Players complain about range of light missiles. You response is to nerf range bonuses on all ships when using under-sized missiles?

Maybe just nerf light missile range by 25%? That would be a lot easier.

The problem has always been range and application.

I can't fathom why people claim the problem with rapid launchers is high damage. Take the Caracal: 300 dps on a shield cruiser is objectively not a lot. 300 dps at 71 km on a cruiser using a weapon system designed to hit frigates, on the other hand, is ridiculous.

The problem has always been range and application.

Players complain about range of light missiles. You response is to nerf range bonuses on all ships when using under-sized missiles?

Maybe just nerf light missile range by 25%? That would be a lot easier.

I'm actually impressed by how bad these changes are. It isn't a good sign when your playerbase can't tell if an idea is legitimate or an april fools joke.

How do the RLML nerfs address the core problem of the weapon system? They are overpowered because they can kill most cruisers in a single clip while still being able to nuke frigates as per their intended role. This change makes ships with the defined role of anti-tackle useless by forcing them to use unbonused RLML range and missile velocity. Without the velocity bonus on the Orthrus for example, it can't apply half of its' current damage to an interceptor post-patch. But it CAN still 100-0 most t1 cruisers in a single clip.

The clear solution to this would be to simply leave the hull bonuses (ironically enough the mordu line was introduced to be proficient at using rapid missile systems because of the role bonus) but reduce the clip size of RLML and RHML launchers significantly. Just as tackle frigates can play around the tracking of turret-based anti-tackle, they will be able to play around the reload of an RLML ship if it could only fire 12-15 missiles per clip. They could also use an increase in fitting requirements since they are too low compared to other launcher types of the same size. This fixes the core problem of RLML without simply half-assing a braindead fix and just making the weapons system completely useless.

But hey HMLs get 5.6% increased damage, that changes everything!

...
Without the velocity bonus on the Orthrus for example, it can't apply half of its' current damage to an interceptor post-patch. But it CAN still 100-0 most t1 cruisers in a single clip.
...

This doesn't make much sense, the actual velocity of the missile projectile doesn't factor into the applied damage beyond whether or not the missile hits and very few ships are able to outrun a Light Missile while still having a practical combat fit.

It can be done but the effect of that wouldn't be a 50% reduction in damage.

I think you may have confused Missile Velocity for Explosion Velocity which are two entirely different and unrelated stats.

This doesn't make much sense, the actual velocity of the missile projectile doesn't factor into the applied damage beyond whether or not the missile hits and very few ships are able to outrun a Light Missile while still having a practical combat fit.

It can be done but the effect of that wouldn't be a 50% reduction in damage.

I think you may have confused Missile Velocity for Explosion Velocity which are two entirely different and unrelated stats.

I see the rapid lights discussion is diverse and constructive, but like nothing on the rapid heavy nerf? Is that cause there's consensus on the matter? Personally that part is the most confusing change. Is the some meta I don't know about where rapid heavies are op or is the reasoning to only bring the system in line with rapid lights?

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.

This thread is horrible.

Why does Fozzie hate EVE so much?

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.

This wouldn't be the first time the Devs "balanced" one thing because something else was broken.

You've got this totally backwards. For years, devs have been breaking things that didn't need to be "fixed", one patch at a time. You've bought into the idea that somehow this game needs to be "balanced" over and over again, ad infinitum - a never-ending process.

Do you really need me to give you a list of ships and weapons system that literally are never used anymore?

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.

please stop talking out of ur ass... twice the ehp lol where u get that bs info from?

And when the everyone switches to a different ship and another weapon system, it will get hit with the nerf bat next. It's amazing to me that know one actually sees the pattern here by CCP.

Listen people. Your favorite ship and weapon system will be nerfed. Once players gravitate to the next best option, it always happens; it's been happening for years. It's a never-ending cycle of 'balance' that has driven players away from this game for as long as I can remember.

Hello everyone and happy Saturday!

Today I'm here to start collecting community feedback on a potential package of missile balance tweaks. These changes aren't confirmed yet and don't even have a release date, but if we do decide to go forward with them they would potentially arrive sometime in the summer.

The goal of these changes is to help improve the balance between the cruiser-sized missile systems and make the choice of what missiles to fit more interesting. We have also been hearing from you folks that Rapid Light Missiles are continuing to feel quite oppressive in their extremely strong combination of burst dps, range and application.

Here's the package of changes we are considering at this time:

• Increase Rapid Light and Rapid Heavy launcher reload time from 35s to 40s (~4% sustained dps reduction with no burst damage reduction). This change would reset the rapid launcher reload time back to the original values from when they were first converted to a burst damage system. It is a slight reduction to sustained dps while not impacting burst damage


• Change ship missile range bonuses to not apply to undersize missiles
• This would mean that the following ships would have their range bonuses only apply to Heavy and Heavy Assault Missiles: Orthrus, Caracal, Cerberus, Onyx, Osprey Navy Issue, Cyclone, Drake, Drake Navy Issue
• The Barghest range bonus would also be changed to only impact Cruise Missiles and Torpedoes
• The Mordu flight time reduction would also no longer apply to undersized missiles
• This change would only affect range bonuses (missile velocity and missile flight time) not damage bonuses


• Increase all Heavy Missile damage by 5.6%. This would be a general buff to HMLs and more than compensate for the longer reload time on RHMLs leading to a slight buff for them as well.

As I mentioned above we don't have a proposed release date for these changes yet but we want to start gathering community feedback and get the discussion started. Thanks and happy Saturday!