Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3285
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 13:20:24 -
[1] - Quote
To fix RLML, you need to fix the other medium missiles and make RLML a real trade off to fit. Having a dedicated anti-support missile syytem isn't the end of the world but it has to be an effective limitation. Right now, the ships that use them pretty much work better against EVERYTHING with RLML instead of HMs and HAMs. |

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3291
|
Posted - 2017.04.04 20:07:29 -
[2] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Merin Ryskin wrote:The actual solution here is to buff "normal" size missiles so they can hit same-size targets for full (or at least near-full) dps, with better dps than undersized missiles (which have fine paper dps as they are). Maybe the missiles are supposed to be able to do more damage to larger targets, and the damage they are already doing to medium targets is intended and balanced? After all, they have excellent range and flexible choice of damage. Maybe the RLMLs are overpowered by offering cruiser missile paper DPS which translates too easily onto the target.
HAMs already deal more damage to a Caracal than rapid lights, even more so if you factor in reloads. With 2 LSE and 2 rigs bloating his sig, a Caracal end up at 192m radius. The crossover for speed to have less damage coming from HAMs is around 375 m/s but only on AB. The full speed envelope with MWD bloom is better damaged by HAMs. If you link the Caracal for sig radius reduction, the speed required is then 320 ish on AB or 1845 on T2 MWD.
The application of HAMs against a shield cruisers is then not the problem. What probably is the problem is more the fact that anywhere you fly, you have about 10 time as much chance to face frigs/destroyers than you do cruisers and up and in those cases, I'm pretty sure RLML are always better than HAMs so people will take the slight DPS hit against cruisers and up to deal better damage the majority of stuff they will face.
The "frigate menace" is responsible for spawning the "RLML cancer" they keep facing because it's flat out a better weapon to engage them.
Only making reloads longer at the end of the clips will not solve any of this because one clip is easily enough right now to swap the frigates off the field. Shorter reloads + smaller clips would at least mean I actually lose out on the damage curve way faster if facing a cruiser weapon but also can't kill so many frigates before I need to reload. Reducing the rage won't really change much because even with no ship bonus and no support skill at all, you still already shoot at 18km.
Longer reload and no range bonus solve nothing because the missiles already have the needed range and the reload don't matter all that much with a clip as big as it currently is. |

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3294
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 17:58:11 -
[3] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:
At this point I think CCP will be be better served actually creating an entirely new calculation of which to base missile damage application. Perhaps one based on mass? The more massive the target the more force absorbed (and therefore damage taken) by the target, max force determined by the missile fired (think leaf in the wind vs static structure). Add in a corresponding vector equation to determine damage bonus/reduction based on speed moving towards/away from the origin point. I imagine such an equation could be created to actually be less server intensive than the current given these values should already be readily available based on what is already pulled.
How do you expect the sever to have less of a hard time to handle a variable set containing mass, speed, direction and position as opposed to a variable set that include size and speed? |

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3294
|
Posted - 2017.04.06 21:03:26 -
[4] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:
Because they're already pulling variable sig radius and trajectories. I don't need to see their code to know it's there. Activating a prop mode to increase mass is updated just like updating a sig that has been target pained/increased via MWD. One would argue you would actually have less possibilities of a collision due to the limited ways a mass can change in combat. Additionally your movement through space is calculated via vector equations as we are in a 3D space. Which again is readily available as that is how they would have to go about calculating transversal/orbits/basic location in space. There are other ways, but would require more calculations to be done on the back end, which is why I can say with almost certainty this is how it is being done.
In short, what I have suggested makes use of what is already available, there are no additional calculations needed to obtain these values over and above what is already being done in the current system. More so since the introduction of Brain-in-the-box.
Just making missiles hit not always hit "at 0" on the target is much more calculation that what is currently done because it involve an sphere around each missile salvo checked each tick. Yes it's probably more realistic but CCP made boost pulses instead of a constant AoE to check who was affected so I really doubt they want missile constantly checking of their target is withing X meters of themselves instead of just waiting for a direct hit. |

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3296
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 20:09:40 -
[5] - Quote
Helene Fidard wrote:The "intended role" of RLMLs is terrible and these changes are pretty great.
Those change modify nothing about the intended role of RLML. It will be used the exact same way except we will spend more time waiting for reloads after killing the enemy because there is still enough damage in a single clip to do so. |

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3312
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 18:33:18 -
[6] - Quote
Valleria Darkmoon wrote:Suitonia wrote:Th e problem is the burst damage killing most attack cruisers and similar anti support options while having twice the EHP as those options, please reduce the reload time to 30 seconds but reduce the clip size to 17 instead for T2. This retains almost identical Dps to now but allows ships like the rail Thorax, stabber, omen and other anti support ships to survive a reload.
Also, please, please consider increasing the fittings because the main issue with rapid light ships right now is they can fit absolutely everything with no sacrifice, mid to long cruiser sniper ranges, close range turret burst DPS, with high EHP. Increasing the reload time won't address any of this. Most people ping and reload while in Warp in bigger fights. I read most of this thread but Suitonia really crushed it out of the park with this one. The grid really is a big issue because the reason you see so many Caracals being used is because they get great application and a really heavy tank compared with any other ship in the attack cruiser line and a lot of that has to do with the fact that a T2 rapid light launcher uses only 77 grid. The two with the next least grid usage among cruiser weapons are: Dual 180mm Auctocannon II: 88 grid Quad Light Beam Laser II: 89 grid Consider that these other two low grid users frequently under perform and so are rarely used especially the quad laser and yet both will take more out of your fit than rapid lights. Consider increasing the grid usage on rapid lights to the 90 - 100 grid range please and this is completely irrespective of other changes (even focused medium pulse laser IIs take 125 grid). Sure, the ships that fit rapid lights tend to have less grid on average but not 40% less than average. How often do you see 180 autocannons or electron blasters being used without multiple reps or oversized ASBs? Ships fitting rapid lights sacrifice nothing in their fits because the fittings are so low on them. The point is that when fitting other weapon types to save on grid your downgraded weapons IS the sacrifice, for rapid lights this is not the case as they are the preferred weapon anyway. On another note, I like that you are at least looking at HMLs but their problem isn't really their damage it's the very poor application they get against small fast ships, which let's be honest, is going to be a situation that comes up often in pvp. Part of the reason people lean to rapid lights in the first place is that unlike HMLs or HAMs damage application is a non-issue. In the case of kiting fits especially crash boosters are not really going to be an option for HMLs because rolling that speed penalty is a really big deal, so don't expect those fits to swap over to heavies with these proposed changes, they'll either stay rapid lights or change ships. Missiles are not like turrets where you can at least try to fly in a way that will drop transversal and allow you to land hits on small ships. I'd even accept a small nerf to the damage of HMLs if it meant they could get mediocre damage application to small fast ships.
I think the limiting factor in term of fittings on missile is supposed to be CPU tho so the change should probably be there. Even the rig drawback is CPU unlike turrets. Beside that then yeah, fitting anti-support instead of main line should not grant that much fitting space. |

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3336
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 14:59:57 -
[7] - Quote
Lelob wrote:Rapid rockets doesn't even make sense. It's like asking for a rapid torpedo launcher rapid ham launcher
Well we do have rapid torpedo launchers... |

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3338
|
Posted - 2017.04.27 16:54:49 -
[8] - Quote
unidenify wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Valkin Mordirc wrote:Lidia Caderu wrote:Any plans for Rapid Light Rocket Launcher?? RLML are intended to be able to take on frigates. RHML are intended to be able take out Cruisers A Rapid light rocket launcher is meant to? Take out Rookie ships? Drones? Pretty sure this would end up being the Eve equivalent to a full auto 12-gauge shotgun loaded with bird shot... You've got no range, it doesn't hurt very much, but it slings a *lot* of lead down range  Seriously though, there's a reason none of the high DPS short-range missiles get a launcher type. People would load them with Rage ammo and just end up blapping same-class ships. Phoenix/Leviathan would like to have word with you about savior known as Rapid Torpedo Launcher
But torps also have arguably lesser application than cruise missiles. The explosion velocity is better on torp but extremely close to cruise while the explosion radius is much better on cruise.
EDIT : After graphing it to see the difference, it's actually extremely close with torps having a higher top end damage. |
|
|