Thank you, didn't see it somehow. So not only Cerb pilots need to wait 4 times longer to reload, now they can say good bye to XLASB - LSE combo as well. It gets better and better.

Pretty much.

RavenGǪ RHMLGǪ 1200+ DPS...

if this is not troll plz do us all a favor and push the self destruct button...

yup ccp-s balance , if some caldari thingy gets used it gets nerfed into the ground
btw rapid lights arent that good anyway , they just a reliable missile weapon not like the ****** overnerfed hml , or ultra close range ham
instead of nerfing rapid lights which is pretty balanced , boost the other missiles, or just rework the missile dmg formula

Does anyone here knows that 1400mm artilleries have 20 (twenty) seconds between *each shot* ?

That's only two shot while RLML is reloading.

That is also 30 seconds when they need to reload or swap ammo !

They are in fact usefull only on shot every twenty seconds ! A whole jam cycle !

At least the Caracal will be usefull for a minute before reloading !

For a weapon system mounted on a larger hull having a smaller clip size is kind of silly. The firing rate of a missile launcher has *nothing* to do with the barrels. You could technically deploy your entire magazine in one volley, and I think that should be an option.

Obviously expending 18/23 charges in a couple of seconds sounds hilariously OP, until you're out of ammo. And even then there's no guarantee of a kill since your total volley damage is still only 28k~~ for RLML and and some 40k for RHML.. which may get speed tanked down.

Just a thought.

...While you warp out.

Wait let me get this right he made this module but hasn't used it yet?... I know I'm misunderstanding this!

Maybe he just has slippery hands lol

He must have been joking? There's no way someone would change one module so drastically and release another similar module without at least some serious testing.

HML are terrible, and HAM's are not much better. They are practically impotent against small ships, where as drones don't have this problem, and turrets can at least do a large part of their dps under the right circumstances. This makes heavy missiles redundant for everything but lazy pve where people would rather not have to bother with managing things like transversal and optimals to max their dps potential. In pvp they need the ability to maximize their chances as much as possible and the current heavy missile stats do not allow that.

Also Cruise missiles don't obsolete torps... torps obsolete torps. If the dps of Torpedo's applied as well in game as they look on paper lot's of people would drop Cruises and use Torps instead.

Exactly, 25% range AND 10% RoF buff would be nice. Faction and Javelin torps can hit other slow BS's (mostly NPC's) with full damage but Rage is practically useless for anything smaller than a (po)CO. I don't understand what those dev guys are waiting for, why are they slower than slow? It's so easy to make torps better that one could do it in his spare time while doing other things.

Idk, my EFT dares to disagree with you. According to the graphs from earlier Tengu-Executioner example, T1 Rigor is better than a T2 Flare, T2 Rigor & T2 Flare are better than T2 Rigor & T1 Rigor (though difference is only 1dps) and, at the end, 2xT2 Rigor & T2 Flare are better than 2xT2 Rigor & T1 Rigor (4dps difference, ofc you can't fit three T2 Rigor rigs cause it would require 450 calibration points which you don't have).

Yes.

Bouh's been posting in this thread since the beginning. Nothing's changed. He's right and all the knowledgeable people in this thread with numbers to back up their claims are wrong. He's simply smarter than the rest of us.

I'm actually kind of worried that CCP may hire him. They seem to like that attitude in their balance department.

I had assumed we were referring to T1 rigs, since T2 rigs are a tad expensive for PvP. So yes, 2x T2 Rigors and a T2 Flare will be marginally better (albeit expensively more so) than 2x T2 Rigors and a T1 Rigor (400 calibration not being enough to fit 3x T2 Rigors). 3x T1 Rigors will easily outperform 3x T1 Flares or 2x T1 Rigors and a T1 Flare.

So rigor, rigor, rigorGǪ
GǪ..

How did this thread manage to get derailed again into a missiles vs. guns debate? Weren't we discussing RLMLsGǪ?

I guess I'm understandably curious why you wouldn't just use the new RHMLs with 3 rigors.

