application.


I'd like to hear more about what your goals are with this balance change, because they seem at odds with what I've heard from many players and think myself.

The main problem with RLMLs in solo, small gang, and fleets alike is that due to a combination of good application, burst damage and low fitting cost, they make obsolete virtually all other anti-support cruisers, and even beat many brawling cruisers in a fight starting at zero. Due to the combination of good application, burst damage and low fitting cost, they also make many other medium sized weapon systems largely obsolete: HMLs, HAMs, and in many situations rails, arty, and ACs.

The solution, then, is to nerf/tweak one or more of their application, burst damage and low fitting cost. Application is built into the fact that they are light missiles and anti-support, so that seems fine to stay. However, that means RLML burst or fitting needs nerfing (as many have suggested in the thread, blogs, other posts, etc.). Instead, though, you've kept burst and fitting the same and have hurt sustained DPS (which wasn't ever an issue), missing the entire point of why RLMLs are oppressive and limit fitting options.

I'd suggest going back to the drawing board and either taking Suitonia's advice for lowering both reload time and clip size to lower burst DPS or (/and) nerfing the fittings of RLMLs so that they are more like fitting HMLs. Following the pattern set by the lower fitting rockets versus longer range lights, HAMs should be significantly easier to fit than RLMLs than currently, making HAM caracals kill RLML caracals when the fight starts at zero due to HAM caracals having better fitting options for more tank.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#37 - 2017-04-01 17:06:36 UTC
I think "anti-support" just means overpowered?
Trespasser
S0utherN Comfort
#38 - 2017-04-01 17:09:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Trespasser
this is a good step in the right direction, but i think one of the bigger changes that needs to happen is all missiles ships that have a damage bonus to only one type of damage.. needs to get changed to all damage types

Tengu's a good example, just remove the kinetic only damage bonus and replace it with a normal damage bonus that effects all types.


Also at fanfest you guys said that faction launches and turrets were going to be able to use t2 ammo.. you did it with the capital ship weapons but haven't got around to doing it with subcap weapons.. i think you guys really need to make this happen ASAP!
Space Captain Austrene
Industry and Exploring Federation
#39 - 2017-04-01 17:15:58 UTC
good jokes mate real funny
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#40 - 2017-04-01 17:17:01 UTC
All around good looking tweaks.

Now to brass tacks, when do we get to make Torpedoes Great Again?
Maybe bring back the aoe effect, give them 100km range with 10x the speed.


In all seriousness, a bump to range is all they really need. An extra 20km range would do it even with their current application. Though an application bonus wouldn't hurt to bring them more in line comparison wise to what we see with current rapid vs normal missile systems.