Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Chessur
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
267
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 18:00:00 -
[31] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:I tested HAMs vs RMLs. I usied a Cerberus with 3 BDUs plus the launcher types. Nothing on the Cerb will change except the launcher. Ammo will be Caldari Navy light missiles, and Caldari Navy heavy missiles.
I will post combat log, and other toons date of birth. Ships fit will stay the same for both missile types.
HAMs 617.3 DPS Rate of Fire - 2.5sec Explosion Radius - 88m Explosion Velocity - 160.59m/sec
RMLs 340 DPS Rate of Fire - 3.7sec Explosion Radius - 28m Explosion Velocity - 270.3m/sec
Test pilot - 2007-10-10, Armor pilot - 2007-01-21, Shield pilot - 2008-11-23
RMLs - against Cerberus - MWD on - 05:38:08 Combat 228 to Badden Powell[FUDY](Cerberus) - Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile - Hits MWD Off - 05:38:08 Combat 228 to Badden Powell[FUDY](Cerberus) - Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile - Hits
against Thorax - MWD on - 05:53:51 Combat 566 to aduron - Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile - Hits MWD off - 05:54:01 Combat 567 to aduron - Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile - Hits
against Ishtar - MWD on - 05:58:22 Combat 186 to aduron - Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile - Hits MWD off - 05:58:22 Combat 186 to aduron - Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile - Hits
against Stabber - MWD on - 06:02:23 Combat 455 to Badden Powell[FUDY](Stabber) - Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile - Hits MWD off - 06:02:23 Combat 455 to Badden Powell[FUDY](Stabber) - Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile - Hits
against Gila - MWD on - 06:07:25 Combat 366 to aduron - Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile - Hits MWD off - 06:07:25 Combat 366 to aduron - Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile - Hits
against Phantasm - MWD on - 06:09:29 Combat 455 to Badden Powell[FUDY](Phantasm) - Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile - Hits MWD off - 06:09:29 Combat 455 to Badden Powell[FUDY](Phantasm) - Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile - Hits
HAMs - against Thorax - MWD on 06:15:50 Combat 511 to aduron - Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile - Hits MWD off - 06:15:50 Combat 511 to aduron - Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile - Hits
against Phantasm - MWD on - 06:15:50 Combat 511 to aduron - Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile - Hits MWD off - 06:15:50 Combat 511 to aduron - Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile - Hits
against Ishtar - MWD on - 06:22:01 Combat175 to aduron - Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile - Hits MWD off - 06:22:32 Combat 188 to aduron - Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile - Hits
against Stabber - MWD on - 06:24:19 Combat 297 to Badden Powell[FUDY](Stabber) - Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile - Hits MWD off - 06:25:18 Combat 316 to Badden Powell[FUDY](Stabber) - Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile - Hits
against Gila - MWD on - 06:28:13 Combat 755 to aduron - Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile - Hits MWD off - 06:28:40 Combat 443 to aduron - Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile - Hits
against Cerberus - MWD on - 06:32:39 Combat 192 to Badden Powell[FUDY](Cerberus) - Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile - Hits MWD off - 06:41:01 Combat 275 to Badden Powell[FUDY](Cerberus) - Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile - Hits
Intereting RMLs won against T1s, HAMs won against faction, and with a MWD RMLs won slightly, but also need to take in account the HAMs firing 1.2sec faster. But with MWD off the HAMs won against HACs. Wow did not see that. also this was tested on the regular EVE server, not the test server.
So are rapids OP, slightly, but to fix the range issues, explosion radius, explosion velocity, change rapids to HAMs and rockets, and add 2s to 3s to RofF compared to what heavy assault launcher and rocket launchers do now and everything is fixed. Their range is much less, explosion radius is more, explain velocity is less and taking a couple seconds from RofF will keep their DPS in check. Don't allow cruisers, BCs or BS to give their explosion bonuses to rapids. Also rockets still won't get the range or DPS HAMs would, and HAMs wouldn't get the DPS torps would, if adjusted right, it could work. See I fixed rapids. If rapids get the 40s reload, rpaids will be pretty much useless and you will be better off with HAMs.
Why are you shooting cruisers with c n light missiles? Switch to fury.this entire test is filled with error. Not really sure what you are tyring to draw from this data... |
Thaddeus Eggeras
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
82
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 18:41:00 -
[32] - Quote
That test proves HAMs and RMLs aren't that far apart, and it's that easy. It also proves RLMs are slightly OP, but that it can be fixed without 40sec reload times. Which I also explained. Say what you will but to test different weapons you have to have a base ammo, real work or EVE. That was faction ammo. The test prove we were both right and both wrong. Thing that threw me off is the Thorax the diff wasn't too big, but the stabber it was huge. HAMs did way less DPS compared to RLMs, and same with faction ships HAMs did way more DPS then RLMs. So argue all you want, but I did a fair and legit test. If you still can't get past your pride that's on you. The best thing this "might" have done is give CCP something to think about besides ruining rapids. |
Thaddeus Eggeras
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
82
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 18:46:00 -
[33] - Quote
Quote: So if I understand correctly a Rapid Light Rocket Launcher (RLRL)? I love this idea. Maybe CCP could come up with this and leave the RLML alone!
