|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
274
|
Posted - 2013.10.07 16:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Forgot to mention something important - Battleships with Damage bonuses (like Raven and Typhoon rate of fire) will have those bonuses applied to the new launchers. Any bonuses to damage projection or application will NOT be applied (such as Raven missile velocity or Typhoon explosion velocity). As has been previously mentioned by others, if this is the case RHMLs are just going to end up being a niche weapon. As this IS a battleship-class weapon - explosion velocity, explosion radius and missile velocity should all apply. Even with these bonuses, any battleship setup with RHMLs will still be looking at less range and overall less DPS; the only benefit will be improved damage application against cruiser-sized ships (as it should be). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
276
|
Posted - 2013.10.07 23:30:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ranamar wrote:Why isn't heavy missile range bonused for RHML Ravens? That's the million dollar question. While the base specs with full skills aren't bad (62.9km, 105m explosion radius, 121.5m explosion velocity) I was really hoping for a "cruiser killer". I guess a person could run a set of T2 hydraulics and a T2 flare, but it would be nice if they received at least the explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses and at least a 25% velocity bonus (where applicable). Ideally the velocity bonuses as well to free up the rig slots for shield and armor buffing. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
276
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 00:51:00 -
[3] - Quote
GeMiPaT wrote:- What about BC tier 3, will they be able to use them as they are able to use large launchers ? Do you see where I go ? A tier 3 BC with insane ROF. could be nice mid range battles. Naga on steroids? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
276
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 04:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
Funless Saisima wrote:On SISI the Golem does not give a bonus to RHML. Without the 100% bonus they are fairly useless. Is this an over-site or intentional?
For the Marauder, the hits just keep on coming... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
280
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 18:45:00 -
[5] - Quote
The Golem has that slow sucking sound, regardless of whether or not they modify the stats for it. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
287
|
Posted - 2013.10.09 14:16:00 -
[6] - Quote
Wu Phat wrote:Umm Why Don't the RHML don't benefit from the Secondary Bonus on the Raven,Typhoon & there Navy Issue Counterparts ? The Explosion Velocity (Phoon) and Pure Missile Velocity (Raven) Would Just Make them even More Attractive to use and help Kill Smaller Medium Sized, Signature tanked Hulls. Probably because it would make them even more attractive. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
289
|
Posted - 2013.10.10 15:55:00 -
[7] - Quote
It would still be nice to have all the bonuses applied to RHMLs. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Stay Frosty.
289
|
Posted - 2013.10.11 00:21:00 -
[8] - Quote
Iome Ambraelle wrote:I agree. The overall applied DPS could wind up the same, but it would be nice to have compelling weapon based hull bonuses playing a part in which hull you choose when fitting RHMLs. The SNI will simply be a better ship as you have the same applied damage output as the other BS hulls but better resists. The other hulls simply have 1-2 non-functional hull bonuses. I like the prospect of being able to utilize a mix of cruise and heavy missiles without necessarily having to commit the rig slots to rigors and flares. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Stay Frosty.
289
|
Posted - 2013.10.11 02:16:00 -
[9] - Quote
Jayne Fillon wrote:I'm not even going to bother posting my opinion on the matter because the numbers speak for themselves. Not necessarily. I'd like to see the numbers with 2x T1 Rigors and 1x T1 Flare (since these aren't slated to affect RHMLs anyway). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Stay Frosty.
289
|
Posted - 2013.10.11 03:30:00 -
[10] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:As for ravens, I doubt a slow raven dishing out 500ish DPS at HML range is going to be OP for any half decent PvPer. You hit the nail on the head. No one's going to be dropping from almost 1000 to 500 dps. RHML's still need the missile velocity, explosion radius and explosion velocity to even be considered on most missile-based battleships. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
Stay Frosty.
289
|
Posted - 2013.10.11 07:20:00 -
[11] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:That's very interesting because that show exactly what Jayne Fillon is saying : RHML will be largely better than Cruise or Torp to shoot at smaller target but cruise and torp will still be good to apply dps to BS and painted/tackled targets.
The shortish range is interesting too because that make missiles work exactly the reverse of turrets which have less trouble hitting smaller targets at longer ranges whereas these RHML will hit them at closer ranges. No, they won't. Two rigors and a flare on a RNI and cruise missiles will hit for about twice the damage of a heavy missile with the same accuracy and easily 4-5x the range. Which would you choose? There's also the question of missile velocity on the RHMLs, because without any of the inherent velocity bonuses these things are going to almost be as slow as torpedoes. Now if the RHMLs receive ALL of the missiles bonuses, different story. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Stay Frosty.
289
|
Posted - 2013.10.11 11:38:00 -
[12] - Quote
I have to wonder if some of you have actually flown any of these ships... Here are some raw numbers, using T2 cruise and RHML with Caldari Navy faction ammunition (skills to Level-V, no implants or modules except where noted). I had to make some manual calculations with the RHML, so expect -¦1% divergence. Numbers don't tell the whole story here, but I'll try to offer some insight.