Yeah, you could use rigors to improve damage application. If you can't hit sh*t any kind of tank is pointless anyway. No, three T1 rigors are superior to two T1 rigors and a T1 flare. You're going to have a tough time convincing me that players are going to dump enough in T2 rigs equivalent to (or exceeding) the T1 Raven hull cost. That's like throwing good money after bad...

1. If you're using anything other than RHMLs or RLMLs on a Raven for smaller targets, you're doing in wrong.
2. If you're running uber-expensive T2 rigs on a Raven for PvP, you're doing it wrong.
3. If you choose a battleship to hunt frigates, you're doing it wrong.

Basically you're doing it wrong.
GǪ..

If I was going to hunt in a Raven, I'd be running RHMLs with three T1 hydraulic rigs to extend my range out to almost 100km. Assuming I made it past the gate camps, interceptors and everything else that can basically turn me into a floating pile of cinders long before I reach my destination. In other words, I'd take my Tengu.

Maybe you'll figure out that this is a RLML/RHML thread and really has no bearings on cruise missiles...

Best-case scenario is I'd use RHMLs with precision heavies and rigors on a Raven.

OR you can notice that the entire original 'analysis' was bogus to begin with.....

Maybe we have a different idea of what constitutes a well designed test then. If all other weapon systems are significantly better at applying damage compared to Missiles, then a well designed test would set initial conditions that were not already biased towards those other weapon systems. If they were a LOT better, then you could set up the test so that the other weapon systems would shine even under adverse conditions. Just leveling the playing field a small degree (not even trying to put guns+drones in the worst situation possible) means adding in a non-derp Rifter and isolating the weapons systems completely. But then, that causes problems for your argument because when you level the playing field that amazing difference you find dissipates.

I have not checked EFT yet, but experience says any large rail is pointless at killing off a Rifter if that Rifter can get under about 45km and doesn't do stupid things like approach at 0 trans. Nor does not take crazy angles or incredible piloting skills to get enough trans to effectively ignore large rails (maybe 15-20deg off the BS's vector). Between 425 rails and a cruise missiles, over time, a Rifter will take more dmg from the cruise.

Moreover, the use of drones to your test adds an additional confound which you (intentionally or not) did not take into consideration. Since your thesis is that a weapon system is sub-par, adding other variables only makes the picture muddier. If the comparison BS out DPS's a Cruise Raven with drones, but not when considering vaguely realistic guns alone, then the problem is not with the cruise missile but with the drone bandwidth/bay.

Those were just the problems that are blatantly obvious to anyone with a modicum of critical thinking ability and there may be more problems upon a closer analysis.

RIP Caldari.
Phoenix is deadGǪ Drake is deadGǪ Caracal is deadGǪ Tengu will soon be joining them.

Seems that most of us (excluding Bouh, who doesn't count) have reached the consensus that the new RHMLs and RLMLs tis horrendus. Yay! Now, I can go back to deciding what the hell I am going to do with the couple mil of SP in missiles I have...

CCP, where is my SP redistribution? I would like to move it to Projectile weapons please. I hear that Arty and Autos are awesome! lol

PS : caldari navy light missiles hit frigates more than fine.

Dear CCP Rise,

Previously we have expanded on the concept of "User Metrics" to assess the acceptance and effectiveness of certain weapon systems and your intent on considering this at least in part when looking at ship/weapon system balance.

I ask that you and the community take a look at these metrics compiled from 12/1 to 12/3.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20


Now, it is my understanding that these are self reported metrics (I could be wrong) and so there would be an inherent bias in this statistical compilation. However, I would welcome your comments and as well, in the spirit of game balance and an open dialogue, ask what it is that you would dispute in the accuracy of these statistics?

In particular I would draw your attention to the "Rank Weapons" where we find the only missile system dead last in the Top 20 and it is the Light Missile II launcher, a frig class weapon.

Note that the RLML and RHML are nowhere to be seen as well as the ships capable of mounting these systems. Needless to say there is not a sign of HAMS or HML.

Note in the "Rank Ships" list that there is a significant outlier (Dominix) that indicates profound balance issues but the one shining light for Caldari is the Tengu. However as it's perceived weapons system (missiles) is nowhere to be seen apparently they are Rail Tengus which (apparently?) are used in Null Blob fleet doctrine per report.