No I'm saying get rid of RMLs and RHMLs and replace them with Rapid rocket launchers, and rapid assault missile launcher, by doing this it will take away all the things that made the rapids now OP away, HAMs and rocket T2 ammo is for either massive damage or range, but they will loose much of their range issue, they will have more explosion raduis, and less explosion velocity. They will need 2 to 3 seconds added to RofF, and cruisers, battlecruisers and battleships explpsion bonuses will have to not include rapid launchers, but I think if they was done rapid launchers wouldn't be OP anymore. Even T2 damage missiles have a much higher explosion radius and have less range. Only isue is the 19th is only a couple of days away. Next time Chessur argue with more earlier haha
Pretty much if you plan to keep rapids at any use, try to push this to CCP. I rather have HAM/Rocket rapids then 40s reload rapids. All honestly I rather keep them like they are, but that isn't going to happen |
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
68
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 19:20:00 -
[34] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:That test proves HAMs and RMLs aren't that far apart, and it's that easy. It also proves RLMs are slightly OP, but that it can be fixed without 40sec reload times. Which I also explained. Say what you will but to test different weapons you have to have a base ammo, real work or EVE. That was faction ammo. I don't see how faction ammo is a "base ammo" because one missiles are light and the other one's are heavy (assault). The fact that both are faction IMO doesn't mean anything. You were comparing faction HAM, which is best for shooting cruisers with faction LM, which isn't best for for the same job - that should have been Fury light missiles. |
Thaddeus Eggeras
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
82
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 19:37:00 -
[35] - Quote
I choice to use faction for the simple reason you don't use specialty ammo to do a base test, you use ammo that is closely related. Now furys will probably put HACs with MWDs over the top, but HAMs would still probably win the no MWDs, and faction cruisers still would have been rocked worse by HAMs then by fury lights. As RMLs already rocked T1 cruisers, that would just make them rock them more. And the 1.2secs faster RofF everyone seems to over look, when really that would make a pretty big differance when it comes to DPS, as NO missiles can alfa a target, it always takes a few shots, and if that is the case RofF comes into place.
Either way the test proved RMLs are slightly OP. If we want rapids to not be worthless with 40sec reload, push for them to be HAMs and rockets. Other wise we have a worthless launcher coming. I am just trying to save rapids anyway possible at this point, even though I don't think they can be. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
981
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 19:54:00 -
[36] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:So argue all you want, but I did a fair and legit test. If you still can't get past your pride that's on you.
Physician, heal thyself...
The problem isn't that the comparison wasn't fair and legit, it's that it wasn't hugely meaningful. RLML should be firing Fury against cruisers, HAMs should assume that the target is webbed. |
Thaddeus Eggeras
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
82
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 20:11:00 -
[37] - Quote
I didn't web or scram, I had both test use MWDs and turn off MWDS, The RMLs won hands down with MWDs on and off against T1 cruisers, HAMs won hands down with MWDs on and off against faction cruisers, and It was pretty much a tie against HACs with MWDs on RLMs won slightly, and off HAMs wons slightly, again the HAMs extra 1.2secs don't ever come into play with would bring thier DPS up also. Furies or not, the numbers wouldn't be hugely different for this test. Now we can bring in ALL different factors, scrams, webs, disruptors, TPs, etc ,etc ,etc but as this test took over 3 hours. I think the base test against the 2 different missile types was fair, legit and complete to show what both are able to do against three different cruiser types. When I fly my Cerb I use a scram and sometimes web, so HAMs would be the one to go with, in I flied a Caracal I'd use a disruptor so RMLs would be the pick, and that is what this test showed to a point. I'm not adjusted a test to please everyone, it was a base test against 3 ships armor fit, and 3 ships shield fit, with a ship the used the same set up besides changing out the launchers. If you all like to add on go ahead, I'm fine with it. My point is I don't want 40sec reload time on rapids, that is crazy. This test showed if rapids were changed from lights and heavy missiles to rockets and heavy assaults, most of the OP issues would be fixed with a few other adjustments i.e. RofF increased a couple seconds, and cruisers, BCs and BSs explosrion bonuses not added to rapid launchers. |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
690
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 20:40:00 -
[38] - Quote
Chessur wrote:
Why are you shooting cruisers with c n light missiles? Switch to fury.this entire test is filled with error. Not really sure what you are tyring to draw from this data...