Raven Navy Issue: GÇó Cruise II ... 52 dps, 185.63 m radius, 103.5 m/s explosion, 10575 m/s velocity, 222.1km range GÇó RHML II ... 41.6 dps, 105 m radius, 121.5 m/s explosion, 6450 m/s velocity, 62.9km range GÇó w/T2 Rigor-Flare, Cruise II ... 118.8 m radius, 124.2 m/s explosion GÇó w/T2 Rigor-Flare, RHML II ... 67.2m radius, 145.8 m/s explosion GÇó Cruise II, alpha ... 592.63 hp (4741 hp), 11.39 s rate of fire; 416 dps total GÇó RHML II, alpha ... 213.13 hp (1705 hp), 5.99 s rate of fire; 333 dps total
Scorpion Navy Issue and Typhoon: GÇó Cruise II ... 69.3 dps, 247.5 m radius, 103.5 m/s explosion (129.4 m/s Typhoon), 7050 m/s velocity, 148.1km range GÇó RHML II ... 55.5 dos, 105m radius, 121.5 m/s explosion, 6450 m/s velocity, 62.9km range GÇó w/T2 Rigor-Flare, Cruise II ... 158.4 m radius, 124.2 m/s explosion (155.2 m/s Typhoon) GÇó w/T2 Rigor-Flare, RHML II ... 67.2m radius, 145.8 m/s explosion GÇó Cruise II, alpha ... 592.63 hp (3556 hp), 6.26s rate of fire; 416 dps total GÇó RHML II, alpha ... 213.13 hp (1279 hp), 4.49 s rate of fire; 333 dps total
Typhoon Fleet Issue: GÇó Cruise II ... 71.6 dps, 247.5 m radius, 103.5 m/s explosion, 7050 m/s velocity, 148.1km range GÇó RHML II ... 57.2 dos, 105m radius, 121.5 m/s explosion, 6450 m/s velocity, 62.9km range GÇó w/T2 Rigor-Flare, Cruise II ... 158.4 m radius, 124.2 m/s explosion GÇó w/T2 Rigor-Flare, RHML II ... 67.2m radius, 145.8 m/s explosion GÇó Cruise II, alpha ... 814.86 hp (4889 hp), 11.39 s rate of fire; 430 dps total GÇó RHML II, alpha ... 293.05 hp (1758 hp), 5.99 s rate of fire; 343 dps total
Rattlesnake: < lost cause >
First and foremost you've got striking range. It's quite literally night and day. Even with the non-range bonused Scorpions or Typhoons, you're still taking about a 148.1km range with cruise missiles. That affords one the ability to stand-off at a distance to pick targets off, reducing damage and requiring at less tank. At 60km, not so much.
Second, consider missile velocity and alpha. Even at a 50% damage reduction with cruise missiles you're going to 1-shot most cruisers (especially with 1-2 target painters). You'll need at least 2 volleys with RHML, since you can't really get the damage potential any higher with target painters. Then there's the speed. It takes 10 seconds to hit a target @60km with RHML, and 6 seconds with cruise. At the maximum range for RHML you can get 1.5 volleys of cruise missiles off in the time it takes 2 volleys of heavy missiles to hit their target. This is a lot of time for a target to accelerate, change direction, etc. - and can't really be appreciated just by looking at the raw numbers.
So let's look at the flip-side of the coin. You can probably get away with fewer (perhaps zero?) target painters running RHML. You can use this to buffer your tank (which you'll need with a range of 60km). And you're definitely going to hit frigates for more damage, but battleships are going to be more of a grind. So it's kind of a wash. Now you can also run hydraulic rigs and that will get your range to 96.2km, but again that reduces your tank - and kind of commits you to a RHML setup (since there's not a lot of benefit to cruise). This may be the only effective way to run RHMLs because missile velocity is just horrendous otherwise. DPS is going to consistently run about 80% all things considered, but this will vary significantly depending on the target. I really think the missile velocity on RHMLs is going to be a real wildcard that could potentially diminish their effect.
When you look at the numbers it's somewhat easy to understand why the designers are including damage and rate of fire, but not explosion velocity or explosion radius. It would probably be too op, and the Raven Navy Issue would be an absolute terror to just about everything except drones when outfitted with rigors and flares (I can still dream). However, missile velocity is something that should definitely be included (Rattlesnake, Raven and Raven Navy Issue). These are all long-range platforms and it somewhat defeats the purpose to relegate them to mid-range setups. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Stay Frosty.
289
|
Posted - 2013.10.11 11:46:00 -
[13] - Quote
Saberlily Whyteshadow wrote:RHML are worthless without proper ship bonus.. Only ROF bonus applies? really?? Allow it to have the velocity bonus too at a minimum. ROF and damage. But I agree, velocity should also be included. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Stay Frosty.
290
|
Posted - 2013.10.11 12:13:00 -
[14] - Quote
Saberlily Whyteshadow wrote:ROF literally is the only damage bonus in the BS hulls.. even the Caldari ships dont have a kinetic bonused hull. Typhoon Fleet Issue has a damage bonus. Probably the new Marauder. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Stay Frosty.
290
|
Posted - 2013.10.11 14:55:00 -
[15] - Quote
Jayne Fillon wrote:So there you go. Torps versus big slow things, cruise versus far things, and RHMLs versus close fast and small. Something seems off in your numbers. I can't see how RHMLs on a Typhoon would outperform cruise missiles by more than a factor of 2 against either type of battleship (AB and MWD). For starters, the explosion radius isn't going to come into effect, the explosion velocity is actually higher with cruise missiles and despite the higher rate of fire with RHMLs heavy missiles do less than half the damage. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Stay Frosty.
290
|
Posted - 2013.10.11 15:35:00 -
[16] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Explosion radius always matter and has the same weight as explosion velocity when speed is involved. A MWD battleship has a signature radius of well over 1500m and the explosion velocity of cruise missiles on a Typhoon is 7% higher than heavy missiles. So please explain how a heavy missile would outperform a cruise missile by a factor of two in this scenario. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Stay Frosty.
291
|
Posted - 2013.10.11 16:45:00 -
[17] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:CCP should remove heavy missiles and cruiser missile all together. Yeah... thanks for playing.
Jayne Fillon wrote:On the typhoon the cruise missiles DID our perform RHML against battlecruiser sized targets and larger. With or without prop mod. Not sure if I mistyped or what. I'd be curious to see your spreadsheet with the formulas and how you arrived at the various calculations for each. Any chance you could link it? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Stay Frosty.
