and these aren't different.

Which ships, if any, will get bonuses to these? Or is that a secret?

Thank you for the laugh.

If you think that 480 DPS with Fury missiles at 47.5km on a Battleship hull is OP, then I don't even know what to tell you. And that's with 3 BCS.

The issue is damage application, not paper dps.

Alright, so now you're telling us that Heavy Missiles apply damage too well ?

There is a reason no one uses them anymore except on the occasional Drake and 100MN Tengus.

Type (PG need / CPU need / rate of fire)
Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher I (50 / 960 / 9.3s)
...

Is a Rapid Cruise Missile Launcher on project for capitals ?

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.

Dude dont you think that you're slightly overreacting here ?
I've been in FW for a while now (this is where you're most likely to see t1 cruisers and frigates fighting eachother) and I can assure you that I've never seen nor been killed by RLMLs.
Remember that if you're at "5x times the range" you can still warp out. Also remember that since the ammo is the same and the range bonuses between frigs and cruisers are the same, a caracal won't hit from a longer distance than a frigate, if both are using light missiles. The range thing you're mentionning is thus invalid and a proof that you are objectively overreacting.

Also, battlecruisers don't wreck cruisers. At least not when BCs are using missiles. Have you ever tried to hit an AB cruiser with heavy missiles ?

About RHML, I believe that on a non target-painted BC they should do slightly less damage than a cruise would on a target-painted BC. On a cruiser they should probably outdamage cruise missiles regardless of if it's painted or not (= one paint, I'm not talking about crazy situations like 3 paints + motionless cruiser).
Versus other BS however, they should do less damages than cruise missiles even without paint. Seems obvious but I'm not entierly sure it would be the case if the BS is going fast. However perhaps cruise missiles should be buffed here, not the opposite.

Of course, since the only stat we can balance here is rate of fire, it only leaves limited options.

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.

I agree with previous posters that HMLs need to be fixed. They were nerfed too hard and now aren't justifiable for common use.

make this launchers fittable for the naga

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).

That the same kind of continuity CCP has avoided like the plague when it comes to pulse lasers?

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).

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.

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.

"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.)

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.

Does this mean that we can expect a rapid cruise phoenix in the future?

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.

...
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).

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.

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.

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.

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)

All I'm getting from this is they should nerf ABCs and links.

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.

"yes hello mother, it's Gor. hi. listen, i just figured out that shooting battleship weapons at a sig tanked BC is less efficient than shooting smaller weapons. what? no i didn't apply a target painter, i don't have time. yes, i'm posting right now, why do you ask? no i won't look like an idiot, mother this is important. please don't use that tone mother"

heavy missiles aren't battleship weapons you idiot

also mwding shield taloses arent exactly sig tanked he's just trying to show you how bad hml damage application is

"mother hi! hi! listen, great idea. no, calm down. listen. i'm going to fit rapid heavy missile launchers on cruisers! surprise! small size, low cost, but battleship dps! mother? what's so funny mother?"

stop posting

All I'm getting from this is they should nerf ABCs and links.

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.

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.

I fail to grasp how LMLs and RLML are overpowered. Just cause heavies suck doesn't mean that small LR missiles need to be ****. They aren't OP, they are doing what they are intended to do. They are working. That's all.

Else, 430dps from RLMLs is not always better compared to the 770dps from HAMs on a cerb, it just depends.

Any bonuses to damage projection or application will NOT be applied (such as Raven missile velocity or Typhoon explosion velocity).

I'm currently running the numbers on the new ships, but the bonus to explosion radius and velocity from the RNI and Typhoon seems like an oversight imho. I'll confirm this once I actually run the numbers, but I'm suspicious that without these bonuses the new missiles will come across as an afterthought, not an alternative.

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).

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.

Can you share your reasoning on this point? Heavy missiles were weak compared to the other medium long range weapons even before they were buffed, moreover heavy missiles suffer from terrible application and poor dps, and with application being essentially the only reason anyone will use these weapons I think you're going to find that aside from early exploration into this concept people are not going to use this weapon system.

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.

I'd rather have some cap warfare in my 'pest's highs than mount a couple missile launchers,

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 ;)

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

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).

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.