Regardless, the point is that something missile was not fixed with Rubicon, it was further broken in fact if these metrics have validity. If I knew how I would search pre-Rubicon statistics and expect to find the "old" RLML high on the list if it was in need a such a dramatic nerf? My actual sense is that it was no where to be seen as compared to other light/medium weapons systems.

What exactly is being "fixed" with Rubicon? My humble user sense of things is that RLML got nerfed because it was all we used, so it must've been too good without looking at the pathetic performance of missiles over all.

I welcome your feedback and that of any others that can shed light on these issues and how these lists are compiled as there appears to be a disconnect between ship success and weapons success that is not apparent to me.

best

ps. Maybe I have been listening to too many conspiracies theories about server issues in huge missile fights but maybe it is time to change them to a new class of weapons (the Photon Missile) that has extremely high speeds (like projectiles) to instantly apply damage but otherwise retain the explosion velocity and radius characteristics (brought into better balance) so that they can be used in large scale battles without their slow flight and numbers creating lag.

I believe the exact quote was something to the effect of "...while T3s won't be nerfed to the point of uselessness..." Well, since Tengus are now pretty much useless outside of PvE with the RLML change and previous HM nerf, that translates into dead. Any further nerf equates to burying them 6 feet under. So when I said "nerfed into the ground", I really did mean dead and buried.


I suspect a lot of these are fleet actions. But in fairness, we're only looking at a brief window of a few days here.

I'd imagine that RLML and RHML will get clip size buffs before the next expansion. 30-40 charges each. Expect the reload time to stay though.

here's my problem we seem to have too many ships doing to many things and now the missile launchers !

why not instead have t2 launchers have different t2 missile's to do different things and have faction missle do dmg!

outclassed in every category.

ccp needs to un nerf heavy missles, buff explosive speed on hams, completly fix the phoenix and citadel torps/cruises

and finally cut the reload time in half for rapid launchers.

sad as it is i think CCP rise is corrupt and trying to nerf missles and missle ships into the ground cause he has his own agenda against them or perhaps outside influence is trying to get missiles nerfed.

Too long has gunnery been the go to for pvp! missile users rise up! and FIRE ZEE MISSILES!

Although I share your cynicism due to a complete lack of CCP interest for a topic which seems to have a serious presence in almost every forum. We shouldn't let it pour over or we get thread-locked.
One of the links I gave earlier shows the CSM is taking interest. (Malcanis).

Also I think it will be: "Focussing on more pressing matters".

Yes, I've wanted to bring this up too. Furthermore I've said it but it really needs stressed. The range bonuses they are excessive to the point of useless. Missiles more then anything are stuck with VERY fossilized versions of weapon bonus types. This sniping far outside scramber range actually used to be a thing at some point I believe, and I could be wrong on that. But having a possibly meaningless bonus is always worse then having one that never sucks. Having a range bonus on sniper focussed ships needs to just stop, yes I'm talking about the entire caldari line up. Here and there it might be right depending on the hull, but just default=range bonus is ridiculous on the ranged weapon-systems. Other faction ships can have sensible range bonuses where appropriate.

Lol that gave me a very vivid mental picture of role-playing developers siting around a table with dice and everything. So are we still legitimately discussing RLML which is the original purpose of this thread? It just seems to be too hard to keep a thread alive atm with the amount of posting going on just after the expansion. From "change back the lights on the jaguar" to " I could've sworn I had 10 tritanium in my hangar and not 4". I am following 5 threads regarding Missiles some quite lengthy at that and they still get snowed under by "My cat ran across my keyboard". That said though RLML was the proverbial last nail inthe coffin for the entire system so does that legitimize our general discussion at this point??

First, glad you are responding. Second, the fact you call this a fairly bizarre thread while completely ignoring the main issues raised is troubling.

The main argument at this point has not been wether RLML were OP or UP, but A: They were being used to veer around the glaring issues of the other medium sized launchers, meaning the most versatile hull class has been destroyed when it comes to missiles. And B: Have been complained about not being fun to unplayable from a tactical perspective/to as far as being the one niche to rule them all.
And the list of issues doesn't end there, it is fitting, lack of modules etc. etc.