291
|
Posted - 2013.10.11 17:21:00 -
[18] - Quote
Unless I'm mistaken, explosion radius only comes into play if the target's signature radius is smaller. If that's the case, it means we're primarily looking at explosion velocity as the determining factor.
Using a RNI and a target of a AB Cruiser (signature 175m) as an example, it would seem that compared to heavy missiles cruise missiles have 5% less explosion radius effect (185.63m vs. 105m), 17% less explosion velocity (103.5 m/s vs. 121.5 m/s) but yield approximately 20% more damage (when rate of fire is taken into account). I'm not sure how that works out to twice as effective. I can see RHMLs being marginally more effective, but not completely eclipsing cruise missiles. Especially considering that with the Typhoon cruise outperform RHMLs in instances where the signature radius exceeds that for cruise missiles.
I'm not disagreeing with the overall assessment, it just seems disproportionately weighted towards RHMLs for anything with a signature radius higher than an AB Cruiser. A casual glance would seem to suggest that cruise missiles and torpedoes would actually outstrip RHMLs for applied damage. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Stay Frosty.
291
|
Posted - 2013.10.11 18:34:00 -
[19] - Quote
Some real world numbers... I ran a Tengu outfitted with a single cruise and heavy missile launcher against the following targets (Caldari Navy Mjolnir ammunition, so no bonuses):
i. AB Caracal (145m signature, 525 m/s) ii. MWD Caracal (870m signature, 1515 m/s) iii. AB Ferox (345m signature, 346 m/s) iv. MWD Ferox (2070m signature, 961 m/s)
Here were the results:
GÇó Heavy missile ... AB Caracal, 88 damage (142 adjusted damage) GÇó Heavy missile ... MWD Caracal, 150 damage (242 adjusted damage) GÇó Cruise missile ... AB Caracal, 72 damage GÇó Cruise missile ... MWD Caracal, 141 damage
GÇó Heavy missile ... AB Ferox, 184 damage (297 adjusted damage) GÇó Heavy missile ... MWD Ferox, 184 damage (297 adjusted damage) GÇó Cruise missile ... AB Ferox, 194 damage GÇó Cruise missile ... MWD Ferox, 402 damage
Summary:
i. AB Caracal ... RHML, 97.2% more effective ii. MWD Caracal ... RHML, 71.6% more effective iii. AB Ferox ... RHML, 53.1% more effective iv. MWD Ferox ... Cruise, 35.4% more effective I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Stay Frosty.
291
|
Posted - 2013.10.11 18:40:00 -
[20] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:[If explosion radius is smaller than target sig, then the quotient of [sig]/[explosion radius] acts as a multiplier to missile explosion velocity, allowing a missile to deal full damage even if its target is exceeding its explosion velocity. This means that a target that experiences 5x increases to sig and speed - such as by activating MWD - can receive the same damage as when MWD was off, assuming that the hard cap of [sig]/[explosion radius] is not in effect. Very interesting. Appreciate the clarification, thanks. So would rigors then be more effective than flares (since it's unlikely you'll exceed a target's velocity with explosion velocity alone)? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
Stay Frosty.
291
|
Posted - 2013.10.11 19:21:00 -
[21] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:What happens with precision cruise in the tubes? I didn't test precision cruise (I don't have Cruise-V), but they have a 10% smaller signature and the same explosion velocity as faction heavies. So I imagine they'd fare 25-33% better overall. Without any missile velocity bonus I can't see using precision heavies for anything other than frigate defense, but I suspect they'd be quite effective. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Stay Frosty.
292
|
Posted - 2013.10.11 21:46:00 -
[22] - Quote
unidenify wrote:hate when people start to compare specific ships for RHML/CM/TM yet left SNI out (SNI's bonus do apply to both CM/RHML)... one thing that concern me is heavy missile's velocity. why it is slower than Cruise? That's because the damage is effectively the same between the RNI and SNI. The velocity on heavy missiles is what it is (most cruiser and battlecruiser classes bonus it). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
292
|
Posted - 2013.10.12 01:12:00 -
[23] - Quote
TekGnosis wrote:So, the part where there isn't a hull in the Tier 3 BC class that can use Missiles... About that. I'd love an oversized AML caracal. Maybe they had this on the drawing board, and is the actual reason for Naga flipping weapon systems? What about just retrofitting the Naga for large missiles? I'm sure no one would object... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
292
|
Posted - 2013.10.12 04:10:00 -
[24] - Quote
Jayne Fillon wrote:This sounds about right, the intersection point for RHML vs Cruise seemed to be centered around a MWD Combat Battlecruiser, although I did my calculations using a drake not a ferox. I think it's going to intersect a bit earlier with a RNI due to the explosion velocity bonus (possibly an AB battlecruiser). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
293
|
Posted - 2013.10.12 04:37:00 -
[25] - Quote
Naes Mlahrend wrote:Now make an attack BC that get's a bonus to launchers I'm putting a pair of RHMLs on my Tengu. +25% damage and +50% missile velocity. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
299
|
Posted - 2013.10.12 18:30:00 -
[26] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Oversight - thanks, will fix. Any feedback on including at least missile velocity bonuses with the RHML? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
299
|
Posted - 2013.10.12 18:53:00 -
[27] - Quote
Gorski Car wrote:Explosion velocity or dont use. I'm fine with explosion velocity and missile velocity. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
300
|
Posted - 2013.10.12 21:34:00 -
[28] - Quote
CCP, can we please get at least some update on the rationale for not including missile velocity?
