Where is Meta 3 RHML?

- 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.

Is a Rapid Cruise Missile Launcher on project for capitals ?

I made some graphs for you nice people to muse over, enjoy:

Damage Projection for Battleship Launchers

and my personal favorite graph:

Battleship Launcher Comparison -- Anti Support

My full analysis of these launchers with other graphs and whatnot can be found here:

Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher Analysis


Let me know what you think.

Interesting analysis. Probable applications of rhml as anti-t3 and anti hac weapon system? Seems like this weapon will be drawing the line in the sand where cruiser vs bs fights are concerned.

These weapons seem tailored for shooting - and doing large amounts of damage to - everything between the size of cruiser and battlecruiser regardless of speed. It basically makes small gang PvP with missile battleships viable. I haven't finished the math on what a Golem is going to look like, but my money is on scary.

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?

Interesting analysis. Probable applications of rhml as anti-t3 and anti hac weapon system? Seems like this weapon will be drawing the line in the sand where cruiser vs bs fights are concerned.

My full analysis of these launchers with other graphs and whatnot can be found here:

Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher Analysis

ok confirmed nacy scorp and hrml are awesome with drones around 800 dps...

For the Marauder, the hits just keep on coming...

Can you re-run the numbers assuming these bonuses fully apply (all V in the four relevant skills)? Do the damage application comparisons change significantly?

I'm also curious how the 'phoon's explosion velocity bonus changes the balance. The missile velocity bonuses on the Raven and 'snake affect damage projection, and are thus easier to evaluate on your graphs by simply shifting the larger missiles 50% to the right (widening the extreme range "advantage" of cruises vs heavies and putting torps nearer to heavies in range).

I made some graphs for you nice people to muse over, enjoy:

Damage Projection for Battleship Launchers

and my personal favorite graph:

Battleship Launcher Comparison -- Anti Support

My full analysis of these launchers with other graphs and whatnot can be found here:

Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher Analysis


Let me know what you think.

How do those graphs look when taking base damage into account.

Cruise missiles have a lot higher base DPS; a scenario where eg: CMLs apply 50% and RHMLs apply 60% would see the Cruise doing more actual DPS.

This is why the system seems controversal to me. On one hand, BSs will perhaps be able to go into lowsec without fear that they will be killed by anything smaller than them, which is significant part of day-to-day ship population of EVE. On the other hand, missiles are rather braindead weapon system to fly against and this newfound BS sized "challenge" boils down to whether you can go head to head in the most straight way with it or not. Unless you are seeking to swarm the thing with frigates or something. So it's kinda fine. I guess.

That would be a huge oversight, and something that I would STRONGLY advocate to change.



Do the damage applications change significantly based on skills only? No, not at all. Same as damage projection. As RHMLs still don't quite apply their full damage even against MWD Battlcruisers (Currently at 78% PME), the application against all targets will go up. The only case where this would cause a discrepancy between the weapon systems would be if you had hit 100% PME for one weapon system and not the other. As this only happen in extreme ranges for all of these systems, that's not a concern.

However, this that DO cause a change in the graph is of course non-consistent bonuses from ships such as the Typhoon.

I ran them quickly (aka didn't save the graph) but all it did was serve to close the gap between the missile systems - it definitely didn't make them ineffective or outclassed for their niche in the damage/projection graph. Really, Cruise and Torpedoes are the systems that need that bonus in order to actually function somewhat respectably, whereas certain ship bonus (ala Typhoon) would turn RHMLs into murder machines against certain ship classes such as cruisers.

I'll have more detailed information for ship bonuses soon ish maybe. I am lazy afterall.

Some comments:

- Cruise missiles feel a bit over-buffed when their damage application and range are compared to Torps.
- HMLs feel a bit poor compared to RLMLs and HAMLs.
- This proposal sees RHMLs have a 23% quicker RoF than HMLs.
- RLMLs have a 17% quicker RoF than LMLs.
- Long-ranged medium turrets have been buffed.

Perhaps we could benefit from a bit slower RHML RoE and HMLs seeing their damage and/or application being increased a bit to levels intermediate with their old, pre-nerf levels. It's good to balance RLMLs against Cruise and Torps but I think it would be handy to make sure HM stats are where they need to be today before doing so.

Not sure where you're getting your numbers.

For example. RHMLs will have a 38% reduction to cycle time, not 23%.

So was on sisi today, decided to put some RHMLs on my Golem to test them only did 364DPS, wow that was crap. So don't worry guys, they aren't OP at all. On my RS I got less then 200DPS. Not sure if the BS bonuses don't work with the RHMLs like they are suppose to or if they are just really that weak. I sure hope CCP works on them and fixes them because they are really worthless right now.

I also took my Golem against rats, with 2 TPs the Golem bonuses the RHMLs it took 6 to 7 shots to take out a frigate and 3 to 4 to take out a cruiser, REALLY?!