I really wish I was around to understand what these "metrics" consist of. For now it just sounds like you are talking about a hand of cards you're holding with a lot of mystery. I know I have HML techII and they "feel" pathetic. I won't dare get into HAM's with the recent changes. If your cruiser sized weapon-systems don't function, then the majority of your progression/hulls are broken. And that is the outlook of the missile community at large. The amount of "missile users" that say missiles are fine in this thread are non existent.

How about instead of nerfing the launchers or missiles, a module is released to help reduce application? That way its more pilot choice and creativity/logic that wins fights rather than f1 and orbit. Please give HM some minor buffing and then release a module that counteracts said buff, bringing missile dps to where it is now.

The proposed chaff launcher i mentioned earlier.

Reduces missile explo radius and velocity
Has charges ranging from 10-20 charges and then a reload of a to be determined time
Fits in high slot, allowing choice of neut, nos or missile defense
Charges that could be fit is scrap metal as its already available and cheap
Cycle time is about that of a smartbomb, that way missiles can still occasionally get good hits, just like td. This also makes missile users learn the cycle time and fire at more appropriate times, similar skill that turret users use for transversal.
This does not damage missiles, but just causes loss of application.

Finally add a missile guidance computer to help offset the effects of said chaff launcher so missile pilots can't be completely neutered.

it's in that list 3 times. crow #3 on ships. those stats are irrelevant however - this is a balance discussion.

this is a pretty long list, I sometimes forget bits of it:

very high alpha - between 250 and 280mm artillery - this really bothers attack frigates, because they have zero hp, and is also annoying on active tanks, as they can sneak past most of your buffer.
usually about 50-100% more dps than you'd get kiting with LR turrets.
too much tracking - they apply perfectly to slowboating frigates, and with a rig or module or two and precisions, you can easily crack tanky afterburning frigates.
capless, all damage types, ability to use FOFs vs ecm and damps, not vulnerable to tracking disruptors - same deal as cruise missiles I guess, but worth mentioning, as they are all reasons for me not to fly a beam executioner.
multiplies perfectly with snakes/links/speed mods for ridiculous kiting ability, since you don't have to worry about transversal or being out of range, you can just crank up the speed and tackle range forever. with turrets you'd end up using iron or radio or whatever, and you'd still missing if you want to just orbit at max speed.
useful t2 ammo types for a variety of targets, whereas when kiting with turrets, generally you only have one ammo that's applicable for your range, and the t2 ammo is actually niche and sensible (i.e. you never use it).

a 'dedicated' tackler does 0 dps

that's pretty rude, especially considering that I'm right about everything. might have to report you.

I honestly thought that they were going to suck.
Then I start using them and frankly, they're pretty awesome.
40s reload is a bit much, however they're very useable in their current state.
I recently lost a RHML 'phoon in lowsec to a harbinger, vexor, and augoror multiboxer but I'm sure that if I had approached the fight differently I would have been able to win it.

I used the Tengu because it's on the extreme end of cruisers. I could do an analysis with the Caracal, but as I'm only comparing a single launcher I'm not sure the 12.5% rate of fire difference is going to make a huge difference. In fact, a slightly slower rate of fire might actually translate into better damage application. But I'll have a peek...

You are wrong.

The counter to speed and signature are EWAR : web and TP. Precision are ammos designed to apply more damage than regular ammo to the targets regular missiles have trouble applying damage. They are not a counter to anything. T2 ammo are meant to give you flexibility, not to counter anything. You counter a fit with another fit, full dot. Null don't counter kiters, they only allow you to hit harder at long range than you normaly would. Same for barrage, scorch, aurora, spike and tremor.

It would be absurd if you could counter something someone fit to its ship to counter your missiles just by swapping ammo. That's not how a counter work. It work like rock/paper/cissor : you fit wrong, you are in a very bad spot.

BTW, the range of ships you used range from insanely fast and small to reasonably fast and small.

Honestly, have you tryed the numbers against one ship with more than 125m sig and less than 275m/s speed ? The Caracal is the closest to these numbers I saw, and it was used once, and yet it's faster than average ! There was once a Rupture too, with average numbers, but no fit or AB fit.

