These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Aly Ankn
Short Bus Window Licker
#221 - 2017-05-20 03:15:19 UTC
Rapid heavies don't need a fitting Nerf. Remember they still heavy missiles as ammo. The ROF is what makes it useful and it still needs web support to apply well.
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#222 - 2017-05-23 01:05:48 UTC
Will Auto Target Heavies get a buff too?
MOL0TOK
NOCTURNAL TORTURE
#223 - 2017-05-23 14:56:14 UTC
Another overkill from the SSR, this time for heavy assault missiles. Now these rockets are dead...

Бил, бью и буду бить! / to Kerzhakoved /

Super Chair
Project Cerberus
Templis CALSF
#224 - 2017-06-02 09:26:08 UTC
I can kind of get behind rapid light and rapid heavy hull range bonuses not applying. People can still rig/fit range mods to get more range out of them if that is what they want. It makes kity anti tackle cruisers slightly less oppressive. However all this does is create an illusion of choice.

My main objection is that there aren't really any viable alternatives to the rapid light module for caldari cruisers especially. HML and HAM application is poor (Ok, lets be honest, it's not supposed to apply like rapid lights to frigates, but should at least apply to cruisers). The fitting requirement for these modules in relationship to the powergrid on the ship is too high. There will only ever be rapid light caracals because they can't fit HAMs or HMLs and the damage on these weapon systems is too low compared to rapid lights. A math nerd might argue that "but its the damage PER SECOND!". Let's be real though, people want damage that can break through logi/local reps, hell if it takes a minute reload after the burst so be it. So you have less application, less damage (5.6% buff to HML by itself is laughable), and higher fitting cost. Where is the choice? Clearly not between the weapon systems that's for sure.

The illusion is that people will be making a choice between what mid, low, or rig slow they want to sacrifice for more range on their rapid lights when the actual choice should ideally be between HAMs (do i want to brawl with high dps and mid-high application?) , HMLs (Do I want long range with pretty good dps and mid application? (Mid application being that it applies to a cruiser just fine) or Rapid Lights (Do I want really good application at the cost of range and some dps? *Hint* this should be lower than HMLs). This would be ideal and can be accomplished by doing a balance pass on the fitting requirements between these 3 weapons systems. Right now rapid lights enjoy the best of everything, they have the best fitting, best application, best damage (due to burst and enjoying the best application, therefore can just load fury), sure they might lose some range, but if the HML/HAM fitting costs stay as they are, even with losing some tank for range mods/rigs you will still have better tanks than trying to cram HML/HAMs on a caracal. It needs a more holistic approach to multiple missile systems, and possibly even the slot layout/fitting of some ships.


TL;DR Rapid Lights will still be the only viable option because of fitting/application/damage reasons. More needs to be done to make each missile system have its own unique flavor (thus actually creating a choice, not the illusion of one). Range nerf makes it less oppressive but not really people will still use it with range mods so nothing major is really going to be accomplished until other cruiser sized missile systems are addressed.


Lugh Crow-Slave
#225 - 2017-06-03 15:44:45 UTC
MOL0TOK wrote:
Another overkill from the SSR, this time for heavy assault missiles. Now these rockets are dead...



What? They are not even touching heavy assaults
ARES DES1DERATA
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#226 - 2017-06-03 21:11:14 UTC
SO WAIT, YOU'RE TELLING ME THIS WASN'T AN APRIL FOOL'S JOKE???
Zetakya
Echelon Research
Goonswarm Federation
#227 - 2017-06-04 10:54:34 UTC
Rapid Light Missile Launchers are not an undersized weapon system. They are a fully standard cruiser-scale weapon system. Either make them work properly or remove them from the game.

ARES DES1DERATA wrote:
SO WAIT, YOU'RE TELLING ME THIS WASN'T AN APRIL FOOL'S JOKE???


No, apparently it's just a regular stupid idea from CCP.
Moozh Vozmozhno
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#228 - 2017-06-05 22:15:21 UTC
The current cost/performance of the Orthrus and the Barghest seem pretty balanced. You can't really turn them into short-range ships when they have a range bonus to Warp Dispruptors and Scramblers. There's no synergy there.

If Rapid Lights are unbalanced, then nerf them and them alone. Don't pigeon hole a ship into a single weapon system (eg. HMLs). We want choices.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#229 - 2017-06-06 13:34:34 UTC
Super Chair wrote:
...the actual choice should ideally be between HAMs (do i want to brawl with high dps and mid-high application?) , HMLs (Do I want long range with pretty good dps and mid application? (Mid application being that it applies to a cruiser just fine) or Rapid Lights (Do I want really good application at the cost of range and some dps? *Hint* this should be lower than HMLs).

Quoting for emphasis.

If you want cruisers to use heavy missiles, you need to make them worth using at least some of the time. These changes are steps in the right direction, but they're not enough. I hope that this change is just a first step in the balance process.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Adrick Celestes
Angels of the Corp
#230 - 2017-06-08 02:57:12 UTC
How would you even fit a ship like the Orthrus and still be combat effective with HM or HAMs? I can't find a fit that seems to be very efficient.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#231 - 2017-06-08 14:45:46 UTC
Adrick Celestes wrote:
How would you even fit a ship like the Orthrus and still be combat effective with HM or HAMs? I can't find a fit that seems to be very efficient.


XLASB, scram, dual prop. Can scram and web out to 15-18km, with decent application to cruisers under tjose conditions. Plus with AB and the range you can operate at, you are able to mitigate a lot of damage. Unless youre fighting a drone or missile boat.
Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#232 - 2017-06-09 13:36:31 UTC
So is this change actually coming anytime soon? Would like to know for :reasons:. :)
Adrick Celestes
Angels of the Corp
#233 - 2017-06-09 13:43:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Adrick Celestes
Just my thoughts on RLML balance, not a pro by any means. Looks like a lot of this has been mentioned before.