Type ( CPU need / PG need / rate of fire)

Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher I (50 / 960 / 9.3s)
Rapid Heavy Missile launcher II (59 / 1210 / 7.45s)
'Arbalest' Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher I (46 / 1160 / 7.45s)
'Limos' Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher I (49 / 1160/ 8.37s)
'Malkuth' Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher I (43 / 1160 / 8.84s)
Caldari Navy Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher (59 / 1060 / 6.51s)
Domination Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher (43 / 1160 / 7.21s)
Dread Guristas Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher (59 / 1060 / 6.51s)
Estamel's Modified Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher (72 / 1060 / 5.21s)
Gotan's Modified Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher (50 / 1160 / 6.33s)
Hakim's Modified Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher (48 / 1160 / 6.7s)
Kaikka's Modified Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher (62 / 1060 / 6.19s)
Mizuro's Modified Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher (45 / 1160 / 7.07s)
Republic Fleet Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher (43 / 1160 / 7.21s)
Shaqil's Modified Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher (50 / 1060 / 5.96s)
Thon's Modified Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher (66 / 1060 / 5.86s)
Tobias' Modified Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher (52 / 1160 / 5.96s)
True Sansha Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher (43 / 1160 / 7.21s)
Vepas' Modified Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher (68 / 1060 / 5.54s)
YO-5000 Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher (51 / 1160 / 7.91s)

---

would this fit not wreck everything under the sun NOT a BS?

Yeaaaah shooting Precision Cruise missiles at a Talos....try Faction Cruise missiles for much improved results.

Faction HMLs would be a better comparison for Precision Cruise missiles on a Typhoon. While Fury HMLs would compare better with Faction Cruises.

The Rapid Heavy Launchers look ok. Can't make an informed judgement until I've had a play with them on Sisi.

Precisions do more dps then cn if the talos is linked. I am not using crash/dps application rigs/implants for simplicity so that even you could understand. Obviously this failed.

It wouldnt because cruisers can project outside of heavy neut range nowadays

yeah its like telling me the tracking bonus on the megathron only works on ions and nuetron but not elctron blasters

Is a Rapid Cruise Missile Launcher on project for capitals ?

RLML Caracal has the same range as a Talwar, and most certainly is not as fast, for 10x the cost. Indeed it does have a better tank. But +1 ship size category. Get your facts straight.

"does more damage at 5x the range,"

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.

Using EM against a loki? really?

Using EM against a loki? really?

Surely you're joking...........

now well that sucks balls...

i had this picture in my mind of the phoon being a useful fleet ship...

i saw the phoon as the new anti ahac ship...

now i am unsure why would you fit the new launcher if you cant take advantage of the ships bonus.

People always have to have something to ***** about it seems. The rapid launchers are made to kill smaller ships, but against a cruiser or bigger they are pretty much worthless, just like dual 180mm, ions and the other smallest versions of the med/large guns. They are great against smaller ships but terrible against bigger ones. The new RHML is no different, it will be great against cruiser size ships, and maybe some BC, but against frigates, most BC and BS it won't do much. Guns have a lot of options to them, even drones do, but missiles have very few. I think as long as they do these right they will be very nice, and work just like the RMLs.
If you think the RMLs are OP, attack a Vaga, or Cerb, or etc with them, let me know how it goes for you. These are made to go against smaller targets, doesn't make them OP, and just makes them good for specific type of job.

And like EVERYTHING else in EVE these will be tested first on sisi, and should have most of the bugs and issues worked out by Nov 19th I'd say.

Real quick math in my head fancies that the difference between these systems and precision cruise is sufficiently negligible that you'll be better off with cruise. That was my CNR though.


Edit: I suppose they may be worried about precision weapons in the heavy class but ..... Seems a bit thin.

[...]
RLML's are like if you could use small railguns on a thorax with an increased rate of fire and full dps bonuses. Except lml's are overpowered.

If you want to do a cerb vs cerb comparison i suggest you try doing a dps comparison between two cerbs fighting while running mwd. One with HML's and the other with rlml's.

Now try adding links.

Now try to see how they would do against a small frigate gang.

The entire premise of your argument is false.

Can we please fit these to stealth bombers? Please?

Just to put your argument into relations:

a light-missile / rangerigged hawk using lights reaches out to some 60-70km using lights? For very decent, delayed 160ish dps (very optimistic), while a railhrapy tops that by 35km, and only loses 40dps in comparison. Spiketracking at 80-100km is very acceptable.

