These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues
Hookers N' Blow
#121 - 2017-04-04 16:08:26 UTC
HAM's really need a range/application bonus, or more dps as well.
HML's dont really need more dps, just a bit more application.

RLML defintielly need the nerf. finally. What about the Medium AC buff, and the rest of the tiericide of weapon systems.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#122 - 2017-04-04 17:12:47 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
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).

Maybe the missiles are supposed to be able to do more damage to larger targets, and the damage they are already doing to medium targets is intended and balanced? After all, they have excellent range and flexible choice of damage. Maybe the RLMLs are overpowered by offering cruiser missile paper DPS which translates too easily onto the target.


Skia Aumer wrote:
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.

Fly a Kestrel if you want precision light missile range bonus. That's what Kestrels are for. If you can't be bothered to fly a frigate, you shouldn't be able to blap mobile interceptors. Alternatively you could use Minmatar recon ships and not need precision missiles! It's an excellent reminder that more ships can make up for not having the right ships.

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."

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#123 - 2017-04-04 20:07:29 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Merin Ryskin wrote:
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).

Maybe the missiles are supposed to be able to do more damage to larger targets, and the damage they are already doing to medium targets is intended and balanced? After all, they have excellent range and flexible choice of damage. Maybe the RLMLs are overpowered by offering cruiser missile paper DPS which translates too easily onto the target.



HAMs already deal more damage to a Caracal than rapid lights, even more so if you factor in reloads. With 2 LSE and 2 rigs bloating his sig, a Caracal end up at 192m radius. The crossover for speed to have less damage coming from HAMs is around 375 m/s but only on AB. The full speed envelope with MWD bloom is better damaged by HAMs. If you link the Caracal for sig radius reduction, the speed required is then 320 ish on AB or 1845 on T2 MWD.

The application of HAMs against a shield cruisers is then not the problem. What probably is the problem is more the fact that anywhere you fly, you have about 10 time as much chance to face frigs/destroyers than you do cruisers and up and in those cases, I'm pretty sure RLML are always better than HAMs so people will take the slight DPS hit against cruisers and up to deal better damage the majority of stuff they will face.

The "frigate menace" is responsible for spawning the "RLML cancer" they keep facing because it's flat out a better weapon to engage them.

Only making reloads longer at the end of the clips will not solve any of this because one clip is easily enough right now to swap the frigates off the field. Shorter reloads + smaller clips would at least mean I actually lose out on the damage curve way faster if facing a cruiser weapon but also can't kill so many frigates before I need to reload. Reducing the rage won't really change much because even with no ship bonus and no support skill at all, you still already shoot at 18km.

Longer reload and no range bonus solve nothing because the missiles already have the needed range and the reload don't matter all that much with a clip as big as it currently is.
Aleverette
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#124 - 2017-04-05 02:56:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Aleverette
I was once a pilot living in Serenity's low sec for two years, and Cancerous Legion was my best friends both ratting-wise(barghest bpc sweetest bpc) and pvpmeta-wise. I know you balance team is trying to get rid of the brainless RLML kiting meta, but I have to point out you are balancing it from not the best approach, especially the damage buff to heavy missiles and the no-reason nerf to barghest.

In a simpler form: You wanna reduce usage of RLMLs? Change how Orthrus work is better than change the launchers themselves.
RHLs are fine, don't play numbers on it.

Here is a little piece of my thought about how the rapid launchers balance should work.

1) Cancerous Legion:
Orthrus and Garmur: change their gallente bonus to +5% propulsion jamming system range per skill level. (More mid-range brawling, less disruptor kiting)
Barghest: Don't hurt it unless you CCP manage make its price drop as complement.
Leave the all-missile range bonus unchanged, it should be Mordu's factional special.

2)RLMLs, RHLs and heavy missiles: Do nothing. You don't want heavy missile cerberus fleet become the new age 2010drake, don't you?

3)Caracal, Cerberus, Onyx, Osprey Navy Issue, Cyclone, Drake, Drake Navy Issue: Keep your style, nerf light missile range bonus.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#125 - 2017-04-05 03:20:07 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Maybe the missiles are supposed to be able to do more damage to larger targets, and the damage they are already doing to medium targets is intended and balanced?


That makes no sense at all. Why should all missiles be oversized weapons, the equivalent of putting battleship guns on a cruiser? And it's not like missiles do amazing damage to larger targets, their maximum paper dps isn't any better than equivalent gun dps.

Quote:
After all, they have excellent range and flexible choice of damage.


