EVE Search - Sticky:[Rubicon] Rapid Heavy Missile Launchers

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Rubicon] Rapid Heavy Missile Launchers

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc 607	Posted - 2013.10.07 13:13:00 - [31] - Quote ApolloF117 HUN wrote: make this launchers fittable for the naga Hey actually that would be a cool way to leave the option open to return to its original design. G££ <= Me
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 388	Posted - 2013.10.07 13:16:00 - [32] - 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). Why.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 801	Posted - 2013.10.07 13:18:00 - [33] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: ... Adds continuity with medium sized missile systems... That the same kind of continuity CCP has avoided like the plague when it comes to pulse lasers? Give me/us/them Medium and Large Gatling lasers! Altrue wrote: ..Dude dont you think that you're slightly overreacting here?... RLML wielded by a Caracal gives you a ~68 km range, range at which destroyers most commonly get to engage is around 10-15km .. seems like the x5 range is spot on. While that excessive range does allow you to warp out, keep in mind that the frigate/destroyer that is on the receiving end has to close to well within point range to apply any damage so that argument is null and void in most situations. When a ship with RLML is on the field it is basically a no-fly zone for anything small and even some cruisers (nano, light buffer). Everyone laughed at the FW Caldari die-hards when they starting running around in Caracals all those years ago, right up until the penny dropped and people realised that there is nothing one can do against them other than run away or ship up .. high-dps/high-tank AB frigates are you best bet and even then you are lucky to do any armour damage on him. In short: RLML Cruisers are better destroyers than destroyers and the dps hit is marginal against other cruisers due to what amounts to 100% applied damage using lights. There is no reason whatsoever to think that things will be any different with regards to a RHML. A one-stop weapon choice that outperforms all other options in the majority of scenarios.
TAckermassacker New Republic 26	Posted - 2013.10.07 13:23:00 - [34] - Quote i want the missile velocity bonus as well like the caracal does it to rapid light
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc 609	Posted - 2013.10.07 13:27:00 - [35] - Quote Veshta Yoshida wrote: CCP Rise wrote: ... Adds continuity with medium sized missile systems... That the same kind of continuity CCP has avoided like the plague when it comes to pulse lasers? Give me/us/them Medium and Large Gatling lasers! Altrue wrote: ..Dude dont you think that you're slightly overreacting here?... RLML wielded by a Caracal gives you a ~68 km range, range at which destroyers most commonly get to engage is around 10-15km .. seems like the x5 range is spot on. While that excessive range does allow you to warp out, keep in mind that the frigate/destroyer that is on the receiving end has to close to well within point range to apply any damage so that argument is null and void in most situations. When a ship with RLML is on the field it is basically a no-fly zone for anything small and even some cruisers (nano, light buffer). Everyone laughed at the FW Caldari die-hards when they starting running around in Caracals all those years ago, right up until the penny dropped and people realised that there is nothing one can do against them other than run away or ship up .. high-dps/high-tank AB frigates are you best bet and even then you are lucky to do any armour damage on him. In short: RLML Cruisers are better destroyers than destroyers and the dps hit is marginal against other cruisers due to what amounts to 100% applied damage using lights. There is no reason whatsoever to think that things will be any different with regards to a RHML. A one-stop weapon choice that outperforms all other options in the majority of scenarios. ... yet there are only so many cruisers seen with RLML. Also : You're comparing a ship using a short range weapon to a ship using long range weapons. In every situation the short range will have to close the distance while the other is applying DPS. That's you're point which is invalid :D G££ <= Me
BAJRAN BALI Rabid Ninja Space Monkey Inc. Monkeys with Guns. 21	Posted - 2013.10.07 13:31:00 - [36] - Quote Will their be a new skill with these launchers or will they piggy back off the heavy missile skills? Will there be t2 versions of these?
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 389	Posted - 2013.10.07 13:31:00 - [37] - Quote Veshta Yoshida wrote: That the same kind of continuity CCP has avoided like the plague when it comes to pulse lasers? God, lasers make me so autistic. We have small focused lasers, and focused medium lasers, and we have both light lasers and small lasers. I don't remember which CCP guy thought this was a good idea. We also have pulse energy beams.
Kane Fenris NWP 90	Posted - 2013.10.07 13:34:00 - [38] - 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). missile velocity not applying is inconsistent.