It pretty much limits RHML use to the handful of missile-specific ships that receive a rate of fire or damage bonus (Raven, Scorpion, Scorpion Navy, Typhoon and Typhoon Fleet). Having gone through the numbers most of us appreciate that not including explosion radius (and to a lesser extent, explosion velocity) would probably make RHMLs entirely too powerful, but we're still taking about an overall 20% drop in DPS not including the massive range hit with RHMLs. Some of these ships are more geared towards long-range setups, and the RHMLs only seem to favor short and mid-range fits.
And while we're at it, any updated on the rumored missile tracking computer? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
305
|
Posted - 2013.10.13 07:27:00 -
[29] - Quote
TekGnosis wrote:I see lots of comparisons with navy cruise, but not with what you'd actually pack if you were trying to kill something smaller than a BC (the only reason you'd ever use RHML is to deal with smaller targets easier, right?)
With even only 1 TP, Precision cruise are pretty good against cruisers, particularly with 2 rigor. I'm not sure I see the draw for gimping range and peak damage against the (very common) BC in stepping down to RLHM.
Needs to inherit range buffs imho. Flying a brick slow raven with only 60km range and 'meh' peak dps makes me confused as to the problem being solved. At least with cruise you aren't forced inside Scorch range if you don't want to be.
Raven Navy Issue, T2 cruise launchers, precision cruise missiles and three rigors. Cruisers are done as dinner (and frigates not that far off). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
309
|
Posted - 2013.10.13 18:38:00 -
[30] - Quote
Damage application is going to be a bit better on the RNI with the explosion radius bonus for cruise missiles, especially if you're running three rigors and precision. Those will probably outperform RHMLs against cruisers and possibly even frigates, mainly due to the 20% extra damage. Now if RHMLs received the missile velocity bonus... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
320
|
Posted - 2013.10.14 19:15:00 -
[31] - Quote
Altrue wrote:RHML find their use very precisely in BS vs smaller ships. Buffing their range would make them overlap cruise missiles, which is not the goal here. I invite every one of you to read this brilliant article concerning RHML analysis with actual stats, graphs, and analysis, before making any undocumented feedback on the subject : http://themittani.com/features/rapid-heavy-missile-launcher-analysis No, it would not. The un-bonused range of cruise missiles is 148.1km; it's 62.9km for heavy missiles. Even with the full +50% missile velocity bonus you're talking about a range of 222.15km for cruise missiles and 94.35km for heavy missiles. Then there's the additional +10% velocity bonus cruise missiles have over heavy missiles. This is before the missile velocity on most battleship hulls, which makes cruise missiles twice as fast as heavy missiles.
And yes, I have thoroughly read and reviewed the article - and agree with the author on most points and his excellent analysis. However, it doesn't take into consideration specific hulls that have an inherent explosion radius (Raven Navy Issue) or explosion velocity (Typhoon) bonus - which makes cruise missiles quite deadly.
Where you see the "overlap" escapes me, because RHMLs are clearly mid-range weapons (both in terms of range and speed). The current proposal for RHMLs solely relegate them to hulls with damage or rate of fire bonuses. The only setup where RHMLs make sense is on something like a Typhoon or Scorpion Navy Issue - which don't have a missile velocity bonus and where you get the equivalent of 8 RHMLs with full skills. Then you could run three hydraulic rigs and hit out to 96.2km with a 105m explosion radius (but this would really come at the expense of any tank).
RHMLs need to receive the missile velocity bonuses as well.
Altrue wrote:[quote=Demotress]You get the damage bonus (and RoF) not the rest. I agree with this decision since other bonuses would make the launcher too OP. (Imagine a typhoon bonus on these...) The consensus is that the explosion radius and velocity bonuses would be too OP, but not the range bonus. Including the latter simply gives long-range platforms the option to utilize RHMLs to some extent. I still don't think most of you appreciate that even with the +50% missile velocity bonus these still have half the range and 80% of the DPS of cruise missiles. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
321
|
Posted - 2013.10.14 22:29:00 -
[32] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:besides deleting them before you have introduced them which is what you should do .... why does it need so many OP faction/officer/deadspace versions? I only see regular, faction and officer. Don't get me wrong, I'd love a Deadspace version... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
322
|
Posted - 2013.10.15 00:06:00 -
[33] - Quote
Are these up on the test server yet? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
322
|
Posted - 2013.10.15 03:18:00 -
[34] - Quote
XvXTeacherVxV wrote:I'm not saying that they are or aren't overpowered, it just seems inconsistent to let some ships take full advantage of fitting them while others can't. Yes it does, which is why RHMLs should receive the missile velocity bonuses as well. The numbers bear out that explosion velocity and explosion radius are simply too powerful (much as I like the idea of my Raven Navy Issue having RHMLs that can 1-shot frigates). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
326
|
Posted - 2013.10.15 14:54:00 -
[35] - Quote
Altrue wrote:I agree with you when you say that even with range bonuses, heavy missiles would still leave plenty of "range" for cruise missiles. But you have to consider the fact that almost nobody snipes at more than 150km, and even less with cruise missiles, since at this range you cannot slow down your target, paint it, and warp scramble it. You do ridiculous damages, and people can warp to you, it's even more true now with warp speed changes.
So even if the theoretical range is 222km, in practice you won't see much use after 150km I guess, and I would more say 100. So that's why I say it's overlapping with cruise missiles. :) Well, let's consider that for a moment. A cruise missile traveling at 10575 m/s (max skills, bonuses) takes 6 seconds to hit targets @60km while a heavy missile traveling at 6450 m/s (max skills) with RHMLs takes 10 seconds. It's not just the range, it's the abysmal speed - and this translates into higher rates of wasted ammunition and target micromanagement.