The one thing that LMLs are good at is *kiting*. Fin, nothing more. They suck hard on the dps side compared to rockets, and there is like 5 ships you can fit light missiles to:
talwar, hawk, condor, (kestrel), hookbill. The other missile ships (breacher, corax, *worm*, and whatever else got misssile highs) are such crap when not using rockets, either due to fittings or lacking sufficient bonus, that those five should suffice to do any LML comparison. The Corax is just plain bad, though I heard some people got kills with it against thrashers. Out of experience, those thrasher pilots should be burned and never mentioned again.
Talwar is a gangship. Hawk is smallgang at best. Condor is dangerous for its tackling/ewar/mobility, but you gotta be joking telling us that LMLs are an actual threat. The fact that you can't run and that it will kill you eventually though is problematic. I do not know what a kestrel does, besides dying. Never saw it doing anything but dying. It's the caldari-rifter, I'm unconcerned. The hookbill used to be flown with LMLs a lot, but I rarely see any of those that don't use rockets anymore. Maybe the 8/15-hookbill pilot found out that since some patches ago (ewar shift), buying a 200mil hookbill isn't always a victory against anything anymore.

So how good will these be? Like will there be any reason to use "cruise missiles" instead of these?

EDIT: Also rapid light missile launchers ARE NOT overpowered. The weapon system has been in game FOREVER. The rapid missile launcher-Caracal has been used in game forever as a anti-frigate platform.

The issues surrounding light missile-Frigates is something else. The Condor for example has an EASY TIME fitting electronic warfare modules and what not. NERFING powergrid and CPU would be a good way to remove that issue. Have no idea why it's easier to fit a Condor than a Hookbill...

Reading over 6 pages, I don't see an argument for why other BS damage application bonuses should apply. RHMLs fire heavy missiles, which are innately balanced around hitting a cruiser-sized (or larger) target. Thus, the missile's base explosion velocity and signature radius (modified by skills) are balanced around hitting those sized targets. RHMLs are being introduced to give battleships a cruiser-sized weapon system so they can have some defense vs. a cruiser or BC, since their missile systems are sized to attack other battleships, with slower overall velocities and larger signatures.

Buffing a heavy missile's base explosion velocity and signature radius would make it overpowered vs cruisers or BCs, which would overbuff the RHMLs by bumping the dps being provided by RoF bonuses. There really doesn't need to be more bonuses being provided, and I'm sure the adoption of the RoF bonus is simply to give those battleships an edge (where the others get tank/gank supplemental bonuses).

Also, since there are more than a few comparisons of which battleships receive no bonus to RHMLs as a result of only allowing rate of fire bonuses to be included, just have a look at missile cruisers and how many of them don't have a bonus for RLMLs. Just the Caracal stands out in the T1 lineup from all available missile cruisers (and BCs) that *can* fit missiles and yet don't have a bonus for RLMLs. Anyone complain that Drake's don't have a bonus for RLMLs or that application bonuses don't apply?

RLMLs are fine. They'll be a great "wildcard" addition for missile BSs.

edit:

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 isn't heavy missile range bonused for RHML Ravens?

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?!

Phoon and Navy Raven will probably be the best platforms for these babies.

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?!

questionable dps (problem lies here on the missiles themselves)

the range is,well how shall i put this? NO (problem lies here on the missiles themselves)

other than that it would be nice to have them.

Do the damage applications change significantly based on skills only? No, not at all.

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.

I've looked briefly at the numbers, and this is not strictly true, primarily because DRF differs for different missiles.

Assume we are bound by the third term. The % increase in damage application for the various missiles at GMP/TNP V is as follows:
- Heavy Prec: +50% (DRF 2.7)
- Heavy: +60% (DRF 3.2)
- Cruise Prec: +66% (DRF 3.5)
- Heavy Fury: +84% (DRF 4.5)
- Cruise: +84% (DRF 4.5)
- Cruise Fury: +88% (DRF 4.7)
- Torp: +92% (DRF 5)
- Torp Javelin: +95% (DRF 5.2)
- Torp Rage: +95% (DRF 5.2)

The worse the DRF, the bigger effect of improved skills.

Comparing the biggest improvement (T2 torp) with the smallest (precision heavy), we see that all V improves relative damage application by about 30%. So this is not "no change at all". Whether it makes a practical difference is another matter (eg a Rage Torp vs a noob in a Merlin (39 sig, speed 310) increases from 1% to 2% potential damage, while the Precision Heavy improves from 26% to 39%).

Now I'm not going to be satisfied until I redo all my graphs with skills applied. Although from what you're saying in the explanation of percentage increase affecting applied damage is that it will benefit RHML more than torpedoes? That isn't something I would have expected at all.

The worse the DRF, the bigger effect of improved skills.

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.

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.

because its always better to not use the obnus whiel fielding these modules than use the bonus while fielding cruise missiles and torps.

