Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher Analysis

Avatar
Very nice read. Sadly, sooner or later someone from CCP will see this. And prolly we will get a pre-nerfed version of what's described here. Because if something works decently, then it's Fozzie timeeeeeee! That admitting they will introduce those in game, wich tbh i'm not so shure they will, considering this will be a item with some utility.
Avatar
DUDE!!! Mods are awake put your graphs away
Avatar
Good article, loving the graph and arithmetic porn.One slight thing that got under my skin, though - the phrase on page 4 should be 'couldn't care less' - as in, they are already at the minimum quantity of care possible. Could care less, however, conveys a sense that they're overconcerned about an issue - they arguably care too much, and could do with caring less. But that's just the pedant in me!
Avatar
...would actually make the Phoenix serve a unique role amongst dreads. This isn't a terrible idea.
Avatar
Awesome article. Well put together.
Avatar
So now "rate of fire" has the dimension of "seconds" and not "1/second"...?I guess you need to go over the article and replace "rate of fire" with "cycle time", at least for the 38% reduction part on page 1 (which would lead to 38% reduction in DPS if you really meant RoF, but hey, perhaps RHML have worse DPS per unbonused launcher than HML) and the first formula on the second page. After that I gave up proof-reading.
Avatar
Those Launchers are going to be a lot of fun. Also looking forward to Rapid Torpedo Launchers for the Phoenix... :D
Avatar
But after reading on I found page 3 and 4 very interesting! :DGood work!
Avatar
Well, it really depends, L4s range from nearly 100% BS to 0% BS. Then one has of course to look on the ISK breakdown of the mission, if most of the ISK is bound within the battleship hulls, sacrificing cruiser-killspeed for BS--killspeed is a very acceptable tradeoff.But this RHML will absolutely shred this annoying Buzzkill mission.
Avatar
A few months ago Ripard Teg suggested what's basically a Podla Raven. At the time, one of the main concerns about the ship was that the ship just won't have the same applied damage as the Drake it sought to replace. Well, this should solve that issue :p
Avatar
I'm figuring on the ones that sport jam/scram elite frigates to cruisers. Those things take forever to kill even with T2 light drones. From my memory of L4's I always seemed to go through battleships in very few volleys of cruise missiles but the smaller ships just made things drag.
Avatar
Great article, some of the graphs took some getting used to but it all came together in the end. Thanks! :-)
Avatar
Well, the scram/web frigs go down in a few volleys, the real problem are the non-tackle elite frigates (so to speak the NPC AF stand-in). These things just refuse to die.
Avatar
You still don't, you get a tengu instead.
Avatar
Avatar
only if you can read said graph porn... sorry to the writer/editor but it was extremely hard to understand i had to look at ya spreadsheet to get a understanding as it just wasn't there in the article.also please also place the base stats of both the missiles and launcher at the start of your next article as i had to again, go to your spread sheet for the info, i know this post is a bit of a QQ but these are relevant stats that the reader needs to pick up to comprehend the rest of the article.my .02 isk worth, other then that fine job
Avatar
Easy to fit. Good medium. Reliable Damage. Sounds like pvp to me.
Avatar
Very good article, has been some time since this site had such a quality stuff.
Avatar
That would be a very interesting role change for what is being called as the most useless dreadnought currently. Very interesting indeed...
Avatar
Fair enough.You're right that I didn't post the actual specifications for the new launchers found in CCP Rise's forums post. Bit of an oversight for me - but that's why I provided the spreadsheet. So you know exactly what I did and you can play with it yourself.
Avatar
Haha, I'll ping the editors to make the correction just for you.I'm better at math than I am with idioms.
Avatar
I'd have to disagree.The 25% and 50% reduction towards TNP and GMP respectively would actually benefit all weapon systems equally in the majority of cases. Even against a MWD Attack Battlecruiser, the PME is only 78, meaning the only scenario where this would cause a differential in the graph is against targets of ~battleship size and up. That being said, those targets are already outside of optimal weapon system parameters, and you should have been using torpedoes to begin with if you were planning to fight a target like that. So... null point? I think. Hopefully I understood you correctly.As for tackle, I really couldn't feasibly include that in my article. There are only so many variables I am able to look at before my simplifications and assumptions become too unrealistic or I start animating graphs to show more independent variables simultaneously.I left that to the reader to interpret that if you're fighting within 10km of a target, and you're having trouble hitting fast moving targets, you should probably consider a web. Regardless, the spreadsheet is on page four, download it, change the velocity of your target by -60%, and see the difference. Enjoy!
Avatar
With glory, I hope.
Avatar
So much graph porn. I love it.
Avatar
Thank God! L3s where so hard before, now we can actually beat them at long last!!
Avatar
When I get going, I sound like a Scottish version of this...
Avatar
Awesome, thanks! It's hard being so pedantic... I taught engineers for a while, and the submissions had be climbing the walls due to spelling, grammar and basic errors.
Avatar
The current meta would imply Rapid Cruise, not Torp.
Avatar
This almost makes me wish I owned a widow.
Avatar
Avatar
Damn fine article sir.
Avatar
I love the low range on these - the more manmode brawling options the better. It's also interesting to note that the scorp navy issue is the only ships that could use RHML's without wasting a bonus. Consider then that the SNI can get a 150k ehp with a 5 slot shield tank, a dcu and a single cdfe rig (before gang bonuses) AND a utility high for a heavy neut, and it suddenly starts to look like a very nicely specialised ship, as opposed to the coward-tanked raven without second missile bonus it used to be.
Avatar
Don't forget about the TFI.
Avatar
nice piece of writing love the graphs!
Avatar
Aye i can see these as a anti AHAC tool, should work a treat.
Avatar
Literally the best article I've seen on this site, very well put together. hope he gets a bonus.
Avatar
this makes me happy
Avatar
100% agree, absolutely brilliant article.LockeFox and Jayne Fillon rock my geeky little world. Gold Star for both please.
Avatar
But but I thought you were a girl!
Avatar
Janet :P
Avatar
It's an amusing competition between the two of us for who can make the best graph porn... turns out it's a game where everybody wins!
Avatar
Yess i bought a typhoon a week ago, i must be psychic
Avatar
I'm not perfect, but I don't claim to be...Yep, that time, it should definately be be.
Avatar
*definitelySorry, I couldn't help myself.
Avatar
Good analysis, thanks for the doing the legwork! Great article, despite the typos... ;>
Avatar
thank you for the graph porn

The raw damage that ships are capable of is an easily calculated figure, and has become one of the primary means of comparing PvP fits and ships. This is a logical comparison to make, as all of the qualities that a combat ship possess are directly geared towards applying DPS (ex. tracking and projection) or mitigating enemy DPS (ex. EWAR and mobility). The problem is that often the quoted DPS value of a ship - what EFT warriors refer to as "paper DPS" - is only a small part of the story. How much damage is actually delivered to an enemy structure or vessel is dependent on numerous variables, some of which are commonly overlooked or simplified.

This is to say: Knowing your DPS potential is easy, knowing your applied DPS is not.

THE SPECIFICATIONS

On the 7th of October, CCP Rise released the first batch of information regarding a new missile launcher for battleship sized platforms. This new weapon system is being referred to as a Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher (RHML) and is essentially a sized up version of the Rapid Light Missile Launchers (RLML) currently in existence.

The launchers themselves feature a 38% reduction in rate of fire (ROF) from the native cruiser based heavy missile launchers (HML), with all meta variations being introduced including officer versions. In regards to acquisition and production of these new modules, CCP Rise stated the following:

As you can see, we are going to put in a full range of meta levels for rapid heavy launchers and they will all be attained in the same way you would get the cruise or torpedo launcher counterpart at a given meta. They will drop at the same rates and obtained at the same LP. The manufacturing costs will be between the cost of torpedo and cruiser launchers which should lead to prices that are very similar.

Also explained in the initial post by CCP Rise was a of goals that the introduction of RHMLs was meant to accomplish:

  1. Expands the fitting options available to battleship sized missile users
  2. Open up new tactics for battleship sized missile users
  3. Add continuity to medium sized missile systems

Furthermore, CCP Rise outlined the high level design criteria for the RHMLs which governed their specific design:

  1. Fire heavy missiles
  2. Have a higher rate of fire than normal heavy launchers
  3. Have lower overall dps than cruise or torpedo launchers
  4. Be easier to fit than cruise or torpedo launchers

It's worthwhile to note that point three in CCP Rise's criteria for design is referring to paper damage, not applied damage as we will see. With the numbers released on the ROF from the proposed launcher system, I decided to take an closer look at how they will actually perform compared to the existing battleship missile weapon systems.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any - Long Live NPSI. Follow me @BomberJayne