So, your counter-argument is that CCP got something right the first time?
I identified an issue, a disparity in the usefulness of guns versus missiles in some circumstances, because missiles can hit smaller targets because of large launchers that are able to use smaller ammo. RHML were added only a few years ago. Missile ships were adjusted to give bonuses to their use. I suggest gunnery ships ought to get a buff to hitting smaller targets, too.
And subsequently had multiple posters explain why what you identified is both not as much of an issue as you make it out to be, why rapid launchers work for missiles due to differences in application mechanics, and why your proposed solution would likely be a step backwards for game balance.
Time to let it go.
I always perceived the change (adding rapid missile launchers) as being meant to address the fact that in PvE, turrets are already at an advantage over missiles in ranged engagements with PvE forces because tracking doesnât matter at range due to crappy NPC AI: the NPCs fly straight down your throat until they get quite close. A straight-on approach doesnât help missiles (it is actually detrimental to missile damage application, due to higher speeds available when flying straight vs maneuvering for angular velocity, and thus less of the explosion radius impacting the target ship), so, RLML and RHML addressed this imbalance for PvE fits. This is perfectly logical on the grounds that missile ships are kiters, not brawlers (rockets donât fire from RLMLs, after all), and when comparing kite fits at range for both weapon types, tracking speed doesnât make a meaningful difference in hitting approaching ships. Which is why the Sentry Domi fit is perfectly viable: from far enough away (50km+), the targets never maneuver out of a straight line approach and poor sentry tracking speed doesnât hamper damage application because there isnât any angular for tracking to matter.
I canât speak for PvP implications - Iâve always gone brawler for PvP, with turrets.
My security mission toon just switched to the speed tanked RHML Fleet Typhoon and it is aptly named: the lawnmower. The rail Megathron I was using before canât even come close to clearing a mission pocket as quickly. Itâs really quite ridiculous how superior it is to the alternatives. The only advantage the Mega has is that it doesnât require much attention: just select targets (and launch drones at the frigates that manage to survive). While the RHML TFI requires some piloting around.
But if I fly the Mega around to avoid damage, I canât hit anything. An AC Machariel is also rather lacking by comparison to the RHML TFI. I mean, it does a good job, but itâs not like the lawnmower. If there were medium-tracking BS-sized AC, the AC Machariel could keep up.
So let me get this straight: youâre comparing a speed-tanked faction battleship using RHMLs to an (Iâm guessing?) armor-tanked T1 battelship using railguns in terms of mission running performance, and because the former is superior to the latter you conclude that turrets are broken and higher tracking turrets options are necessary?
Cue the obligatory âYou did not think this throughâ videoâŚ
Your Mom must hate talking to you. I also compared it to a shield-tanked AC pirate BS. I even compared the TFI to itself, but with turrets. Now go to your room.
Way to keep it classy thereâŚ
This post is similar to one posted some time ago: Hello Fozzie, any update on a turret 'RHML/RLML' treatment?... :-)
The proposal was a bit different but along the same lines of reasoning. Here is what I said in response to that post:
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.