The hulls that don't receive a missile velocity bonus are typically short to mid-range platforms, and RHMLs will be comparable with cruise missile and torpedo speeds (heavy missiles will actually be marginally faster than cruise missiles).
It's blatantly unfair that every hull except the Raven Navy Issue and Rattlesnake receives a missile bonus to apply to RHMLs. This also limits RHMLs to essentially short-range defensive weapons on both when you consider the ranges they normally operate at. As I've previously pointed out, with three rigors on a RNI I have almost the same performance, 20% more DPS and 3 times the range with cruise missiles. With precision ammunition, I have superior performance and still more than twice the range.
Incidentally, I run a lot of my L4s at ranges of 150km or more. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
327
|
Posted - 2013.10.15 16:26:00 -
[36] - Quote
XvXTeacherVxV wrote:My biggest problem with the fact that these mods ignore some hull bonuses is that it makes it totally irrelevant how far you've trained your battleship skill with some ships. Anybody with Caldari Battleship 2 has the same effectiveness on Raven Navy Issue as someone with Caldari Battleship 5. THAT'S RIDICULOUS.
Maybe the solution is that these hull bonuses are only half as effective with RHMLs, but there should be SOMETHING that pilots get out of actually training their battleship skills up. (cough) ... Missile Velocity ... (cough) I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
327
|
Posted - 2013.10.15 20:12:00 -
[37] - Quote
Nyancat Audeles wrote:But missiles? Nope. No form of any effective e-war against missiles. As long as you're in range, they hit, they do damage, and they kill. This is unbalanced, especially with the introduction of new launchers. Not this sh*t again... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
327
|
Posted - 2013.10.15 21:17:00 -
[38] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Can we get a Tier 3 BC that can use missiles too? Let's swap the Naga out for missiles. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
327
|
Posted - 2013.10.15 22:17:00 -
[39] - Quote
XvXTeacherVxV wrote:This was a better idea before RHML were on the table. If the Naga couldn't fit them, then it might still be viable but I think some folks would cry foul if it could because it would be so much more versatile than the other ABC hulls. Heavy missile Naga with a range of 62km. Works for me. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
330
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 14:54:00 -
[40] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Looking at eve-kill's top 20, which as we all know is a perfectly accurate representation of ship balance and Eve , then we see that the Naga is the most popular ABC. So it's not a good idea to make it a missile boat, it'll just annoy people. Instead, let's make the least popular ABC into a missilespammer. That's the Oracle. Yeah... no. It doesn't make sense to have two hybrid ships, and the Gallente already have the Talos. Naga should get missiles, plain and simple (or at least the ability to run either hybrids or missiles). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
330
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 14:55:00 -
[41] - Quote
Markku Laaksonen wrote:Heavies were nerfed to bring them in line with medium long range turrets.
Medium long range turrets were buffed.
See the problem? RHMLs will shoot heavies, and heavies still suck.
It's reasonable to buff heavies to pre-nerf levels in light of the medium long range turret buff, and then worry about balance for these new turrets. Heavies will suck less if we include the missile velocity bonus. I think the majority would be ecstatic with that. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
330
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 15:49:00 -
[42] - Quote
Outz Xacto wrote:I think the more important piece here would be, re-evaluate HM's, if the conclusion is they are working as intended, then yes, I agree with you. If they tweak them, and these changes effect range, then perhaps something like the vel bonus not being applied makes sense. This being because in both scenarios the end result is similar. I think HMs work as intended for the most part (most of the ships that can run HMs already bonus the velocity). It wouldn't be the end of the world to have a 62km range, but 95km would be better. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
330
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 18:41:00 -
[43] - Quote
Could we please get an update (yay or nay) on including the missile velocity bonus for RHMLs? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
339
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 01:29:00 -
[44] - Quote
Well, some of us enjoy running missile fits. So here's hoping... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
352
|
Posted - 2013.10.19 00:23:00 -
[45] - Quote
Sorry, but screw that. There are lots of inherent drawbacks with missiles already (you can always spot the gunnery folk). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
365
|
Posted - 2013.10.20 23:01:00 -
[46] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Introduce new ammo for cruise/torpedo launchers... You had me up until this point. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
365
|
Posted - 2013.10.20 23:55:00 -
[47] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:If you have questions or feedback let us know and I'll do my best to answer. What's the ammunition capacity on these? And... Can we get at least a partial missile velocity bonus (like 2.5% per level for heavy missiles) I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
365
|
Posted - 2013.10.21 13:29:00 -
[48] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:...the FOF have been fixed and no longer attacks structures. Not entirely... they still attack the occasional structure. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
370
|
Posted - 2013.10.22 07:48:00 -
[49] - Quote
What happens in Vegas... stays in Vegas. Any chance for an update? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
373
|
Posted - 2013.10.22 18:55:00 -
[50] - Quote
Doesn't look like we'll be getting any update re: some of the proposed suggestions (damage and rate of fire = yes, missile velocity, explosion radius and explosion velocity = no). Which really sucks for some of the hulls, because there won't be any real advantage to switch to RHMLs unless you're opting for a short-range setup.
