These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

RLML and HML balance pass

First post First post First post
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#41 - 2017-04-01 17:22:01 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:
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.

I think the fitting is the main problem with them, they use more than cruise. the range is worse than blasters and makes no sense because it's the same as hams, but if ccp want to make them a proper short range weapon rather than yet another mid range, I'm down
Harbingers of Reset
#42 - 2017-04-01 17:41:05 UTC  |  Edited by: XJIE6YLLIEK 6OPOgUHCKUU
You really should buff HAML damage and HML expl radius before nerfing only viable missle weapon
Maximus Andendare
Rote Kapelle
#43 - 2017-04-01 18:00:13 UTC
Taking this at face value, why the continual erosion of the sandbox? Further limiting modules and ship bonuses to certain things really hurts the freedom the sandbox offers. Definitely a step in the wrong direction.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

W-Space IT Department
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#44 - 2017-04-01 18:14:08 UTC
Ah yes, I see another two years of very minor balance changes to better observe and study the impact on the meta in RLML's future.
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#45 - 2017-04-01 18:26:19 UTC
ISD Max Trix wrote:
Having tested these changes out, this seems like a great idea.

I am not sorry, they are not.

Heavy missiles are still the worst kind of weapons in EVE and HAMs being a close second.

Here Fozzie read this:

Heavy missile explosion radius base = 100m

Heavy missile explosion velocity base = 200m/s

Heavy ass missile base explosion radius = 75m

Heavy ass missile base explosion velocity = 250m/s

Medium missiles fixed. What is so damn difficult with that?

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Gleb Koskov
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#46 - 2017-04-01 18:31:02 UTC
I receive these changes with open arms, hopefully the rlmls on my stabber won't be affected much.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#47 - 2017-04-01 18:33:03 UTC
RLML changes.. ehh, its not fixing the main issue. Their burst damage is oppressive, having a longer reload doesn't solve anything when they have enough damage per magazine to wipe most cruiser sized ships off the field. They are a support weapon/anti-frigate correct? Why should they be able to stomp out cruisers with 1 magazine?

Anyway, this is what i'd suggest for RLML, which goes along with what some others have mentioned.

-Their magazine size needs to be reduced and reload time reduced to compensate, this lowers their damage per magazine, but doesn't really affect the burst damage.

-keep the velocity bonuses to the hulls, but reduce the range of all light missiles. As far as small ship weapons go, light missiles have ******** range anyway. Most small long range weapons max out around 20-30km, not 42km. Reduce their base range and let the hull bonuses still apply, resulting in a net range nerf, but still keeping the flexibility of the hull bonuses.

If caracals didn't have such high damage per magazine, their range wouldn't be a huge issue. From a nullsec or home defense fleet goes, i think them having a good role as anti-support with range does fill some valid roles for groups defending against things like inty fleets or kiting gangs. Doing the other things mentioned here would still allow them the same role, but not make them quite as powerful.

-RLML need higher fittings to balance them out better. Caracals with dual LSE's, invuln, DCU and x3 BCU and shield rigs is stupid. There is no trade-off. Make them sacrifice a rig for a CPU rig, or drop a BCU, or at least meta some mods so they aren't getting max EHP/damage

HML Buff:

Really? Another 5% buff? FIX.THEIR.APPLICATION.

Plus, by buffing HM damage yet again, you're buffing RHML more than the HML themselves.

So, i'll use a HML drake for example, i'm doing about 400dps with 3 BCU and 6 heavies, this bonus will bump that to about 420 dps. Woooo... still terrible application. I'll see maybe a 5 dps increase because it still applies like ass.

Keep in mind, this drake is fit with a Rigor, missile computer and target painter just to apply somewhat decently. Is this your idea of being balanced? I need 3 application mods + crash just so i can apply more than 50% of my damage to anything that isn't a BC or shield tanked cruiser?

Also, 5% buff will do nothing to cruisers that fit HML, doing a pitiful 280-300dps when equipped on most cruisers.

I'd be fine with lower damage, if i didn't need to use 3 slots just for application so they apply. I don't even care if i still had to use 2 slots + crash, or just 2 slots. But tweak their application some. I'm not saying they need to smack frigates out of space with no effort of application, but adjust their application. Let HML synergize with target painters or missile computers, and let HAMs synergize with webs for application by adjusting explo velocity down really low on HAMS and high on HML.

Cade Windstalker
#48 - 2017-04-01 18:48:24 UTC
Suitonia wrote:
Th e problem is the burst damage killing most attack cruisers and similar anti support options while having twice the EHP as those options, please reduce the reload time to 30 seconds but reduce the clip size to 17 instead for T2. This retains almost identical Dps to now but allows ships like the rail Thorax, stabber, omen and other anti support ships to survive a reload.

Also, please, please consider increasing the fittings because the main issue with rapid light ships right now is they can fit absolutely everything with no sacrifice, mid to long cruiser sniper ranges, close range turret burst DPS, with high EHP. Increasing the reload time won't address any of this. Most people ping and reload while in Warp in bigger fights.

I kind of like this approach better, the reload makes them less of a choice in any situation in which... they're already not a great choice.

