These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#101 - 2017-04-03 03:49:59 UTC
RLMLs are fine. The problem is that only undersized missiles can actually hit a same-size target with full damage, and even the paper dps of heavies/HAMs isn't all that impressive. Nerfing RLMLs without fixing all the other missiles just means that missile ships in general take a major nerf and probably cease to be viable.

The actual solution here is to buff "normal" size missiles so they can hit same-size targets for full (or at least near-full) dps, with better dps than undersized missiles (which have fine paper dps as they are). That gives you the choice between maximum dps at the cost of projection against smaller targets, or awesome projection against smaller targets but weaker dps against anything in the same size class.
oiukhp Muvila
Doomheim
#102 - 2017-04-03 05:21:44 UTC
I think the whole damage calculus of this game needs to be re-thought.

I agree the biggest issue is how poorly cruiser class missiles are against cruiser sized ships. That should be their strong point regardless of the propulsion modules added to the targets.

As well, I think the ranges for all weapons and targeting systems should be increased something like 5 to 10 times.
A frigate shouldn't be able to cross a cruiser's engagement range in less than 30 seconds in any circumstance.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#103 - 2017-04-03 08:29:41 UTC
oiukhp Muvila wrote:
I think the whole damage calculus of this game needs to be re-thought.

I agree the biggest issue is how poorly cruiser class missiles are against cruiser sized ships. That should be their strong point regardless of the propulsion modules added to the targets.

As well, I think the ranges for all weapons and targeting systems should be increased something like 5 to 10 times.
A frigate shouldn't be able to cross a cruiser's engagement range in less than 30 seconds in any circumstance.


Oversized AB's are meant to be a counter to Missiles, AB's in general are. While MWD are meant to be weak to them. So prop mods should have a decent impact, but currently an unfitted cruiser, some of them are down to 60% of paper damage from Heavy Missiles, fix at least that issue to 100, and prop mods are no longer as insanely good at negating the damage, because they start from 100, not 60%.
Isengrimus
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#104 - 2017-04-03 10:55:20 UTC
So this was NOT April's Fools after all? Well, that's even less funny.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#105 - 2017-04-03 12:12:49 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
RLMLs are fine. ...


No, they are not. And ships like a Caracal don't even have enough fitting room to fit heavy launchers in the first place.

Light missiles are fine, rapid IWIN launchers are not.

Why do you think, I made a thread about rapid artillery turrets??

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#106 - 2017-04-03 12:53:13 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
And ships like a Caracal don't even have enough fitting room to fit heavy launchers in the first place.


Then this needs to be fixed. If you just nerf RLML then congratulations, you have a Caracal that can't work effectively with RLML, can't fit anything else, and can't apply useful damage even if it could fit HML/HAM. IOW, you might as well delete the Caracal from the game.
Isengrimus
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#107 - 2017-04-03 13:19:28 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
elitatwo wrote:
And ships like a Caracal don't even have enough fitting room to fit heavy launchers in the first place.


Then this needs to be fixed. If you just nerf RLML then congratulations, you have a Caracal that can't work effectively with RLML, can't fit anything else, and can't apply useful damage even if it could fit HML/HAM. IOW, you might as well delete the Caracal from the game.


Just like basically all Mordu's ships, because Garmur is not worthy keeping a whole line of cool-looking useless line.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#108 - 2017-04-03 13:20:24 UTC
To fix RLML, you need to fix the other medium missiles and make RLML a real trade off to fit. Having a dedicated anti-support missile syytem isn't the end of the world but it has to be an effective limitation. Right now, the ships that use them pretty much work better against EVERYTHING with RLML instead of HMs and HAMs.
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#109 - 2017-04-03 14:35:25 UTC
Giving more damage to heavy missiles seems like a good idea, considering some of my favourite ships are basically on death row because it's not possible to get sensible DPS with heavy missiles. Seriously, there are frigates who have higher DPS than a Cyclone with HMLs. That's not right.
Ransu Asanari
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#110 - 2017-04-03 15:21:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Ransu Asanari
Let's take a trip back in time.

I started playing in 2012, when the Drake was still an amazing ship. I trained into missiles based on feedback everyone gave me, that it was good for PVE and PVP. Pretty soon afterwards:

Winter 2012

  • Heavy Missile Damage reduced by 10% (rounded to closest digit)
  • Heavy Missile Explosion Radius increased by 12%

Summer 2015

  • Heavy Missile Damage increased by 5%


So now we're looking at increasing HML damage again, by 5.6%. That puts damage levels basically back to the same as they were in 2012, possibly increased by a whole 0.6%. But with the previous nerfs to damage applications, it's almost pointless.

The Missile Explosion Radius has never been adjusted to my knowledge. We have Missile Guidance Computers/Enhancers now, which we didn't back then, but Missile Disruption was also introduced which evens this out the same as every other weapon system.

HML damage application has been suffering since the nerf in 2012, hence why it's such an underperforming weapon system.

CCP Fozzie: Please consider increasing the damage application, and undoing some of the Explosion Radius nerf from 2012.
DeadDuck
Hostile.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#111 - 2017-04-03 15:31:35 UTC
Owen Levanth wrote:
Giving more damage to heavy missiles seems like a good idea, considering some of my favourite ships are basically on death row because it's not possible to get sensible DPS with heavy missiles. Seriously, there are frigates who have higher DPS than a Cyclone with HMLs. That's not right.