Both of which are not worth anywhere near as much as many people think. Range is a marginal advantage at best, in small fights anything over 20-30km is wasted because of the limits of tackle range, and in big fights the flight time of missiles means that the primary is dead before any missiles hit. And flexible damage type is almost worthless, many (most?) missile ships are locked into a single damage type because of their bonuses and you're almost never going to be willing to spend time reloading mid-fight to change damage types. And in PvP most targets are omni-tanked, so you're looking at a modest advantage at most even if you can hit their resistance "hole".

Quote:
It's an excellent reminder that more ships can make up for not having the right ships.


Encouraging blobbing is a bad idea.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2017-04-05 03:32:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Merin Ryskin wrote:
That makes no sense at all. Why should all missiles be oversized weapons,

Because...
Merin Ryskin wrote:
their maximum paper dps isn't any better than equivalent gun dps.

It's worse. But what if it wasn't? It should be worse, but what if instead of buffing medium missiles' application, their damage was buffed instead? They could deal reasonable damage to cruiser-sized targets but higher damage to larger targets or webbed+painted cruisers. That would give them an interesting trait to help make up for their overall cumbersome nature. Also, since they're built to have less damage than turrets, it is less likely they will become overpowered with a bit of extra damage.


What if the Phoenix had the highest DPS of any dreadnought, but only against large citadels or webbed+painted titans?

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."

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#127 - 2017-04-05 04:50:43 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
It's worse. But what if it wasn't? It should be worse, but what if instead of buffing medium missiles' application, their damage was buffed instead? They could deal reasonable damage to cruiser-sized targets but higher damage to larger targets or webbed+painted cruisers. That would give them an interesting trait to help make up for their overall cumbersome nature. Also, since they're built to have less damage than turrets, it is less likely they will become overpowered with a bit of extra damage.


Then you get one of two problems:

1) Missiles are ok against same-size targets AND get bonus dps against larger targets, making them overpowered and better than turrets in pretty much every situation besides huge fleet fights.

or

2) Missiles are weak against same-size targets but powerful against larger targets. This is balanced, but it's the kind of specialized role that T2 ships are given, not something that is appropriate for an entire class of weapons/ships.
Zircon Dasher
#128 - 2017-04-05 16:20:12 UTC
My memory is hazy. Wasn't the old HML nerf -10%dmg and -15%expl radius?

With a single guidance computer the expl. radius 'nerf' is countered (while also getting a velocity bonus compared to old HMLs). With the proposed buff we are back to the old HML dmg. Granted the meta is different now, but I don't recall everyone shouting that the old HML Draeks/Tengus were woefully underpowered at killing cruisers +.

So my question for those who want HML to get expl. radius nerf reversed: Would HMLs with 16% better application to frigs and cruisrs, compared to the OLD HML, not be a little to overbearing wrt all the other missile platforms (given range)?

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.

Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#129 - 2017-04-05 16:47:50 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:
My memory is hazy. Wasn't the old HML nerf -10%dmg and -15%expl radius?

With a single guidance computer the expl. radius 'nerf' is countered (while also getting a velocity bonus compared to old HMLs). With the proposed buff we are back to the old HML dmg. Granted the meta is different now, but I don't recall everyone shouting that the old HML Draeks/Tengus were woefully underpowered at killing cruisers +.

So my question for those who want HML to get expl. radius nerf reversed: Would HMLs with 16% better application to frigs and cruisrs, compared to the OLD HML, not be a little to overbearing wrt all the other missile platforms (given range)?


No, no it wouldn't. Because we have ships and weapons systems that have been added and/or changed within the game that such changes would now bring the HML/RHML in line with the rest. And something that people then and now keep forgetting is that to get that better application you are giving up tank/ewar to obtain it. It's not like you were ever magically getting that application/range bonus out of thin air. HAMs would be in a lot better place as well with an application change more so than the HML/RHML anyway.


As many have pointed out adding dmg just makes them all the better as an oversized weapon system, while it improves the damage to same-size vessels appear to get better while introducing a whole new set of problems by ignoring the actual problem which is application.


At this point I think CCP will be be better served actually creating an entirely new calculation of which to base missile damage application. Perhaps one based on mass? The more massive the target the more force absorbed (and therefore damage taken) by the target, max force determined by the missile fired (think leaf in the wind vs static structure). Add in a corresponding vector equation to determine damage bonus/reduction based on speed moving towards/away from the origin point. I imagine such an equation could be created to actually be less server intensive than the current given these values should already be readily available based on what is already pulled.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#130 - 2017-04-05 17:58:11 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:


At this point I think CCP will be be better served actually creating an entirely new calculation of which to base missile damage application. Perhaps one based on mass? The more massive the target the more force absorbed (and therefore damage taken) by the target, max force determined by the missile fired (think leaf in the wind vs static structure). Add in a corresponding vector equation to determine damage bonus/reduction based on speed moving towards/away from the origin point. I imagine such an equation could be created to actually be less server intensive than the current given these values should already be readily available based on what is already pulled.