I was curious about what the capacity will be, but I'll just have to estimate it at +50%(-¦) what the heavy version(s) hold. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
380
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 08:37:00 -
[51] - Quote
As far as that goes, I'm fine if they never release a missile tracking computer. Sure, it would be nice feature - but we're talking about a major rebalance for missiles (since it would no doubt add explosion radius, velocity and probably flight time). I like that missiles are somewhat unique from the other weapon systems, and EVE could really do with a bit more variety. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
380
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 09:14:00 -
[52] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:RHMLs + t1 geddon + heavies + logi = miles of lowsec pwnage? I don't think so. With the warp speed changes in Rubicon, I think you're going to see a tendency towards small ships. As RHMLs don't stand to currently inherent explosion velocity, explosion radius or missile velocity - you're looking at the standard heavy missile with an explosion radius of around 100m. So against cruisers, sure - they'll do ok. Anything smaller and they'll struggle the same as always (albeit perhaps not quite as much). Caracals will still apply RLML damage the best along with Navy Drakes for HMLs. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
380
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 10:04:00 -
[53] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:so after cruisers get their buff to be useful again ... you bring out more anti cruiser weapons awesome plan!!!!! I suggest you look at the specs more closely. There's 20% less DPS and a huge range/speed loss as well, not to mention the fact that cruisers will still apply damage with HMs more effectively. RHMLs have a +38% (I believe) increased rate of fire, so outside of that there's still nothing preventing battleships from running HMLs or even RLMLs. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
391
|
Posted - 2013.10.24 04:44:00 -
[54] - Quote
Valid Point wrote:Heavy rocket launchers? Huh? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
396
|
Posted - 2013.10.24 17:13:00 -
[55] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:CCP you really need to have a rethink here you wouldn't bonus medium blasters on a megathron so why are you doing it with missile ships do you not see the inconsistencies here?
just because RLML's are popular doesn't make them right and balanced its quite often the opposite ...
The correct approach is too add new missile types that fulfill these roles instead of this OP approach of using smaller missiles and just buff the dps ... it also reduces the point of sig tanking somewhat on smaller ships
also precision cruises already track cruisers quite well in terms of explosion radius if not too well The reason for RHMLs has been clearly stated: "Expands the fitting options for battleship sized missile users (currently there's not as much flexibility as turret systems get)".
Railguns: (3) 350mm, 425mm, Dual 250mm ... Missiles: (1) Cruise Launchers Blasters: (3) Electron Blaster, Ion Blaster, Neutron Blaster ... Missiles: (1) Torpedo Launchers
Beam Lasers: (3) Dual Heavy Beam, Mega Beam, Tachyon Beam ... Missiles: (1) Cruiser Launchers Pulse Lasers: (2) Dual Heavy Pulse, Mega Pulse ... Missiles: (1) Torpedo Launchers
Artillery: (2) 1200mm Artillery, 1400mm Artillery ... Missiles: (1) Cruise Launchers Autocanons (3): Dual 425mm, Dual 650mm, 800mm Repeating ... Missiles: (1) Torpedo Launchers
So yeah, RHMLs are totally justified - even excluding the various ammunition types for turrets. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
396
|
Posted - 2013.10.24 18:26:00 -
[56] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:not really justified, something like this would be more balanced
small rocket launcher, light rocket launcher, Rapid light rocket launcher. small light missile launcher, light missile launcher, Rapid light missile launcher
Medium assault missile launcher, HAM launcher, Rapid HAM launcher Medium missile launcher, Heavy missile launcher, Rapid Heavy missile launcher
Large torpedo launcher, Heavy torpedo launcher, Rapid Heavy torpedo launcher Large Cruise launcher, Heavy Cruise launcher, Rapid Heavy cruise launcher
frig size - small launchers NEW - easier fitting, new better tracking smaller missile versions of current missiles cruiser size - medium launchers NEW - easier fitting, new better tracking smaller missile versions of current missiles Battleship size - large launchers NEW - easier fitting, new better tracking smaller missile versions of current missiles
A "light" (frigate-destroyer) class RHML would be heavily unbalanced, as would a "medium" (cruiser-battlecruiser) class RHML. The reason the fitting requirements for both are so high is that they need to be limited to cruiser and battleship classes, respectively. I'm fine with the proposed changes, I just wish we could get a bit of bonus to missile velocity. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
396
|
Posted - 2013.10.24 19:01:00 -
[57] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:its just a rough framework to show there are other ways of adding options that would be more size relative ... the stats would ofc have be balanced but the point remains that there is no need for the RHML style line they are following as they are atm. The problem with altering the stats means you have to look at rebalancing all missile systems. Again. RHMLs aren't going to be the "OP" weapon everyone thinks they are. For starters, on a RNI you're pretty much hitting at around 135m well past 200km already with cruise missiles, for at least 20% more damage. I've been testing a bunch of L4s out with standard heavy missile launchers and I'm just not seeing a lot of benefit even against cruisers. Then there's having to juggle different types of ammunition. Hard to say until Rubicon comes out, but I think RHMLs are really going to only be advantageous to specific classes of battleships that don't receive any explosion velocity or radius bonuses. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
396
|
Posted - 2013.10.24 23:47:00 -
[58] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:When someoen say taht somethign is goign to be overpowered they are not thinking about Level 4's.. they are thinking about EVE.. and that means PVP I am thinking of PvP. With maximum skills, you're looking at 65km range, 105m signature radius, 80% DPS (compared to cruise) and horrible, horrible missile velocity. With cruise you only have a 30-40% larger signature radius, 20% more DPS and the speed is double out to a range of over 200km. Which would you choose? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
397
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 00:35:00 -
[59] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:the problem you have here is you assume range is needed ... HM's will do much more damage against a webbed maller than cruises will .. perhaps cruise precision might give Fury/ Faction HM's a run for their money. Everyone assume range isn't an issue... until it's an issue. Regardless, a RHML with heavies will only do 80% of the DPS of cruises. Precision cruises on something like a RNI would probably be on par with heavies and an RHML for DPS and damage application, and way ahead on range. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
397
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 01:38:00 -
[60] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Depend agaisnt who I am fighting. If you had to fight Hacs.. the RML woudl have FAR superior effective DPS.