Lack of damage and even worst: the lack of application. HAMS and HML have really crap damage application. I used to fit HAMS or HML in my caldari fits but was pretty much "obliged" to fit RLML due to the explosion radius and velocity nerfs these 2 systems suffered.

If they go ahead with this nerf and dont change the application status of HML's and HAMS, a lot of the Caldari BC/Cruiser Hulls will be useless.
Alderson Point
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#112 - 2017-04-03 16:09:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Alderson Point
Fozzie, while your intentions are good, you may want to consider some of the ideas put forward.

1. RLML are the defining choice because HML and HAM launchers are extremely poor at applying damage below battlecruiser sized targets. Improve application for these, and then it becomes a question of players balancing benefits against RLML rather than "always RLML"

2. Increasing reload time simply makes RLML more unpleasant to use, where reducing both clip size and REDUCING reload time by 5 seconds would make them far more useable WHILST making them less oppressive.

3. Decreasing range makes RLML less effective against fast moving targets, the real purpose of the weapon system, it simply means fly another ship if you want to fight frigates and interceptors.

I hope you will take these ideas and comments in board, you have far more experience and knowledge of future developments than most of us, but we do have in game experience, and from that perspective this solution is not addressing our issues.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2017-04-04 00:06:06 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
No, they are not. And ships like a Caracal don't even have enough fitting room to fit heavy launchers in the first place.

Max skills it fits 5x T2 HAM launcher, T2 MWD, and T2 LSE, needing only 1% powergrid bonus to make it fit. With Powergrid Upgrades 3 and without Advanced Weapon Upgrades (same as a starter toon), it fits T1 versions of those mods (not compact) using 700 out of 724.5 MW powergrid. Still got room to fit everything else.

You don't have to fit a 1600mm armor plate to your Caracal.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#114 - 2017-04-04 09:06:26 UTC
While you're at it, could you take a look at precision light missiles? In my opinion they lack velocity already, and now that they lose bonuses from many hulls, it puts them into an even weaker place.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#115 - 2017-04-04 10:00:41 UTC
Fozzie, do a balance pass to all missiles systems instead.
Range
Application
Hull bonuses
Straight buffing damage won't solve anything here.

This community always pick the best options and the best now are rapids missiles lanuchers for both undersized and same size hulls.
Maybe instead of introducing burst damage launchers give hulls bonuses to undersized weapons?

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Zavand Crendraven
Rolling Static
No Vacancies.
#116 - 2017-04-04 10:02:45 UTC
Ransu Asanari wrote:
Let's take a trip back in time.

I started playing in 2012, when the Drake was still an amazing ship. I trained into missiles based on feedback everyone gave me, that it was good for PVE and PVP. Pretty soon afterwards:

Winter 2012

  • Heavy Missile Damage reduced by 10% (rounded to closest digit)
  • Heavy Missile Explosion Radius increased by 12%

Summer 2015

  • Heavy Missile Damage increased by 5%


So now we're looking at increasing HML damage again, by 5.6%. That puts damage levels basically back to the same as they were in 2012, possibly increased by a whole 0.6%. But with the previous nerfs to damage applications, it's almost pointless.


No missile damage is still lower than it was back then (albeit not by much) 0.9*1.05*1.056=0.99792 so still ~0.2% lower dps
Stridsflygplan
Krypted Gaming
#117 - 2017-04-04 10:38:15 UTC
Will the range nerf also affect the role bonus on the Drake and Drake Navy Issue?
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#118 - 2017-04-04 11:03:16 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
RLMLs are fine. The problem is that only undersized missiles can actually hit a same-size target with full damage, and even the paper dps of heavies/HAMs isn't all that impressive. Nerfing RLMLs without fixing all the other missiles just means that missile ships in general take a major nerf and probably cease to be viable.

The actual solution here is to buff "normal" size missiles so they can hit same-size targets for full (or at least near-full) dps, with better dps than undersized missiles (which have fine paper dps as they are). That gives you the choice between maximum dps at the cost of projection against smaller targets, or awesome projection against smaller targets but weaker dps against anything in the same size class.


I agree with this assessment.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#119 - 2017-04-04 11:14:03 UTC
Alderson Point wrote:
Fozzie, while your intentions are good, you may want to consider some of the ideas put forward.

1. RLML are the defining choice because HML and HAM launchers are extremely poor at applying damage below battlecruiser sized targets. Improve application for these, and then it becomes a question of players balancing benefits against RLML rather than "always RLML"

2. Increasing reload time simply makes RLML more unpleasant to use, where reducing both clip size and REDUCING reload time by 5 seconds would make them far more useable WHILST making them less oppressive.

3. Decreasing range makes RLML less effective against fast moving targets, the real purpose of the weapon system, it simply means fly another ship if you want to fight frigates and interceptors.

I hope you will take these ideas and comments in board, you have far more experience and knowledge of future developments than most of us, but we do have in game experience, and from that perspective this solution is not addressing our issues.


These are also good points.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Planet 6
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#120 - 2017-04-04 15:35:51 UTC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_oiSQehU_M

im only good for memes anyway, ill just leave this here