How do you expect the sever to have less of a hard time to handle a variable set containing mass, speed, direction and position as opposed to a variable set that include size and speed?
Zircon Dasher
#131 - 2017-04-05 19:04:16 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:
No, no it wouldn't. Because we have ships and weapons systems that have been added and/or changed within the game that such changes would now bring the HML/RHML in line with the rest. And something that people then and now keep forgetting is that to get that better application you are giving up tank/ewar to obtain it. It's not like you were ever magically getting that application/range bonus out of thin air.



First, people could not 'keep forgetting' that using a slot on a guidance computer meant less tank/ewar back then. There were no comps when the HML nerf occurred.

Second, tank was already sufficient given the numbers involved that people dropped in other semi-random stuff that might be useful in fleet. If guidance comps had been around, those would have been on a lot of fits.

Finally, don't misunderstand me. I am not completely adverse to expl. radius decreases. I just have not seen a resasoned argument for why old HML's + guidance comp would not be so much better than all other missile doctrine once you get past small gang. Lets not forget that the old HML boats were not really an issue when solo or small gang. They only became a 'problem' (quotes intentional) at scale and so you have to keep scale in mind when making changes.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.

Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#132 - 2017-04-05 21:43:04 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:

First, people could not 'keep forgetting' that using a slot on a guidance computer meant less tank/ewar back then. There were no comps when the HML nerf occurred.

Second, tank was already sufficient given the numbers involved that people dropped in other semi-random stuff that might be useful in fleet. If guidance comps had been around, those would have been on a lot of fits.

Finally, don't misunderstand me. I am not completely adverse to expl. radius decreases. I just have not seen a resasoned argument for why old HML's + guidance comp would not be so much better than all other missile doctrine once you get past small gang. Lets not forget that the old HML boats were not really an issue when solo or small gang. They only became a 'problem' (quotes intentional) at scale and so you have to keep scale in mind when making changes.




You're looking a little too far back when I said "back then" - I was referring to when they released the guidance computers. They're great, but you have to give up something to gain something. That's all i meant by that. And there was a small hit so some hulls at the same time as that release, but I wasn't referring to that anyway.

Your second point, it's unlikely unless it was an armor-based missile doctrine. *Most* shield doctrines, the brawling kind the existed once upon a time, used specifically tank and prop modes only in mids for the sake of survival. That slot is best used with another extender as it typically was. And I honestly cant think of an armor-based ship that would consider missiles.

Anymore missiles only really apply to small gang to be perfectly honest. When it comes to fleet warfare a price cannot be placed on instantly applying damage which cannot be completely negated via firewall or other means.


Frostys Virpio wrote:
How do you expect the sever to have less of a hard time to handle a variable set containing mass, speed, direction and position as opposed to a variable set that include size and speed?


Because they're already pulling variable sig radius and trajectories. I don't need to see their code to know it's there. Activating a prop mode to increase mass is updated just like updating a sig that has been target pained/increased via MWD. One would argue you would actually have less possibilities of a collision due to the limited ways a mass can change in combat. Additionally your movement through space is calculated via vector equations as we are in a 3D space. Which again is readily available as that is how they would have to go about calculating transversal/orbits/basic location in space. There are other ways, but would require more calculations to be done on the back end, which is why I can say with almost certainty this is how it is being done.

In short, what I have suggested makes use of what is already available, there are no additional calculations needed to obtain these values over and above what is already being done in the current system. More so since the introduction of Brain-in-the-box.
Zircon Dasher
#133 - 2017-04-06 02:18:59 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:
Your second point, it's unlikely unless it was an armor-based missile doctrine. *Most* shield doctrines, the brawling kind the existed once upon a time, used specifically tank and prop modes only in mids for the sake of survival. That slot is best used with another extender as it typically was. And I honestly cant think of an armor-based ship that would consider missiles.


Did we play the same EVE? Nobody fit all tank. Hell, even the 3mo old newbro/ 5xMultibox Drake fit was MWD, Tank, + cap mod. Most fits didnt use the cap mod unless you had to.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.

Milostiev
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#134 - 2017-04-06 14:52:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Milostiev
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!



It's good that CCP is at least trying to fix this broken stuff.