Surely shooting the high damage ammo (Fury) at cruisers. To which it will still apply full damage will just show even more in favour of the RLML indicating it is even more OP than the test already carried out? That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
http://taoistdragon.blogspot.com.au/ |
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
68
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 21:10:00 -
[39] - Quote
Taoist Dragon wrote:Chessur wrote: Why are you shooting cruisers with c n light missiles? Switch to fury.this entire test is filled with error. Not really sure what you are tyring to draw from this data...
Surely shooting the high damage ammo (Fury) at cruisers. To which it will still apply full damage will just show even more in favour of the RLML indicating it is even more OP than the test already carried out? It's not that RLML are OP but rather HAM's are UP. |
Thaddeus Eggeras
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
82
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 21:18:00 -
[40] - Quote
HAMs aren't really UP, they might be slightly, but with great missile skills HAMs are pretty good really. same rockets. Torps I'm not sure I don't use them like I use to. Would it be nice to get them a bit better yes, but RMLs are OP, it's something I didn't want to believe, but it's true. You can't have one missile launcher that does what close range and long range guns do in one. And RML do that now. They also don't seem to be effected at all by the speed of the ship, every other weapon system is effected by ship speed, so are they OP yes. But I think there is a way to fix all those issues, and I have posted it. Will it happen, doubtful, but I full heartly believe it would fix the rapids OP issue. |
|
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
68
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 21:26:00 -
[41] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:HAMs aren't really UP, they might be slightly, but with great missile skills HAMs are pretty good really. My other toon has perfect skills for missile cruisers and no, they aren't pretty good for cruiser size targets or smaller. They are pretty good only for battlecruisers and larger. |
Thaddeus Eggeras
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
82
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 21:41:00 -
[42] - Quote
I have never had issues killing cruisers with my HAMs Cerb, HAMs Drake or even HAMs Caracel. HAMs aren't really too bad, they might need their explosion radius and/or velocity adjusted slightly but that's about it. I will be honest I don't use Drakes anymore haha. |
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
68
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 22:53:00 -
[43] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:I have never had issues killing cruisers with my HAMs Cerb, HAMs Drake or even HAMs Caracel. HAMs aren't really too bad, they might need their explosion radius and/or velocity adjusted slightly but that's about it. I will be honest I don't use Drakes anymore haha. I never had issues as well but that doesn't mean there is nothing wrong with HAM damage application. They aren't really too bad, they are just bad or, put mildly, not good enough. To make them good without spending too much time exp. velocity and radius needs to be adjusted by at least 20% (30% would be just about right). |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
463
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 23:04:00 -
[44] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:I have never had issues killing cruisers with my HAMs Cerb, HAMs Drake or even HAMs Caracel. HAMs aren't really too bad, they might need their explosion radius and/or velocity adjusted slightly but that's about it. I will be honest I don't use Drakes anymore haha. I never had issues as well but that doesn't mean there is nothing wrong with HAM damage application. They aren't really too bad, they are just bad or, put mildly, not good enough. To make them good without spending too much time exp. velocity and radius needs to be adjusted by at least 20% (30% would be just about right).
HAMs actually apply better than HML. It's pretty ridiculous |
Thaddeus Eggeras
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
83
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 23:04:00 -
[45] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar,
I agree fully with you, but HMLs need buffd too. CCP seems to always have issues with getting missiles right, they either nerf them too much or buff them too much. I wish they could sit down and really work them out and fix them. Medium missiles all around need rebalanced. |
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
68
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 06:21:00 -
[46] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:Niena Nuamzzar,
I agree fully with you, but HMLs need buffd too. CCP seems to always have issues with getting missiles right, they either nerf them too much or buff them too much. I wish they could sit down and really work them out and fix them. Medium missiles all around need rebalanced. Thaddeus Eggeras,
I agree with you fully, CCP is to blame! |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
280
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 06:35:00 -
[47] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:I like the bit where nobody on this forum has worked out that if you split your Launchers in two, you get only slightly less DPS over time but also have the option of a big burst of DPS if needed.
Because apparently that makes a weapon system ****. I like the bit where nobody spouting this nonsense suggestion has actually tried this on the test server to see just how much of a PITA it is to deal with. |
Riot Girl
Krypteia Operations CODE.
1943
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 06:44:00 -
[48] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:I like the bit where nobody on this forum has worked out that if you split your Launchers in two, you get only slightly less DPS over time but also have the option of a big burst of DPS if needed.
Because apparently that makes a weapon system ****. I like the bit where nobody spouting this nonsense suggestion has actually tried this on the test server to see just how much of a PITA it is to deal with. It's not. Having split weapons is pretty normal for most players.