Darling Hassasin Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 25	Posted - 2013.10.07 13:35:00 - [39] - Quote Go away people, nothing to see here, other than ridiculously pre-nerfed drivel. One will outdamge this ridiculously with the various cruise missiles on all ships classes.
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Academy The ROC 1114	Posted - 2013.10.07 13:37:00 - [40] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: Veshta Yoshida wrote: That the same kind of continuity CCP has avoided like the plague when it comes to pulse lasers? God, lasers make me so autistic. We have small focused lasers, and focused medium lasers, and we have both light lasers and small lasers. I don't remember which CCP guy thought this was a good idea. We also have pulse energy beams. Confirming that the entire laser naming scheme is a bane to good grammar and to noobs trying to figure out what to fit. [Edit: Oh, and the word "maser" is ****ing stupid. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á
Gorski Car ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 84	Posted - 2013.10.07 13:38:00 - [41] - Quote "Any bonuses to damage projection or application will NOT be applied (such as Raven missile velocity or Typhoon explosion velocity)." Please reconsider this. The damage application on hmls is pretty **** at the moment especially after that -10% explo velocity nerf. The dps is horribad right now even against bcs if you assume the target is skirmish linked (standard now days deal with it.)
Zappity Kurved Space 495	Posted - 2013.10.07 13:42:00 - [42] - Quote Altrue wrote: It would be wise to first take a look at heavy missiles. They were nerfed some time ago before the up of other medium-sized long-range weapons. Now that these have been buffed again, I believe you CCP should first rebalance heavy missiles (I don't know for you but I never got to use them since the nerf) THEN tweak the stats of these RHML. ... Edit 2 : Of course, finally having a tracking computer / enhancer / remote computer / disruptor equivalent for missiles would also be a good thing to consider before actually balancing the RHML. Yeah. The modules are logical but could easily be OP with minor changes such as above. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Denuo Secus 176	Posted - 2013.10.07 13:48:00 - [43] - Quote Please reconsider to leave out the damage projection bonus. Without that bonus RHMLs become more or less a pure defensive weapon against smaller ships imho. To be used in an aggressive manner on a slow battleship damage projection is needed.
TheFace Asano Yulai Guard 1st Fleet Yulai Federation 34	Posted - 2013.10.07 13:58:00 - [44] - Quote Gorski Car wrote: "Any bonuses to damage projection or application will NOT be applied (such as Raven missile velocity or Typhoon explosion velocity)." Please reconsider this. The damage application on hmls is pretty **** at the moment especially after that -10% explo velocity nerf. The dps is horribad right now even against bcs if you assume the target is skirmish linked (standard now days deal with it.) Going to have to agree here. Precision Cruise hit pretty decently already and at around 100km on a Raven / CNR. Allowing the missile velocity / application bonus makes sense, otherwise there really is not much use for slotting these.
stoicfaux 3207	Posted - 2013.10.07 14:01:00 - [45] - Quote Sooo.. 12s rof for HML. 7.45 for RHML. 12 / 7.45 = 1.61. RHML has 61% moar DPS than HML. For the Raven with it's RoF bonus, that's 1.61 / .75 = 2.15 times the DPS of a standard HML. Or, 1.61 / .75 * 6 launchers = 12.9 effective HMLs. (CNR would be the same. Golem's 100% damage bonus won't apply, so this a Golem nerf.) So... if you're a carebear who puts 4x CN BCUs on their Raven hulls, that's 339 DPS with Fury (not including reload time) * 2.15 = 728.9 DPS. With 5% rof and dmg implants, that's 2.15 * 375 DPS = 806 DPS with RHMLs as they currently stand (sans ammo reloading.) With 2xMissile Speed II and 1xFlight Time rigs, that's ~75km of range. 2 BCUIIs w/CN: 2.15 * 228 = 490 2 BCUIIs w/Fury: 2.15 * 267 DPS = 574 3 BCUIIs w/CN: 2.15 * 256 = 550 3 BCUIIs w/Fury: 2.15 * 300 DPS = 645
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 664	Posted - 2013.10.07 14:03:00 - [46] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Confirming that the entire laser naming scheme is a bane to good grammar and to noobs trying to figure out what to fit. [Edit: Oh, and the word "maser" is ****ing stupid. Stupid or not, Masers are a thing. More on topic, I will be interested to see the difference in applied DPS vs BC and smaller when using Cruises and when using RHMLs. Even if the Cruise has higher paper DPS, you won't need to double- and triple-paint things when using RHMLs. The only problem may be getting into their effective range with a slow, fat battleship. Perhaps a MWD may be of moderate assistance here. Why don't we have any MWD-bonused BS hulls? I suppose that's an entirely different topic.