Suitonia did a very good job describing the problem with Rapids, so i'll summarize what he said and add :
1 - very light fitting requirements make it a very attractive option; you don't just fit a good weapon, but by using it you also get a built-in fitting/tanking bonus
2 - good application, or not that good application
3 - in the situations where they apply in the cruiser/frig meta, their burst DPS is opressive
4 - the ships that excel at using RLML's also excells at controlling range

1 - increase the fitting requirements so that ppl who use them, cannot mount such a massive buffer tank, or at least have to drop 1 bcu
3 - 35s reload time is not a penalty when you a whole bunch of ppl getting used to counting salvo's in fleets or small groups know how to cycle pilots through their reloads, so not sure if boosting it to 40s would help that much.
4 - the missile velocity bonus turns a relatively short range weapon system into a long range kitting weapon system

2 - i left this one last because i feel it is the most important thing. You have 2 weapon systems in 2 different classes that use the same ammo. Balancing around that is turning into a nightmare.
Nerf lights too much and the small class will suffer (dessies and frigs).
Nerf lights not enough, and the cruiser class will abuse it.
You have a number of options to cut this Gordian knot :
- give ammo penalties to rapid launchers (less needed for RHML's)
- split the ammo's of small and medium weapon systems (lml/rlml and hml/rhml)
- nerf the ships that abuse their use

I personally think the first option is the most elegant one, especially since you already have the code in place to provide launcher specific boosts/penalties to ammo.

To say it again, the biggest problems of RLML's are :
- application (on most/all ships)
- light fitting (on all ships applies)
- clip damage (on some ships, not all)

And application will also somewhat fix the problem of RLML-destroyer hulls that there is currently (in a dessy you are dead the moment a RLML cruiser enters range unless you are in a very weird fit like 10mn ab, hi resists .... where you will last a little).
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#135 - 2017-04-06 21:03:26 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:


Because they're already pulling variable sig radius and trajectories. I don't need to see their code to know it's there. Activating a prop mode to increase mass is updated just like updating a sig that has been target pained/increased via MWD. One would argue you would actually have less possibilities of a collision due to the limited ways a mass can change in combat. Additionally your movement through space is calculated via vector equations as we are in a 3D space. Which again is readily available as that is how they would have to go about calculating transversal/orbits/basic location in space. There are other ways, but would require more calculations to be done on the back end, which is why I can say with almost certainty this is how it is being done.

In short, what I have suggested makes use of what is already available, there are no additional calculations needed to obtain these values over and above what is already being done in the current system. More so since the introduction of Brain-in-the-box.


Just making missiles hit not always hit "at 0" on the target is much more calculation that what is currently done because it involve an sphere around each missile salvo checked each tick. Yes it's probably more realistic but CCP made boost pulses instead of a constant AoE to check who was affected so I really doubt they want missile constantly checking of their target is withing X meters of themselves instead of just waiting for a direct hit.
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Reckless Contingency.
#136 - 2017-04-07 01:13:07 UTC
The simplest answer would be to reduce the clip size by 1/3rd, and reduce the reload time by 5 seconds.
this way they still have their utility, but will have more of a downtime between reloads.
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#137 - 2017-04-07 01:46:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Just making missiles hit not always hit "at 0" on the target is much more calculation that what is currently done because it involve an sphere around each missile salvo checked each tick. Yes it's probably more realistic but CCP made boost pulses instead of a constant AoE to check who was affected so I really doubt they want missile constantly checking of their target is withing X meters of themselves instead of just waiting for a direct hit.


Where do you get that from? The calculations are always done at zero at moment of impact. I don't recall saying what I was suggesting having them explode before that point. Just because the math acts as if that is whats happening (like the current system) doesn't mean that's what happening. Guns calculate the moment the shot if fired. Missiles calculate at the moment of impact. It's still one calculation regardless of when it happens.

This whole thing is pointless as we're arguing a hypothetical that you aren't even following properly. I was literally just suggesting an idea that would allow for a change in how we use and defend against this weapon system.

EDIT- and please don't be one of those who ***** about missiles always doing damage. Missiles rarely do full damage (RLML excluded, and thats what they're trying to balace here) and can't do more than their cap damage and unlike guns. And you can actually outrun missiles and take zero damage no matter what. Even large/cap guns have a chance of getting a glancing blow.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#138 - 2017-04-07 20:22:57 UTC
would it be possible to keep the velocity bonuses on missiles fired from rapid launchers but nerf the flight time, like the mordus bonus but a bit weaker. For sure some of the RLML ships have oppressive range but missiles without a speed bonus are kinda meh. not sure about RHML

And +1 for what suitonia said, long reload times are boring increasing them isn't a great thing.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#139 - 2017-04-10 16:57:29 UTC
Hendrink Collie wrote:

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.



This is the most on-point post I've seen. This change is ridiculous.
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues
Hookers N' Blow
#140 - 2017-04-10 18:08:48 UTC
Mr Rive wrote:
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.


Torps need better range I think is your issue.