And "unfortunately" all the numbers used are for ships with only a prop mod and no tank ; unfortunately because the tank increase the dps of missiles up to 30% and ship without it are the exception more than the norm...

If you want to show a real picture of missiles, why excluding everything that can possibly goes in their favor, and despite the certainty you will encounter them ? I'm not asking you to use a Blackbird in your test, only something closer to the average, like any combat cruiser.

Another thing too : most cruisers will have a MWD (to not be outrun by a battleship...) ; such a cruiser tackled with a scram will go at normal speed. Numbers showcasing dps against a cruiser at normal speed have been very rare.

That's why I'm going crazy in this thread : you are only focusing on very low signature ships with AB whereas these are meant to decrease missile dps !

And I never said missiles where "epic" or "gallente sux". I'm only trying to open your eyes on the falacies you are using ! You select the numbers to prove your point, which is dishonnest.

Also, I recognized many times that HM might need some love ; I only argued that HAM are fine.

I went on sisi and fought 2 cruise-missile ravens in my deimos (125m2 sig radius). The cruise missiles (coupled with target painters) obliterated the (fully gang-linked) deimos while it was moving at max speed. The gang links included evasive maneuvering so the deimos' sig radius was under 100.

I would encourage die-hard missile fans who are disappointed with HMs to try cruise missile fitted ships if possible. I think you'll be really pleased.

It's a case of life giving you lemons, so make lemonade.

If it is a spreadsheet, I suggest you to use average numbers. I already provided average for T1 Cruisers (without logi or faction ships) ; I'll make some more numbers digging but I think the Rupture is close to ideal baseline : close to average speed, close to average signature, and can be shield or armor tanked. Untanked he will give the reference for how armor and shield influence missile dps figures.

I also think combat cruisers are CCP's reference for cruiser numbers : the base numbers from where other cruisers numbers are derived from.

Let's see if we can get some killmails with RLML and RHMLs. Solo engagements, not in a gang.

Haven't you seen Rise answer ? If other missiles have a problem, they are those needing a fix, not the rapid launchers.

RLML were OP, and RHML would be too if they had the old rapid launchers mechanic.

What I really want is the old RLMLs back and the first iteration for RHMLs. They weren't "op", and the above example is just one of many we'll be hearing in the coming weeks and months.

And who does actually know anything about blasters and railguns more than I do after flying them for 3 years ? I was there in the Drake and winmatar era, and I remember how it was. HML of this time were not better than HAML of now, they just had more range. Comparison is simple.

Yep they work "ok"on my cerb but then it is 200 mil ship but on the caracal without perfect skills its REALLY tight and i can in no way play the way i was before.
But hey on the bright side maybe this is the push i needed to unsub.

That's an interesting idea, but I wonder if it wouldn't be better-suited to the FoF variants? Here's another twist on rapid launchers: return the ammunition capacity to the pre-Odyssey levels, leave the 40-second reload time and add a big activation cost (GJ). So fire until your heart's content (or your capacitor drains).

Haha, you are so naive... :-)

That's exactly what I'm saying. You don't have any use for everything the ONI have to offer. Does that mean you are wrong or stupid ? Not at all ! But there's not only your way of playing in the game, and what I'm saying is that all those things you look with disdain can be very useful and even far more useful than everything the Scythe FI can bring on the table.

That is a problem of viewpoint : what is useful in some situations is useless in others and vice versa. The ONI is useless to you, but in some situations you obviously don't imagin, it's far better than the Scythe FI.

Indeed. I've grudgingly given up trying to make either of the rapids work and switch back to heavies. Three rigors and a target painter should put them close to on par with the old lights, especially if I utilize Precision ammunition. I think the Caracal Navy has some interesting unrealized potential in that it has a built-in 25% explosion radius, so with three rigors you can probably dispense with the target painter altogether.

You wouldn't believe (then again, you probably would) the flak I got for simply proposing a Ballistic Enhancer. "Sure, if tracking disruptors will effect missiles." Yeah, because a Corax has so many low slots to play with anyway... I'm really starting to harbour some serious animosity towards turret players. They know missiles are fundamentally broken, and they know damage application from the "always hit" mechanic is near-zero. They also know that FoF missiles are extremely easy to counter. Yet they're still on the anti-missile pilgrimage to completely wreck this system if they can.

Therein lies the problem, which turret players don't seem to be able to fathom.

Don't ask, don't tellGǪ

"We didn't include it because RLMLs are still widely in-useGǪ"
"We didn't include it because the % drop in RLML use was less than expectedGǪ"
"We didn't include it because this change was endorsed as an alternative to a nerfGǪ"
"We didn't include it because we haven't received any overall negative feedback on the new RLMLsGǪ"
"We didn't include it because there was hardly any discussion with the RLML changesGǪ"

I think before we can quantify how many frigates should have died we need more data. We don't know his fit, his skills, how much damage he had already taken, whether he remembered his damage control... And so on.

For my money, if I was in a squad of 4 frigates, properly fitted, I would expect to win an encounter against a lone t1 cruiser.

Let's do this to guns now!


and make drones have to return to your ship to reload!

Except the cons now seriously outweigh the pros. The problem with losing the other 29 applications is that we really haven't gained any new ones.


Webs are good, but that kind of defeats the whole range advantage with most missile systems. Rigors and dual target painters are probably more effective.

What we really need is a Ballistic Enhancer to improve explosion radius, explosion velocity and missile velocity (although arguably that still won't help RLMLs).

Tracking disruptor missiles.
No damage, but a cumulative -1% tracking penalty per missile that lasts for 10 seconds.

So after weeks of frustration, I finally found a niche hybrid PvE-PvP role for rapid light missile launchers. It's fairly specialized and requires a very unique (and expensive) setup. ButGǪ It outperforms all other weapon systems (including any kind of missile or turret) as well as extending me options to deal with those uninvited frigates that keep cropping up.

I can't overstate that this is a very specific role, and as such everything with the ship (modules, rigs, implants) conforms to a single theme. I ran several live runs this morning and it performed flawlessly. No kill mails, as this wasn't engineered as a frigate hunter-killer. It's intended to either get you out of a jam or provide a little "incentive" if someone strays too close or launches a flurry of drones at you.

I'm going to train to Light Missiles-V for the extra +5% damage, although I'm sticking with my Faction RLMLs as this gives me an extra volley (or 5.55% more DPS). A lot of the cheaper RLMLs only hold 16 rounds, so Faction actually gives you 18.75% more DPS for the same fitting (albeit more expensive). It's too bad that missile specialization doesn't augment damage, as even with the rate of fire bonuses T2 launchers are still slower than Faction.

For 2014 I'm not holding out much hope that we'll see any changes or improvements with missiles. With the increasing rate of drone use and 'drone assist', I think CCP has opened Pandora's Box. This whole turret vs. launcher debate is moot; drones out-track, out-range and out-alpha anything else. They're not subject to tracking disruption and sentries are almost impervious to ECM. The only thing you can temporarily do is sensor dampen your attackerGǪ that is, until he 'assists' the drones to someone else. Then there's the issue of increasing node load, instability and crashes. So I think that this will have to be urgently dealt with, but with the prevalent usage of drones - expect a lot of tears and opposition that will force this to drag on.

Or maybe they'll just kill Drone Assist a week before the next release.

Fixing the underlying issue would be nice. You know, the issue where Heavy Missiles are sized for cruisers and BC and yet they cannot apply full damage to cruisers without 3 painters and 2 webs, thereby losing all range advantage they had.

Fix the core issues with missiles first (mostly just heavy missiles). Otherwise, you will need to re-visit all the band-aids you apply to the launcher.

so from these numbers we can conclude that HMLs are in an ok place?

Shall we prove that with some numbers? A ship travelling across the guns is in no way optimal.

I think if you look at the effective range for TPs they're more suitable as fleet or support tools than active PvP.

So... did you miss the part that target painters can OH now giving an additional 20% bonus? And please tell me how you intend to hold a target at the original range of tp? I welcome the tp change. An extra 20% sig bump in exchange for module management is agood trade, especially for missile boats. Your normal longpoint ham caracal hits out to 30km approx. Optimal on tp is 45km, whats to be sad about? 1.1 is sort of a phantom buff to missile boats, least if you use a tp.