GOB III Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking 4	Posted - 2013.10.07 14:04:00 - [47] - Quote Does this mean that we can expect a rapid cruise phoenix in the future?
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 664	Posted - 2013.10.07 14:11:00 - [48] - Quote GOB III wrote: Does this mean that we can expect a rapid cruise phoenix in the future? Something that would make the Phoenix useful? Blasphemy!
Gorski Car ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 86	Posted - 2013.10.07 14:13:00 - [49] - Quote A cruise phoon does 290 dps up to 74km with mjolnir precisions to a mwding Loki linked Talos. A rhml Phoon will do around 350 dps to the same Talos shooting mjolnir precisions but the range will only be 31km. For comparison, a Cerb shooting rapid lights with scourge fury will do 355 dps up to 80km. This is of course just a example but still hml dmg application is pretty bad. The hml nerf was totally not needed.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 389	Posted - 2013.10.07 14:19:00 - [50] - Quote Gorski Car wrote: A cruise phoon does 290 dps up to 74km with mjolnir precisions to a mwding Loki linked Talos. A rhml Phoon will do around 350 dps to the same Talos shooting mjolnir precisions but the range will only be 31km. For comparison, a Cerb shooting rapid lights with scourge fury will do 355 dps up to 80km. This is of course just a example but still hml dmg application is pretty bad. The hml nerf was totally not needed. All I'm getting from this is they should nerf ABCs and links.
Rain6638 Team Evil 699	Posted - 2013.10.07 14:33:00 - [51] - Quote just make the animation for each bay go "FwoomFwoomFwoomFwoomFwoom" like 6 missiles from each bay per cycle. I don't care what the cycle time is, I just want an alpha barrage of missuls ...but also from my new kaalakiota draek, plox [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss
Crysantos Callahan EntroPrelatial Industria DARKNESS. 10	Posted - 2013.10.07 14:34:00 - [52] - 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). So no bonus on ships like the rattlesnake because it only gives velocity bonus or do we get a damage bonus for it? Just wondering, like the new launchers but to make it viable we need a bit of love for HM ;)
Lloyd Roses Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 273	Posted - 2013.10.07 14:37:00 - [53] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: RLMLs are overpowered because light missiles are overpowered, but also just the role itself. We have these things called destroyers, which are supposed to kill frigates - it's what they do, and then the caracal comes along and does more damage at 5x the range, goes faster and has many times the tank. Not sure why we need another class of ships that wrecks cruisers, we already have battlecruisers, and they're far more prominent than they probably should be. TBH, my nanohawk with 4 lights isn't that far behind compared to a caracal. So it's at 160-170dps and lacking the selectable damage, but I fail to see how RLMLs are broken. They work well, as opposed to the heavies some derps keep on fitting, and are nowhere near HAM-dps against tackled/painted targets. Seeing rapid heavies announced, those surely won't be as great as one would expect, as they are heavies with - what I've been told - unusable damage-application, nonexistant basedamage and crappy range. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3633385&#post3633385 - 15% more tank since the 1.1-patch.
X ATM092 Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension 102	Posted - 2013.10.07 14:40:00 - [54] - Quote TheFace Asano wrote: Gorski Car wrote: "Any bonuses to damage projection or application will NOT be applied (such as Raven missile velocity or Typhoon explosion velocity)." Please reconsider this. The damage application on hmls is pretty **** at the moment especially after that -10% explo velocity nerf. The dps is horribad right now even against bcs if you assume the target is skirmish linked (standard now days deal with it.) Going to have to agree here. Precision Cruise hit pretty decently already and at around 100km on a Raven / CNR. Allowing the missile velocity / application bonus makes sense, otherwise there really is not much use for slotting these. Could not agree more. You've gone to all this trouble creating a new weapon system and then made it complete trash by only letting people load trash ammo.