So surely not the cruises. Cruise missiles are only strong agaisnt BC and larger targets. Since 90% of the ships I fight are in the cruiser bracket of size.... Fair enough. If I wanted to go cruiser hunting, I'd probably run a Raven Navy Issue with three Rigors, a pair of RLMLs, four RHMLs and a pair of cruise. Missile boats aren't going to be the pushovers they were in Rubicon... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
397
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 11:15:00 -
[61] - Quote
This thread might as well be locked with a "finalized", because it's unlikely we'll see any changes to the proposal for RHMLs (lack of dev feedback and these seem to be following the RLMLs with minimal hull bonuses). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
398
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 18:15:00 -
[62] - Quote
You guys should get a room... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
398
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 18:58:00 -
[63] - Quote
Optimo Sebiestor wrote:What dmg are we talking about on the raven With the New launchers With max skills? About 80% the DPS of cruise. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
399
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 21:03:00 -
[64] - Quote
Lipbite wrote:Equipped navy Raven with T2 cruisers - got ~800 vs 600 DPS with T2 RHML (skills in IV). Could use T2 HML Tengu for better results (sans MJD). I don't get it. 1. It's not a Tengu. 2. The nerf bat is circling the T3s. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
401
|
Posted - 2013.10.26 18:33:00 -
[65] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:The -50 to MWD isnt a trap, if you know how to fly a HAC it is pretty nice, you can take bigger ships more easy and other cruisers aren't much an issue, smaller ships just don't have the tank to mess with HACs one on one so that's not an issue.
RLMs are nice against destroyers and frigate, but against cruisers or larger HAMs are a much better pick, which my test proved. HMLs might even be better then RLMs too. But in EVE it's all about knowing your enemy, if I know I'm fighting frigates and/or destroyers then I'll use my Cerb that has a RLMs, if I'm fighting cruisers or larger I'll use HAMs, if I'm fighting a mix or not sure what I'm going against I'll take my chance with HAMs. 45km is damn good range for HAMs. Rigor, rigor and more rigor... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
404
|
Posted - 2013.10.27 15:58:00 -
[66] - Quote
HACs are really off-topic, since RHMLs are going to be entirely ineffective on them (even if you sacrifice and scrape to get a few of these mounted). Where RHMLs will shine is in mission running, where a pair will be fairly effective against smaller ships while only costing you 5% DPS overall (four will cost you about 10% DPS). If you're running the standard 2x rigor and 1x flare setup, these will be hitting for around 65m radius at an explosion velocity of about 125 m/s. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
404
|
Posted - 2013.10.27 20:32:00 -
[67] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:If CCP fixes the RHMLs so they get the bonuses that battleship has for cruise and torps just like cruisers give their missiles bonues to HAMs, HMLs, and RMLs then some battleships will do well against HACs with RHMLs, but CCP needs to fix that first. You'd have to go back in this thread to some of the earlier posts, but there was some fairly comprehensive data and charts posted on just how effective RHMLs are even without the majority of the bonuses. If the explosion radius, explosion velocity and missile velocity were included for RHMLs - on a RNI you'd end up with a heavy missile with a 100km+ range and a 30m explosion radius with 3 rigors!
As it is, heavy missiles have an explosion radius of 105m - so RHMLs are going to be very hard on cruisers in general. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
404
|
Posted - 2013.10.28 00:00:00 -
[68] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:It seems to me ALL these forums just have people who want to whine, troll or do numbers that don't take in account a range of things in PvP, but then ships or new mods come out and they are always good or good enough and everything dies down. If something is too weak or too strong CCP seem good about fixing them right away, later anyway.
RHMLs are going to be perfectly fine for battleships. They're already amazing enough. I wish they had a bit more range, but I've got a solid plan for use with my RNI.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
404
|
Posted - 2013.10.28 02:17:00 -
[69] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:They really aren't, I used them on my Golem and they did terrible DPS, nothing compared to cruises or torps, if they don't get the bonuses as they should, they wouldn't be worth much but for PvE. And they can't do anything against other battleships or even battlecruisers right now. Cruisers shouldn't even fear them, if they aren't applied to the battleships missile bonuses. RHMLs do 80% of the effective DPS of cruise missiles. When you consider the explosion radius of heavy missiles, they'll actually do more damage than cruise missiles. If you're using torpedoes... you have my sympathies. It's not just paper DPS - it's damage application.