Rapid Light Missile Launcher

  • Reduce capacity largely
  • Decrease reload time slightly to make up for sustained dps loss with reduced capacity
  • Burst damage remains high for frigs but not high enough to take out cruisers before reload is required
  • Sustained DPS should remain lower than HAM and HM
  • Increase powergrid requirements


Heavy Missile Launcher

  • Change application to match HAM
  • No change to damage done
  • No change to burst or sustained dps


Heavy Assault Launcher

  • No changes
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
#234 - 2017-06-09 20:08:47 UTC
sten mattson wrote:
Quote:
This would mean that the following ships would have their range bonuses only apply to Heavy and Heavy Assault Missiles: Orthrus, Caracal, Cerberus, Onyx, Osprey Navy Issue, Cyclone, Drake, Drake Navy Issue


the sacrilege and gets spared?



That would be because the Sac is that terribad.
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
#235 - 2017-06-09 20:16:36 UTC
Reading all this makes me remember the 325+ page threadnaught over the creation of rapid lights as they exsist today. this Finger Of God effect was predicted when this whole burst idea hit the table. While I'd rather see them brought back to pre-CCP Rise status, that's not likely to happen. Here is what I would like to see: Rapid launchers (as a whole) brought in line fitting wise to match HML/Cruise. At the same time, heavies getting an application buff instead of damage. HAM's getting a range buff (preferrably in velocity) and a bit of an application buff as well.

Toying with the light missile's attribs will just screw up the frigs and dessys that use them and it'll take several years to get that fixed, then we'll be right back here a third time.
O2 jayjay
Night's Paladins
Siege Gold
#236 - 2017-06-10 03:39:03 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hello everyone and happy Saturday!

Today I'm here to start collecting community feedback on a potential package of missile balance tweaks. These changes aren't confirmed yet and don't even have a release date, but if we do decide to go forward with them they would potentially arrive sometime in the summer.

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.

Here's the package of changes we are considering at this time:

  • Increase Rapid Light and Rapid Heavy launcher reload time from 35s to 40s (~4% sustained dps reduction with no burst damage reduction). This change would reset the rapid launcher reload time back to the original values from when they were first converted to a burst damage system. It is a slight reduction to sustained dps while not impacting burst damage

  • Change ship missile range bonuses to not apply to undersize missiles
  • This would mean that the following ships would have their range bonuses only apply to Heavy and Heavy Assault Missiles: Orthrus, Caracal, Cerberus, Onyx, Osprey Navy Issue, Cyclone, Drake, Drake Navy Issue
  • The Barghest range bonus would also be changed to only impact Cruise Missiles and Torpedoes
  • The Mordu flight time reduction would also no longer apply to undersized missiles
  • This change would only affect range bonuses (missile velocity and missile flight time) not damage bonuses

  • Increase all Heavy Missile damage by 5.6%. This would be a general buff to HMLs and more than compensate for the longer reload time on RHMLs leading to a slight buff for them as well.


As I mentioned above we don't have a proposed release date for these changes yet but we want to start gathering community feedback and get the discussion started. Thanks and happy Saturday!


SFI dodged the bullet! YES!!!!
GROUND XERO
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#237 - 2017-06-14 11:53:46 UTC  |  Edited by: GROUND XERO
it is very easy ... give us back the old stats of the rapid light launcher...and we are all fine! .... (before burst dmg came in!!!)

NCPL (Necromonger of new Eden) will make EVE great again!

Lukka
#238 - 2017-06-14 12:15:26 UTC
Having read carefully the proposed changes, yeah it looks OK.
My Cat Meows
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#239 - 2017-06-15 14:40:52 UTC
There is some danger of going past the target here. Kiting ships that used 'fury' light missiles before will now have to use navy ammunition, since T2 ammo doesn't reach the target anymore. This implies a ~19% nerf to damage which is above the small and careful numbers you try to apply here.

As it was stated here quite some times already, nerfing RLM/RHM will not cause avoidance behavior of switching to heavy missiles in case of cruisers. If you use T2 ammo with heavy missiles, which you have to in oder to get acceptable DPS, only roughly half of the damage actually applies with best skills. It is the lack of alternitives that makes people use RLM. If we make missiles apply well to their own ship size, there will not be a reason to use RLM/RHM to fight the own ship size anymore.

With the lack of an exit option, this change would not balance out the meta in the means of people adapting within the available options for missiles, but towards gunnery systems.

With the issue of the 2 seperate branches of skill training for missiles and gunnery, this has the tendency to lock out some people from the game for a bit, especially solo pilots. It might sound strange, that a 19% change to damage would remove gameplay styles and their pilots from the active game, but you have to remember that PVP is a game between damage application and tanking, where the amount that the damage application is greater than the tank defines if a victor can be determined in a fight and who it is. This magnifies the effect.

Personally, as someone who is affected, i wouldn't know what to do in eve if this became real. But i do see the problem you are trying to fix, and it is good you worry about it. Please understand that the choice to use RLM against cruisers is a negative one, since the other weapon systems, which are intended for this use, aren't viable options for their own purpose. If you make HM and HAM viable options for the different fighting styles, the abuse of RLM will not be mandatory anymore. Thank you for reading.
Morwennon
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#240 - 2017-06-22 10:14:20 UTC
Lucas Quaan wrote:
So is this change actually coming anytime soon? Would like to know for :reasons:. :)


I too have, uh, reasons for wanting to know whether these changes are going to be coming in, say, the next two months.