HardRockLife War Decs Inc 4	Posted - 2013.10.07 14:42:00 - [55] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: Veshta Yoshida wrote: That the same kind of continuity CCP has avoided like the plague when it comes to pulse lasers? God, lasers make me so autistic. We have small focused lasers, and focused medium lasers, and we have both light lasers and small lasers. I don't remember which CCP guy thought this was a good idea. We also have pulse energy beams. Confirming that the entire laser naming scheme is a bane to good grammar and to noobs trying to figure out what to fit. [Edit: Oh, and the word "maser" is ****ing stupid. Yeah sure think it stupid, its an acronym. Much better than writing the whole thing out. Also fun to use on bots and can be made from a microwave if you dont mind cooking yourself.
TheFace Asano Yulai Guard 1st Fleet Yulai Federation 34	Posted - 2013.10.07 14:45:00 - [56] - Quote Looking at the ship bonus's, here is a run down by ship on which ones it makes sense on. CNR: Won't fit as neither bonus applies. Navy Scorp: Both bonus's apply as one is tank the other is rate of fire Cruise will still be better. Raven: 1 out of 2 bonus apply, range is too short to want to equip because of lack of velocity bonus. Not really worth it. Typhoon: 1 out of 2 bonus apply, application bonus would make this ship really stand out if it applied... Fleet Issue Typhoon: This one could work as well as the missile bonus can be fully exploited Golem: Well hopefully the +100 percent damage to bs missile launchers applies, this one would have been the best of them all if the application + range were applied. My guess bastion won't apply either.... Rattlesnake: missile velocity bonus won't apply. Another ship this would have been perfect for. Armageddon: No actual missile bonus, a good fit, but inconsequential for the discussion because of lack of bonus. As a backup system for ships like the Tempest / Tempest Fleet Issue these will be excellent. So only 2 of the 7 bonused hulls will allow for full use of their missile bonus. With the recent nerf to HML application, these really have little to no value for most BS to even consider. Precision Cruise will apply damn near just as well as precision cruise to smaller targets, and much more dps / alpha to larger targets. My suggestion would be to nerf the RoF slighty (seems a little too rapid in the first iteration), then allow for all bonuses to apply while giving heavy missiles a slight (5-10%) buff to explosion velocity. Then we have a compelling choice.
Garviel Tarrant Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1477	Posted - 2013.10.07 14:46:00 - [57] - Quote Could you nerf RLML's (and LML's for that matter) down to an acceptable state before you start copying the idea? RLML's basically turn a Caracal into a 30k ehp destroyer.. that is also faster than the Caldari missile destroyer.... As it stands lml's are by FAR the best weapon system for kiting in frigates, it isn't even close to being a contest. I think the missiles them selves need a nerf but i also think that RLML's should take more fittings, as it is you can way to easily overtank a rlml ship to compensate for the slight lack of dps. And i'm saying this as someone who has quite enjoyed abusing rlml's. BYDI recruitment closed-ish
Dersen Lowery Laurentson INC StructureDamage 783	Posted - 2013.10.07 14:50:00 - [58] - Quote Destoya wrote: Bouh Revetoile wrote: Is a Rapid Cruise Missile Launcher on project for capitals ? Right when other capitals get a 6x Tachyon/Rail weapon with half the DPS of current dread weapons but battleship tracking (hint: you dont want this) Now the Phoenix is going to back to its corner and cry for a while. For a brief, shining moment, someone was thinking of it, but not anymore. Poor Phoenix. :-( Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Grarr Dexx Snuff Box 277	Posted - 2013.10.07 14:58:00 - [59] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: Gorski Car wrote: A cruise phoon does 290 dps up to 74km with mjolnir precisions to a mwding Loki linked Talos. A rhml Phoon will do around 350 dps to the same Talos shooting mjolnir precisions but the range will only be 31km. For comparison, a Cerb shooting rapid lights with scourge fury will do 355 dps up to 80km. This is of course just a example but still hml dmg application is pretty bad. The hml nerf was totally not needed. All I'm getting from this is they should nerf ABCs and links. cccc **** tier 3s in their entirety.
Kane Fenris NWP 91	Posted - 2013.10.07 15:14:00 - [60] - Quote rlm's are not op they are just very good if you just nerf em slightly and overnerf em just by a tiny bit youll end up with HM's in their current state cause it is exactly what happened to HM's. the proposed LML's will only work if all bonuses apply if you are concerned about dmg tune down ROF a bit but plz make all bonuses apply else there is no fitting diversity and nearly no reason to fit them over cruises.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,09s, ref 20250912/2221
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.