You're lying, right?

Yes, but the point is if sig radius is already >= to explosion radius, a painter does nothing (unless I forgot something, correct me if I'm forgetting something)

It will be far harder to create that sitation for a cruise compared to a heavy.

What I'm getting at is I'm not sure there's a sufficient gap between these and precision cruises considering what you give up using the smaller missiles. I may be wrong, but the analysis so far feels incomplete without considering a full fit.

Unless there are more changes in the pipe for heavies.

What happens to the numbers when a TP enters the equation? Is a single painter enough to get target sig>HML exp radius thus changing the picture further? Bearing in mind cruise and painters are pretty much always used in tandem

Pretrty much always? aaa no. It {target painting} is stil the most rare form of ewar.

people keep asking about all these stats about heavy missile and what not


are not these stats already known??

there is absolutely no difference between a heavy missile launched from a cruiser or battle cruiser,

factors for target painters and webs and after burners and explosive radius vs signature radius and explosive velocity vs target velocity

all of these factors we already know... they have not changed .......


what is gonna change is rate of fire...... so a rapid heavy launcher will fire slightly faster then a standard launcher

damage that heavy missiles do to cruisers and battlecruisers is already known. it will be a slight bit more rate of fire so expect a slight bit more damage output


-- from what I gather however... the problem is not the weapon system itself....

the problem is the politics / game balance

people are concerned about having battleships able to effectively engage cruiser sized targets

I feel confident that this will make the various missile battleships a viable option in small gang / fleet actions, currently, they have mostly been observed used in running lv 4 missions in empire

seriously, ive not seen the raven / navy raven / navy scorpion outside of people running level 4 missions

something to do with travel time of missiles making missile based ships not very desired in pvp combat,

Actually, looking at the damage bonuses (pure damage or ROF) of the various missile BS hulls the only one it matters on is the phoon. Look at effective launchers:

• Raven - 6 x 1.25 (ROF) = 8
• Scorpion - 4 (no bonuses) = 4
• RNI - 8 (no bonuses) = 8
• SNI - 6 x 1.25 (dmg) = 8
• Typhoon - 6 x 1.375 (dmg) = 8.25
• Golem - 4 x 2.0 (dmg) = 8 (only if the role bonus is adjusted to include RHML)

All the BS missile boats basically have the exact same damage, projection, and application when considering RHML. The remaining bonuses would be the only reason to choose between them. That makes for a bland hull selection process and invalidates most of what makes each of these hulls unique.

It would still be nice to have all the bonuses applied to RHMLs.

Mostly because it's the weakest in terms of effect.

An unbonused target painter II adds 30% to the target's sig radius (37.5% at Signature Focusing V). An unbonused web slows a target by 60%, which provides almost double benefit as far as the turret and missile hit/damage calculations are concerned.

In addition to the effect on shooting, a target painter makes it faster to lock the target. A web stops the target from escaping and grants range control to the attacking side. In most situations, both the primary and secondary benefit of a web are superior to a target painter. The only thing going for the target painter is the much longer effective range.

(Also, there's a visibility question. The effect of a web or ECM is obvious - it "feels" like it's doing something. The effect of a target painter is often only visible with careful analysis.)

Cruise missiles do about the same effective damage to cruiser targets, have WAAAY better range and are much, much faster than heavies. Fitting out a raven with RHML's on Singularity with four BCS, good missiles skills and T2 damage ammo gives me just under 600 dps at 45km and unbonused damage application. I don't see a single purpose that a RHML can accomplish in fleet, solo or PvE combat that isn't served better by using cruise missiles.

Heavy missiles are completely useless, and making them launch faster doesn't change that. Give heavy missiles some serious love and this might actually get used, otherwise it's just a waste of code.

However to end on a positive note, I do like the attention that missiles have been getting recently. They really need some help. Keep it up, Rise!

600dps is more than what a HAM Drake will do... And the HAM Drake don't shoot at 45km...

And as numbers showed in this thread, RHML will still do twice the dps of cruise missiles to cruisers and below.

I have a gut feeling that the RHML would be used in mission running much more often then cruise missiles...

we shall see

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.

don't know what factors you both are accounting for, as one of you has the RHML being over powered, and the other has it being underpowered

don't know what factors you both are accounting for, as one of you has the RHML being over powered, and the other has it being underpowered

I'm not even going to bother posting my opinion on the matter because the numbers speak for themselves.

I have no idea what kind of ships he is using

i can't even tell the DPS or damgae

his have little if any relevance

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.