I can't tell if you're serious or if you're just trolling, but either way you're dead wrong with your assessment. If you plan to use your Golem for PvP, well... best of luck! I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
404
|
Posted - 2013.10.28 14:55:00 -
[70] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:That's probably because they don't get Golem's role bonus. On other ships they shouldn't be that terrible. From what I understand, RHMLs are supposed to benefit from damage and rate of fire bonuses. If this isn't the case on the Golem, that's probably an oversight (at least I would hope so, anyway). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
404
|
Posted - 2013.10.28 20:17:00 -
[71] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:no ships giver thier role bonuses, the RS says 50% to velocity for torps and cruise, All Missile bonused BS need their bonuses to be for RHMLs also. All we're getting is damage and rate of fire, nothing else. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
407
|
Posted - 2013.10.29 17:17:00 -
[72] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:I don't see how you think they do 80% of cruise to, when I had cruise on a RS I did over 700DPS, when I put on the RHMLs then went down to 500 or so, just by changes missiles, seems a bit less then 80% I'd say. and they don't do close to Torps. ALL I'm saying is they need the bonuses missile BS give, like the RLMs get from cruisers, you can't have cruisers give bonuss to RLMs but BSs not give theirs to the RHMLs, come on that makes no since at all. Do it right or don't do it at all. Level V skills, no ship damage/rate-of-fire bonuses, modules or implants. 79.86% GÇó Cruise Missile Launcher II (scourge cruise missile) ... 45.2 dps GÇó Rapid heavy Missile Launcher II (scourge heavy missile) ... 36.1 dps
Explosion radius on heavy missiles is 105m, so applied damage to cruisers and frigates will be significantly higher than cruise missiles but less than cruise missiles against battleships. Well, let's look at cruisers and how their bonuses apply to RLMLs or light missiles. GÇó Caracal ... ROF GêÜ, Missile Velocity GêÜ GÇó Caracal Navy Issue ... ROF GêÜ, Explosion Radius x GÇó Cerberus ... ROF GêÜ, Missile Damage GêÜ, Missile Velocity GêÜ, Flight Time GêÜ GÇó Gila ... Missile Velocity GêÜ GÇó Legion ... ROF x, Missile Damage x GÇó Onyx ... Missile Damage GêÜ, Missile Velocity x GÇó Osprey Navy Issue ... Missile Damage GêÜ, Missile Velocity x GÇó Rook ... ROF x, Missile Velocity x GÇó Sacrilege ... ROF GêÜ, Missile Damage x, Missile Velocity x GÇó Bellicose ... ROF GêÜ GÇó Skythe Fleet Issue ... Missile Damage GêÜ GÇó Tengu ... Kinetic damage GêÜ, ROF GêÜ, Missile Velocity x
It's anything but consistent here. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
408
|
Posted - 2013.10.29 18:50:00 -
[73] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:So because CCP messed up on some ships for cruisers make it right to not get the BS bonsues to RHMLs? I don't think so, seems CCP needs to fix some cruisers to use RLMs. All cruisers get their full bonuses to whatever their gun type is and same with drones, so let's go CCP and stop the hate on missiles shall we? guns small, med and large come in long range and close range and always have 2 or 3 different sizes for each and all their bonuses work for them all, and drone bonuses work for any drones, small, med, heavy, and sentries, so why do the bonuses to missils only work for some and then some they don't. Just stupid and unfair. Sure hope this all gets fixed. I don't see why missiles always have issues like this. It's only what 10 years, and CCP is ALL about making everything equal, so let's make missiles more equal with the other weapon types. And pretty much RLMs work like the smallest med gun versions, but they all get full bonuses, so RHMLs shhould work like the smallest large gun versions and get any bonuses for missiles, but they don't, and I doubt will. Seems fair. I fail to grasp what point you're arguing here... None (zero) of the cruisers, heavy assault cruisers, strategic cruisers (or battlecruisers, for that matter) extend any explosion radius and explosion velocity to light missiles. Neither do battleships for RHMLs, so this is entirely consistent. The vast majority of cruiser hulls extend missile damage and/or rate of fire to light missiles and RLMLs - which is also consistent with the proposed RHMLs.
If every ship hull were to have the same bonuses there would be no difference beyond aesthetics in choosing one over the other. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
409
|
Posted - 2013.10.29 21:12:00 -
[74] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:The RHMLs don't get ANY bonuses, no RofF, no damage to velocity, think they should get those. Now should the RLMs or RHMLs get the explosion bonuses, I'm not sure if they should or not. But to not give the damage, RofF and velocity bonuss to RLMs and RHML is just unfair. For the umpteenth time, RHMLs receive the rate of fire and damage bonus from battleship hulls. If it's not in-place on the Golem, it's probably an oversight. I don't have access to Sisi - so I can neither confirm nor deny.
CCP Rise wrote:Forgot to mention something important - Battleships with Damage bonuses (like Raven and Typhoon rate of fire) will have those bonuses applied to the new launchers. Any bonuses to damage projection or application will NOT be applied (such as Raven missile velocity or Typhoon explosion velocity).
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
420
|
Posted - 2013.11.01 15:14:00 -
[75] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Still be nice if they got the missile velocity bonuses i.e. range. Definitely. But with three hydraulic or rocket fuel rigs, max skills and an implant these will still easily hit out to 100km. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
420
|
Posted - 2013.11.01 15:55:00 -
[76] - Quote
hujciwdupe22 wrote:now give the naga 8 launcher slots With the update to cruise missiles, I think this is more feasible.
Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonus per level: GÇó 5% explosion velocity GÇó 10% cruise missile and torpedo velocity I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
427
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 18:08:00 -
[77] - Quote
Justin Cody wrote:How is that unfair? Each weapon system has unique advantages and inherent drawbacks. Those that complain about missiles have usually never used them extensively. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
433
|
Posted - 2013.11.05 18:51:00 -
[78] - Quote
Moragrine wrote:Is there list of ships that will actually have some bonus for this missile type? I found just Raven ...
And please reconsider at least missile velocity bonus to be applied, where present, for this missiles to add option for sniper fit and use of MJD. Here's the short list: Raven (+25% rate of fire), Scorpion Navy (+25% rate of fire), Typhoon (+25% rate of fire), Typhoon Fleet (+37.5% damage). Apparently the new Golem Marauder does not receive a +100% damage bonus to RHMLs (somewhat disappointing, and kills the class for me).
Many of us have asked for the missile velocity bonus (or at least a partial missile velocity bonus), but since CCP has chosen not to respond (or even comment) - it seems like RHMLs are somewhat set in stone. Just run with three hydraulic rigs and that will give you a +55% (stacking-penalized) missile velocity of between 40-45% with a range out to around 90km. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
436
|
Posted - 2013.11.07 06:08:00 -
[79] - Quote
Abdullah Bahdoon wrote:Regarding RHMLs, i would have liked to first see a fix to heavy missiles before that. Reduce the power grid and CPU requirements so that these can be used to some extent on heavy cruisers, strategic cruisers and battlecruisers as well. Then heavy missiles really don't need any adjustments. |
|
|
|