Yeah, you can never 100% know what you're going to run into on a roam/fleet op, but I don't feel like a longer reload is really going to dissuade people from taking these, or make anyone killed by them feel any better or feel like they were any more survivable. They're still inducing a sort of floor on viable EHP for smaller ships of "Can you survive 1/2/x ships spamming RLML/RHML at you before they have to reload"

The range changes feel better in this regard, but I'm not sure they're really going to have a big impact. Comparing the Caracal (range bonus) to the Caracal Navy Issue (no range bonus) the range on bonused RLMLs is 63.3km at All-5s, which is ridiculous, but the unbonused range is still 42.2km, which is long enough to create a pretty significant bubble of "nope" around one of these ships that most small hulls can't hope to project significant damage into from outside without long-range guns and a fairly specialized fit. For reference the Rifter, which has a Falloff bonus, will still be fighting at Optimal + Falloff if it wants to apply damage from outside the death zone of a Caracal with these changes. That's better than now when it can't even get close, but it's still not great.

In that vein this actually starts to look like something that's mostly going to impact the ability for groups to catch and kill kitey Frigate setups, at least on the RLML side of things. The range is still long enough to wreck most Frigates, so this only really opens up room for a longer range Frig or Destroyer. A burst damage change would need to happen for this to open up room for smaller brawling ships.
Kines Pavelovna
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#49 - 2017-04-01 19:00:43 UTC
Application with heavy missiles and HAM's was always the problem not the raw damage. With HAMs on cruisers you need a TP/Web to fully apply and it's just not practical to do that often enough that they'd be competitive.
Valkin Mordirc
#50 - 2017-04-01 19:01:40 UTC
Long reload times shouldn't be the answer,

Long reloads are not fun, they are boring.

Also what Suitonia said, notch the fitting up. I shouldn't be able to fit a 100mn AB , XL-ASB, small neut, and Scram/Point an Orthrus without gimping it. With RLML this is possible.
Justin Cody
War Firm
#51 - 2017-04-01 19:45:04 UTC
I am ok with this.
Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
#52 - 2017-04-01 19:50:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Tom Gerard
I like this idea it would allow us to extract all missile skills without any loss in combat effectiveness.

Missiles are a cancer upon EVE, remove the entire weapon system, after that remove drones for the love of god.

Now with 100% less Troll.

Iv d'Este
Private Security Squad
#53 - 2017-04-01 20:19:59 UTC
Leave the rlm alone. Do not change them. Improve the damage bringing (signature of explosion or explosion speed) on the heavy assault missiles. The problem is not in the RLM but in the absence of choice. Other missiles just do not suit. HAM have no damage in real combat against cruisers.
Gleb Koskov
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#54 - 2017-04-01 20:32:28 UTC
It's either this new change or integrating a new family of rapid missiles that feels more balanced, I don't think they have the resources for the latter.
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#55 - 2017-04-01 20:49:53 UTC
Agreed with others, the RLML issue is more the burst damage during the clip, the long reload is almost inconsequential if you delete your target before you ever need to reload. Decreasing clip size so that rapid launchers are still good to delete ships downclass, but not a no-brainer versus same-size or higher opponents, is probably a better idea. It would make same-size missiles a more obvious "sustainable" DPS solution versus downsized missiles as a utility pick.

You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT

Crimson Draufgange
The Seven Shadows
Scotch And Tea.
#56 - 2017-04-01 21:00:58 UTC
I would love to see the application of Heavy Assault Missiles buffed. In my opinion, HAMs should be able to apply their damage perfectly to cruiser sized hulls and up, but anything destroyer and below would take considerably less damage from HAMs. Perhaps also tweak the reload times and ammo capacity of HAMs to prevent them from becoming overpowered.

I barely ever see HAMs used in PvP, and would love to see this change.

My Velator is overpowered.

"I use my hairgel to tackle my targets because it has a long lasting firm hold." - Me.

michael chasseur
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2017-04-01 23:07:48 UTC
increase HM damage by 4.20%
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2017-04-01 23:33:17 UTC
If you have to put penalties to make a weapon viable, then the weapon it should'nt exist. Remove Rapids from the game.
Mr Rive
Pandemic Legion
#59 - 2017-04-01 23:48:47 UTC
So before the changes, the barghest has on faction missile:

30.3km on siege missiles
94.3km on rapid heavies
222km on cruise missiles

After the changes, the bargest will have on faction missiles:
30.3km on siege missiles.
62.9km on rapid heavies.
222km on cruise missiles.

It just highlights the problem with large missile ships all over. They just dont have a decent mid-range option. You either go cruise, which hit like garbage on even BC's, OR you go so close range, there is no point in using them in the first place.

Suggestion: Make siege missiles a viable mid-ranged option. Why on earth siege missilles are SO short range in the first place is a bit wierd. You're basically incentivising people not to use them because turrets are so much more versatile.

I don't think you are going to get to the core of why missiles need balancing by just looking at heavy missiles tbh.
Lug Muad'Dib
Funk'in Hole
#60 - 2017-04-02 00:20:19 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:

-keep the velocity bonuses to the hulls, but reduce the range of all light missiles. As far as small ship weapons go, light missiles have ******** range anyway. Most small long range weapons max out around 20-30km, not 42km. Reduce their base range and let the hull bonuses still apply, resulting in a net range nerf, but still keeping the flexibility of the hull bonuses.


You know, missiles flight and target move.. thank for the laugh.