Oh god. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
280
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 07:02:00 -
[49] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Chris Winter wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:I like the bit where nobody on this forum has worked out that if you split your Launchers in two, you get only slightly less DPS over time but also have the option of a big burst of DPS if needed.
Because apparently that makes a weapon system ****. I like the bit where nobody spouting this nonsense suggestion has actually tried this on the test server to see just how much of a PITA it is to deal with. It's not. Having split weapons is pretty normal for most players. Except that "normal" split weapons don't have huge reload times with no indication on the module when the reload will be done.
I tried out the RLMLs in a C1 WH on SiSi. They used to be awesome due to all the frigs. Now they're just meh, and splitting the launchers just gives you more to keep track of without actually making it go faster. |
Riot Girl
Krypteia Operations CODE.
1943
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 07:25:00 -
[50] - Quote
LMs still exist if you can't figure out how to fire a different launcher when the first one runs out of ammo. Oh god. |
|
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
465
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 08:03:00 -
[51] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:LMs still exist if you can't figure out how to fire a different launcher when the first one runs out of ammo.
Aren't they suffering from like a 20% DPS drop though? Hoping someone can remember because I'm not trawling that threadnaught again.
The weapons have been swept up with the RHML bandwagon and mucked about with for, as near as I can tell, no discernible reason whatsoever.
There has been no math showing the need for change to the system as far as I know.
As I posted in the other thread, the new system has merit/legs but as a NEW system, not a replacement to the existing ones. |
Riot Girl
Krypteia Operations CODE.
1943
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 08:18:00 -
[52] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Aren't they suffering from like a 20% DPS drop though? I haven't read about any changes to the current LM weapon system. Unless you mean the LMs have less DPS than RLMs, in which case, that has always been the case, yes. Oh god. |
Marcus Walkuris
Aww yeahhh
31
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 08:18:00 -
[53] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:LMs still exist if you can't figure out how to fire a different launcher when the first one runs out of ammo.
And again this is a good alternative how? With say a caracal with 5 launchers. |
Danny John-Peter
Snuff Box
344
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 08:19:00 -
[54] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Riot Girl wrote:LMs still exist if you can't figure out how to fire a different launcher when the first one runs out of ammo. Aren't they suffering from like a 20% DPS drop though? Hoping someone can remember because I'm not trawling that threadnaught again. The weapons have been swept up with the RHML bandwagon and mucked about with for, as near as I can tell, no discernible reason whatsoever. There has been no math showing the need for change to the system as far as I know. As I posted in the other thread, the new system has merit/legs but as a NEW system, not a replacement to the existing ones.
They suffer from a 20% DPS loss yes, but gain the ability to double there DPS when required.
Its called balance. |
Riot Girl
Krypteia Operations CODE.
1943
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 08:20:00 -
[55] - Quote
Marcus Walkuris wrote:And again this is a good alternative how? With say a caracal with 5 launchers. Because it allows you to continue the playstyle you're crying about losing. Oh god. |
Marcus Walkuris
Aww yeahhh
31
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 08:24:00 -
[56] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Marcus Walkuris wrote:And again this is a good alternative how? With say a caracal with 5 launchers. Because it allows you to continue the playstyle you're crying about losing.
It does dawn on you how 5 launchers split in 2 right? Apparently it does not, what am I asking basic math n all. |
Riot Girl
Krypteia Operations CODE.
1943
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 08:30:00 -
[57] - Quote
Maybe you should have quoted the right post then, or clarified that you were talking about something I wasn't talking about in the post you quoted. Oh god. |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
438
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 09:12:00 -
[58] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:I have never had issues killing cruisers with my HAMs Cerb, HAMs Drake or even HAMs Caracel. HAMs aren't really too bad, they might need their explosion radius and/or velocity adjusted slightly but that's about it. I will be honest I don't use Drakes anymore haha.
You should have decent application skills before you use HAMs against small targets and it really, really, REALLY helps to have T2 launchers for javelins, because level 2 targets sometimes start +50km . When it comes to level 2 missions, I'd use one of the following for a caldari missile boat of choice:
1. Corax with light missiles (it melts targets at around 57km, two targets at a time with ease) 2. Caracal with RLMs (depending on the mission, it should perform better than Corax). |
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
68
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 09:26:00 -
[59] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote: They suffer from a 20% DPS loss yes, but gain the ability to double there DPS when required.
Its called balance.
50% dps increase in not double, that would be 100%. |
Riot Girl
Krypteia Operations CODE.
1944
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 09:32:00 -
[60] - Quote
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: They suffer from a 20% DPS loss yes, but gain the ability to double there DPS when required.
Its called balance.
50% dps increase in not double, that would be 100%. I think he means by splitting them into 2 groups, you are able to have consistent damage or double burst damage.
Oh god. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |