Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp The Tuskers Co.
420
|
Posted - 2016.03.30 11:14:16 -
[1] - Quote
The weapon system is utterly garbage, its used literally no where in pvp, it totally sucks. It needs a buff. |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2388
|
Posted - 2016.03.30 11:23:27 -
[2] - Quote
No where? Cerbs are very popular and heavily used at the moment.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
711
|
Posted - 2016.03.30 17:08:53 -
[3] - Quote
I support buffing it a little bit, however, at the same time it should never be as powerful as it used to be. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1144
|
Posted - 2016.03.30 17:57:09 -
[4] - Quote
I agree. Heavy missiles are supposed to be the long-ish range missile gun in EVE but since you can mitigate 75% damage by accelerating without a prop mod it is kinda moot.
The first one whom want to write painters, web, friends at this point, I will squeeze your mini-marbles so hard that pop out of your eyes.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3125
|
Posted - 2016.03.30 19:23:01 -
[5] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:I agree. Heavy missiles are supposed to be the long-ish range missile gun in EVE but since you can mitigate 75% damage by accelerating without a prop mod it is kinda moot.
The first one whom want to write painters, web, friends at this point, I will squeeze your mini-marbles so hard that pop out of your eyes. Only about 33% without a prop mod assuming you are shooting at cruisers. But if someone came to me and said "I've designed a missile to shoot at cruisers, and it will apply about 2/3rds it's damage to them if they have no afterburner" I'd have sent them back to the drawing board, and not paid them for the design. |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2388
|
Posted - 2016.03.30 19:52:06 -
[6] - Quote
It's not like turrets apply full dps either. vOv Even the slightest movement affects their tracking, thus application, and being in fall of reduced potential DPS by a lot. Applying 2/3 of the DPS over the full flight distance of a missile is not too bad if you ask me.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3164
|
Posted - 2016.03.30 20:03:53 -
[7] - Quote
They got a straight damage buff a while back. Caracals, cerbs and sacs use them plenty. Perhaps the problem is they just suck on drakes?
Medium beams see less use than hml's.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1145
|
Posted - 2016.03.31 20:17:19 -
[8] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:They got a straight damage buff a while back. Caracals, cerbs and sacs use them plenty. Perhaps the problem is they just suck on drakes?
Medium beams see less use than hml's.
Really? I love and use them a lot.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1145
|
Posted - 2016.03.31 21:05:20 -
[9] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:It's not like turrets apply full dps either. vOv Even the slightest movement affects their tracking, thus application, and being in fall of reduced potential DPS by a lot. Applying 2/3 of the DPS over the full flight distance of a missile is not too bad if you ask me.
May I ask you for your help on the math here? I am training a lot on SiSi and since I can remember the damage values I am doing, the blue onesm but since I am bad at counting, I need some help.
So speaking of a turret boat with my beloved medium beam lasers and the mighty Orthrus which I encounter often, how much % are 700 of 1100 damage and speaking of a heavy missile boat, how much % is ~270 of 1536 damage?
Maybe someone knows, I am better at calculus, my apologies.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3164
|
Posted - 2016.03.31 22:42:24 -
[10] - Quote
Before this derails into another one of those threads, missiles will not work in the same way as turrets. I can just as easily create situations where heavy missiles will deal better damage than medium beams and vice versa.
As far as usage goes, indicators such as zkillboard suggest to me that medium beams are used less. My own personal experience indicates so as well and CCP's damage graph puts energy weapons below missiles for all medium sized ships (i am aware that the latter includes rlml's and pulses)
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp The Tuskers Co.
421
|
Posted - 2016.04.01 07:40:46 -
[11] - Quote
The problem isnt as much that medium beam and railguns are to strong (they arent really, only in comparison to hmls) its that hmls suck compared to everything.
They do about the same sustained damage as rlmls - 7 hmls with faction ammo have the same sustained dps as 7 rlmls with t2 ammo (im using t2 on rlmls because they still apply, unlike t2 hmls).
And thats with reload factored in, the burst and application makes the rlmls massively better,
Not to mention that hmls have absurdly low damage as is. A full rack of hmls on a drake with faction scourge deals 237 dps (with reload factored in but vOv), Now you might say thats ok cause a beam harbi deals at the same range 237dps - but the beam harby can swap ammo (and also is irrelevant due to scorch).
The cerb, caracal, orthrus and similar are all better off with rlmls, without those theyd be flat out useless ships (maybe not in giant fleet fights, but solo and small scale).
Hmls do no damage, they apply like **** (if using t2 ammo the drake doesnt even apply to itself paper dps), they eat a shitload of fititng.
In the current very fast and small meta they just totally suck. But they even sucked before. A hml drake or caracal right now is literally worse then a beam confessor in terms of damage and application. And thats without factoring in links, which massively worsen their application due to the speed and sig link.
And its not like they are even that good in pve.
Im short, hmls need a application buff (a big one) and another damage buff (a small one). A hmls ship should apply 90% of its faction hml dps to a double webbed t1 frigate using its mwd. And not 40% or so. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3165
|
Posted - 2016.04.01 16:01:18 -
[12] - Quote
Seems to me you think rlml's should be nerfed.
I doubt heavies need an application buff. For one, rapid heavies do quite well in that regard, even against frigs. Application needs to remain low to allow for rhml's and for HAMs to be better at application. You certainly dont need 90% application against a double webbed frig wholly ****. Blasters dont always get that, i dont think HAMs get that. Heavies get longer range than lights, and especially t2 lights. Though that may not be good for your small gang play (medium long range turrets often arent), it is clearly useful to others.
Surprised that you think hml's eat a load of fitting. They're pretty generous compared to turrets.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp The Tuskers Co.
421
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 11:18:03 -
[13] - Quote
Rhmls are a totally different weapon system, you dont compare lmls to rlmls.
But yes, rlmls need a nerf. And hmls need a buff.
Also, im not saying that a double webbed frigate as such should eat 90% of the damage, but a mwding frigate with double web (i.e with giant sig bloom) should take that much. |
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
542
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 14:37:45 -
[14] - Quote
What was it? A week ago nearly every cerb hull in Jita was sold? Less? HML's are definitely being used in large numbers in PVP. Don't really see how they need a buff, given they've proven 'good enough' that so many alliances use Cerbs that almost all the cerbs were sold in Jita.
The Law is a point of View
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3168
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 14:46:46 -
[15] - Quote
you cant buff the application of hml's without buffing the application of rhml's.
HAMs dont deal 90% damage to a double webbed mwd frig. Doubt your gonna get that kind of application from heavies. Surely thats what rlml's are for anyways.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp The Tuskers Co.
421
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 22:16:18 -
[16] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:you cant buff the application of hml's without buffing the application of rhml's.
HAMs dont deal 90% damage to a double webbed mwd frig. Doubt your gonna get that kind of application from heavies. Surely thats what rlml's are for anyways.
The application of hams is irrelevant though, not that hams arent **** as well, but less **** cause they actuall do damage. |
The Ginger Sith
Attero Industries
8
|
Posted - 2016.04.04 00:08:09 -
[17] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:The weapon system is utterly garbage, its used literally no where in pvp, it totally sucks. It needs a buff.
HML is basicly where it was before the nerf damage wise give or take 1-3% in dps the original intent they had on nerfing HML was to limit the drake blob meta where HML was over powered with noobs in drakes doing sustained dps at range ofc. (then they give drake a 25% missile velocity bonus lol)
over all HML is not much different if u fly a ship with bonus to range tengu gets 600-840 dps easy with fury out to 70 km (87 km with a single missile computer range scripted) and is still easy mode at lvl 4's and other pve tasks. tho if u take a nighthawk out with HML fury are gimped at 47 km with out fitting a ton of missile comps gimping your tank,ewar and dmg mods slots.
tho CCP logic is kinda flawed since HML is saposed to be on par with rails/beams/arty as a ranged weapon and requires a tengu, cerb, or caracal for the proper ranges.
Daichi Yamato wrote:you cant buff the application of hml's without buffing the application of rhml's.
HAMs dont deal 90% damage to a double webbed mwd frig. Doubt your gonna get that kind of application from heavies. Surely thats what rlml's are for anyways.
HML dont need an application buff anyway and RHML's are for cruiser/bc targets anyway RLML are used for frigs. if u want application on HML u fly a ship with a bonus to it such as navy drake or use t1/faction/precision in place of fury. or bring a buddy in a minny recon (or t1 varient) for painters with hull bonus. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3132
|
Posted - 2016.04.04 00:56:55 -
[18] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:It's not like turrets apply full dps either. vOv Even the slightest movement affects their tracking, thus application, and being in fall of reduced potential DPS by a lot. Applying 2/3 of the DPS over the full flight distance of a missile is not too bad if you ask me. Against a no prop mod Cruiser you can apply full damage from medium turrets with even a modicum of piloting. I'm not talking the situation of an interceptor orbiting here, but equal sized ships using their standard weapon size applying damage to each other. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3168
|
Posted - 2016.04.04 02:06:09 -
[19] - Quote
The nature of missiles vs turrets will never make everyone happy. They cant be compared in a way that suits everyone. Leading to some disingenuous comments.
@ ginger sith. Missiles deal more damage at range. Turrets deal more damage close up. Turrets apply damage better at range. Missiles apply damage better up close. Missiles apply damage irrespective of the shooters piloting but are also simple to mitigate (fly fast).Turrets depend on shooters piloting vs target piloting.
It should be plain to see why this is a balancing nightmare. Its like comparing apples and oranges. We could be right on the money but some people's opinions will still differ (even when it comes to applying 90% damage to a double webbed mwd frig).
@ nevyn Assuming all else is equal, a target can just as easily maneuver to mitigate damage from a turret as a shooter can to increase it. It really depends on the circumstances.
Both pilots could web and scram eachother down and deal full damage with missiles to eachother, but be so close that they'd miss eachother with turrets.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
The Ginger Sith
Attero Industries
8
|
Posted - 2016.04.04 05:51:13 -
[20] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:It's not like turrets apply full dps either. vOv Even the slightest movement affects their tracking, thus application, and being in fall of reduced potential DPS by a lot. Applying 2/3 of the DPS over the full flight distance of a missile is not too bad if you ask me. Against a no prop mod Cruiser you can apply full damage from medium turrets with even a modicum of piloting. I'm not talking the situation of an interceptor orbiting here, but equal sized ships using their standard weapon size applying damage to each other.
actually probability of ever applying their full dps even to a stationary structure with max sig that has 0 resist is less likely then winning the lotto 3 times in a row and having lighting strike in front and in behind you but missing you as u walk out of the store with ur 4th winning lotto ticket.
since guns work on a criticle chance basis they can actualy miss under perfect conditions or barely scratch or ofc wrecking (wrecking is actualy more dmg then their base dmg) under those perfect conditions missiles will apply all their dps to the 0 resists structure of max sig, but not much else where they will lol.
either way the only buff HML need is their range back but counter balance by nerfing hulls with a bonus to their range other then cerb as its saposed to be a full out sniper. oh well CCP logic...
@Daichi Yamato: missing not dealing dmg well at range lol tell that to the old drake blobs before the HML nerf noobs in drakes would destroy sniper hacs with cheap insured drakes taking out more then enough to be worth it even if they lost every drake. all weapons can do good sustained applied dps at short or long range used right. |
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
1252
|
Posted - 2016.04.04 06:14:17 -
[21] - Quote
The issue that I see with HMLs is that they're a cruiser class weapon that is balanced for a BC class hull. This is the truth. They were nerfed several times and buffed once because of the way the drake used to be and the way the tengu currently is.
Yes, the tengu is a 'cruiser', but we all know it's more of a BC or even BS than it is a cruiser.
The application sucks, the range sucks but bonuses on specific hulls make it seem OP, and the actual damage output isn't all that great.
Think of it this way; Other cruiser class weapons have two variations. One that is specific to cruisers, and one that seems better suited towards BCs, but can be fit on cruisers if you're willing to give elsewhere (tank/ewar/velocity/ etc.)
This leaves a situation where all that is left for cruisers is rapid lights. While rlmls are good, I don't believe they're OP. They're just heavily used because there's not a better option.
Just look at the fitting costs. Rapid Light - 77 - 39 HML - 105 - 55 HAM - 113 - 50
While this does fall in line with torp/cruise/rapid heavy - you must also consider that those weapon systems are balanced around a single class of ships while HML and HAM are balanced around 2 classes of ship.
Take a standard Caracal fit
[Caracal, test] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II
50MN Cold-Gas Enduring Microwarpdrive Warp Disruptor II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
You can't put HML and certainly not HAM on that fit... Thus, you must gimp the fit.. But Wait, There's More!!!! You not only have to gimp the fit, but you must also fit a SIGNIFICANT amount of application in order for it to even be able to hit itself, while fury lights will apply full damage.
Even with the mwd off, HML fury only apply 143 dps of the available 343. So, let me try to build a fit using HML...
[Caracal, test HML] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Missile Guidance Enhancer II
10MN Afterburner II Warp Scrambler II Stasis Webifier II Medium Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 50 Medium Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 50
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst II
This fit gets 298 applied dps against itself WITHOUT the AB on, and only 136 dps WITH the AB on. .. And this is within the 10km web range, thus defeating the purpose of using a long range weapon system.
Now, let's try a HAM fit.
[Caracal, test HAM] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Missile Guidance Enhancer II
10MN Afterburner II Warp Scrambler II Stasis Webifier II Medium Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 50 Medium Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 50
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst II Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst II
Oddly enough, the HAMs are easier to fit because of less CPU usage, and pwg not being as important on these types of ships. It also gets better application than the HMLs, doing 298 against itself with prop on in web range, and full dps within web range with prop off.
Now, before you go arguing that this is factored with rage and fury; You must consider that these fits are with 3-4 application mods AND is against a like sized hull, which it should be able to apply better to. In comparison
[Omen Navy Issue, test] Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Medium Armor Repairer II Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste
10MN Afterburner II Warp Scrambler II Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
Focused Medium Beam Laser II, Gleam M Focused Medium Beam Laser II, Gleam M Focused Medium Beam Laser II, Gleam M Focused Medium Beam Laser II, Gleam M [empty high slot]
Medium Anti-Explosive Pump I Medium Energy Metastasis Adjuster I Medium Energy Metastasis Adjuster I
This can apply 200 at optimal with gleam and prop on, and over 300 at optimal with gleam and prop off. .. And that's without a web. Drop the cap booster and put a web, you're getting 325 at optimal, and full damage without prop.
Drop the tank rig, fit a pwg rig, and put heavy pulse onto that fit with a web and use conflag. You're getting almost 400 with prop, and full damage without prop.
Yes, HMLs can hit for the same damage at all ranges, but in order to get any damage worth a crap, you have to be within web range. Forget the idea of kiting, cause you can't fit an MWD onto and HML fit without giving up significant tank, damage, and/or application in order to make it fit.
On the Omen Navy, you can replace the damage control with a power diag. and easily fit a MWD. Though, why would you?
However, with the MWD on the beam... |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
1252
|
Posted - 2016.04.04 06:35:24 -
[22] - Quote
(Part 2)
WIth MWD on Beam, you can kite all day long, with faster speed than a Caracal, higher dps factoring reload, more tank, etc. etc. etc. than even the RLML Caracal. A beam Omen (not even NOmen) would pwn a HML caracal at kite range and in brawl range.
However, the argument was made that no one uses beams. This isn't because beams suck, it's because the vast majority of fights end up within brawling range. If you factor the frig meta, brawling cruisers, and that you can have more sustained dps at kite range than a RLML boat using alternate ammo types, there's no reason why you'd ever choose beams over pulse.
This is similar to HML vs HAM, where the current meta dictates that HAMs perform better in most scenarios, but both cannot hold a flame to the effectiveness of rapid lights.
Here's what I think needs to change. HAMs seem ok... Maybe slightly better application to all but rage, and may need their fitting costs reduced a bit. HMLs need a significant application buff and need their fitting costs reduced, need their range buffed, range bonused hulls need their range bonuses nerfed, and BC class hulls need their fitting capability reduced by however much in order to compensate.
If this is done, players will begin to choose HMLs and HAMs on cruisers based on need. HAMs for high damage and brawl range. HMLs for... (was going to say snip, but no)... ranged combat. RLMLs when your likely targets will be frigs and under-tanked cruisers.
Don't know what you're going to come up against? Well, that's the beauty of playing Eve. No one weapon can do it all....
While I'm at it, similar changes need to be made to torps and cruise missiles. Torps are special ED slow, and can't hit the broad side of a planet. Cruise missile application is little better than torps. RHMLs will need to be counter-balanced to reflect any changes made to heavy missiles. Though, I don't know that they'll need too much, considering the only reason they're used is because torps and cruise suck in pvp...
Edit... Oh, and I forgot to mention one of the major issues with RLMLs. The problem is that most cruiser hulls have a bonus to LM range and application. In comparison, most BS class missile boats are not bonused to HM range and application.
The only BS i'm aware of that has bonuses that effect HM is the Barghest. So, with that in mind, it should be the same for LMs on cruiser hulls. No range bonus to any cruiser hull, except the Orthrus, and CERTAINLY no application bonus to LMs on ANY cruiser hull. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3132
|
Posted - 2016.04.04 12:20:09 -
[23] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote: @ nevyn Assuming all else is equal, a target can just as easily maneuver to mitigate damage from a turret as a shooter can to increase it. It really depends on the circumstances.
Both pilots could web and scram eachother down and deal full damage with missiles to eachother, but be so close that they'd miss eachother with turrets.
No they really can't. Ignore web & scram & prop mod. Take 2 bare hulls. Fit weapon systems on them. The difference in speeds is not enough to mitigate any damage between hulls when using turrets when piloted sensibly (Rather than deliberately going the wrong way and claiming that means you can't track) The speed & sig is enough to mitigate 33% of the damage (roughly for a T1 cruiser) when using HML.
That's the part I have the issue with, that a bare hull is mitigating 33% of damage before it has a prop mod. Webs should be used to counter the prop mod, not a necessity to simply get normal application vs a bare hull. TP should be to counter sig boosters & sig fleet boosters, not a necessity to get application vs a bare hull of the correct size.
Obviously an AB cruiser in brawling range can out track a no prop mod arty cruiser, but in that situation both turret & missile application sucks. So no, application isn't equal, and this is where the entire issue comes from. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
775
|
Posted - 2016.04.04 14:21:26 -
[24] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote: @ nevyn Assuming all else is equal, a target can just as easily maneuver to mitigate damage from a turret as a shooter can to increase it. It really depends on the circumstances.
Both pilots could web and scram eachother down and deal full damage with missiles to eachother, but be so close that they'd miss eachother with turrets.
No they really can't. Ignore web & scram & prop mod. Take 2 bare hulls. Fit weapon systems on them. The difference in speeds is not enough to mitigate any damage between hulls when using turrets when piloted sensibly (Rather than deliberately going the wrong way and claiming that means you can't track) The speed & sig is enough to mitigate 33% of the damage (roughly for a T1 cruiser) when using HML. That's the part I have the issue with, that a bare hull is mitigating 33% of damage before it has a prop mod. Webs should be used to counter the prop mod, not a necessity to simply get normal application vs a bare hull. TP should be to counter sig boosters & sig fleet boosters, not a necessity to get application vs a bare hull of the correct size. Obviously an AB cruiser in brawling range can out track a no prop mod arty cruiser, but in that situation both turret & missile application sucks. So no, application isn't equal, and this is where the entire issue comes from.
While i agree to an extent. Looking at a bare hull is misleading.
Shield cruisers will have significantly larger sig and armor cruisers (plated anyway) will have much reduced speed. Active armor cruisers would remain the same though.
Again, there is no doubt that HML need a buff, but using a naked ship as a basis can be misleading.
With RHML, messing with application could get messy. I was thinking either buffing only HML RoF to bump up available dps, or rework HAMs/HM application stats so that HAMs rely more on webs for application, and HML rely more on TP for application.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
275
|
Posted - 2016.04.04 14:29:04 -
[25] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:What was it? A week ago nearly every cerb hull in Jita was sold? Less? HML's are definitely being used in large numbers in PVP. Don't really see how they need a buff, given they've proven 'good enough' that so many alliances use Cerbs that almost all the cerbs were sold in Jita.
Sounds to me like an Alliance is massing an attack somewhere on a group of ships that the Cerbs are easily able to tear through. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
789
|
Posted - 2016.04.04 14:31:18 -
[26] - Quote
All missiles / torpedoes need an overhaul and it needs to come from the ground up so to speak with a change to the basic math used to calculate damage.
Some specific responses.
elitatwo wrote:So speaking of a turret boat with my beloved medium beam lasers and the mighty Orthrus which I encounter often, how much % are 700 of 1100 damage and speaking of a heavy missile boat, how much % is ~270 of 1536 damage In round numbers 700 out of a possible 1100 is about 63% and 270 out of a possible 1536 is about 17%.
Daichi Yamato wrote:you cant buff the application of hml's without buffing the application of rhml's. This statement makes me wonder if you even have a clue about the math going on in a missile damage calculation. By adjusting the explosion velocity, explosion radius, damage reduction factor or some combination of the three CCP can easily adjust the damage application of the hml's without touching the rhml's. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
775
|
Posted - 2016.04.04 14:58:17 -
[27] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:you cant buff the application of hml's without buffing the application of rhml's. This statement makes me wonder if you even have a clue about the math going on in a missile damage calculation. By adjusting the explosion velocity, explosion radius, damage reduction factor or some combination of the three CCP can easily adjust the damage application of the hml's without touching the rhml's.
How? RHML use heavy missiles just like standard HML use heavy missiles. If you adjust damage application of heavy missiles, it WILL affect application of RHML. Meaning, RHML BS will absolutely murder frigs/cruisers, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.. but will be abused just like RLML's are.
Application is based on the ammo, not the launcher.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3169
|
Posted - 2016.04.04 15:09:04 -
[28] - Quote
@nevyn 'when piloted sensibly' is irrelevant when the target can just as easily counter the shooters piloting.
@donna Since those stats are dependent on the MISSILE and not the launcher. No you cant. Range included. Launchers only affect rate of fire and magazine size.
What there maybe however is a way to put modifiers on the rhml's, like a built in guidance disrupter.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |