These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Rubicon] Rapid Missile Launchers - v2

First post First post First post
Author
#1001 - 2013-11-12 14:19:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
I'm not sure what's so hard about admitting that mistakes were made, pushing the release back to Rubicon 1.1 and letting us playtest the new mechanic while a fix for the reloading problem is found - and while missiles as a whole (or at least medium missiles) are given a thorough and careful re-evaluation.

You're not a spacefamous lowsec video-PvPer anymore, Kil2. You're a CCP now. At least pretend to act like you give a **** what your subscribers think and leave your ego at home when you go to work.


HazeInADaze wrote:
This change feels like a hail mary to address the imbalance between missiles without putting in the work to fix the core problems with missiles.

Treating the symptoms rather than the disease is an easy, low-hanging-fruit approach that yields the appearance of progress without requiring any significant investment of time or resources. I can understand if there aren't very many resources available to commit, what with Rubicon almost out and all, but then this whole stupid thing needs to be shelved until after that and addressed when the resources are available again to do a proper job of things.
Minmatar Republic
#1002 - 2013-11-12 14:25:35 UTC
Katrina Oniseki wrote:
Chessur wrote:
Most of the CSM trash are 0.0 political bloc leaders, that have no relevant PvP experience- outside of blobs.


Tell me more about your trash CSM, 0.0 bloc member.

Maybe you shouldn't vote your own people into the CSM if you're so unhappy with them?



Small groups by definitaion have a hard time to get representatives

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

HYDRA RELOADED
#1003 - 2013-11-12 14:26:12 UTC
HazeInADaze wrote:
This change feels like a hail mary to address the imbalance between missiles without putting in the work to fix the core problems with missiles.


A couple pages backed i linked a post with pages of math explaining where missiles are broken. Missile explosion stats need a good rework.
#1004 - 2013-11-12 14:28:03 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
HazeInADaze wrote:
This change feels like a hail mary to address the imbalance between missiles without putting in the work to fix the core problems with missiles.


A couple pages backed i linked a post with pages of math explaining where missiles are broken. Missile explosion stats need a good rework.


Math is hard. Ancillary is easy.
#1005 - 2013-11-12 14:33:55 UTC
Patri Andari wrote:
When can we expect this on the test server?

November 19. Lol

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1006 - 2013-11-12 14:36:16 UTC
I guess there's always something to be said for shaking up the meta. I hope it works out better than the french autoloaders in WoT.
Pandemic Horde
#1007 - 2013-11-12 14:44:30 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Also math is much older and more renowed than any PVPer in this game ever will be.

And I would love to see him do his old streams now in a Rapid launcher caracal with his new rapid missiles.


We are all just posting mathematically supported posts that this will nerf the very small gang style PVP that this expansion says it shoudl promote.

Your maths, while correct, are heavily biased toward the cases where burst RLML would not work. You focus on these case and completely discard all the others where they would be almost OP.

Even your exemple of 2 Caracals vs 2 AF is plain wrong as the 2 Caracal would just wreck the first AF in mere seconds and easily tank the second one during the reload except if you shoot the bad damage (like kinetic to an Enyo, and even then I'm not sure she could survive 30k damage). In fact, two Caracal are exactly the situation where the burst RLML would shine, because no frigate would survive more than 20 seconds. All these MWD kiters for example will be dispatched in 5 or 6 volleys, which is less than 30 seconds for ONE Caracal at 60km !

Not to mention that you feel absolutely required to be able to kill a lightly tanked cruiser with an anti-frigate weapon.


I also did some tests with HAM : HAM hit a Vexor (armor or shield tank) for full damage. If MWD on, HAM do ~90% dps. To a Thorax, an attack cruiser with much lower tank, HAM do 90%/75% with MWD off/on. And this to 30km... And I'm not even considering TP.

HAM have been buffed when HML have been nerfed. Some people here should do the math again or explicit the use of links and AB in their numbers.

Of course AB drasticaly reduce missile dps (by ~50%), but it's the only counter to them so that's rather fair. The bigest problem seems to come from links in fact. For this, the faster they come on grid, the better.
Vae. Victis.
#1008 - 2013-11-12 14:52:29 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
This reminds me strongly of when the adjustments to Arty were made, before people understood the sheer power of properly applied alpha. Many folks steadfastly insisted that Arty would never be used in game again, as it's reload time and DPS was simply horrible. Smile

The concept of burst damage, done in this fashion, is also extremely powerful if applied correctly. It's a small gangs wet dream, and a gankers vision of perfection. Vessels that rely on speed, or rapidly warping in and out, to control the situation will find them a nearly ideal weapons system.

On the other hand, people that don't understand how to apply their strengths will throw up their hands in disgust.

After a bit of tweaking it won't take long for this to become a well accepted combat mechanic.



Cosniderign I was the MAIN advocant of the alpha increase back then and fought every single of those denyers of the alpha. I do understand it. But its completely different. Arties have enough potetntial damage to kill stuff.

THese reapids do nto have ALPHA, you can repair on those seconds it is firing so it cannot brea k RR as alpha can. And also arties do not stay 40 seconds sleeping.

First, I am well aware of who spoke up for arty back then. Blink

You are correct, this weapons system is not about Alpha damage... it is about burst damage... which while similar in some aspects is completely different in others.

Alpha has the ability to break RR when applied in groups due to the large amount of damage applied suddenly, catching the RR unaware and on the wrong recipient.

It's drawbacks are it's slow ROF and reload, and poor overall DPS. If you don't kill it in the first volley or two, it's not going to happen. Oh yes, extremely poor tracking as well.

Burst damage, when applied in groups and likely over heated, has the capability to simply overwhelm RR due to the enormous increase in DPS... a distinctly different mechanic with it's own unique properties. You have a full load of ammo you can unload (50seconds or a bit less), sustaining a very large increase in damage over a much longer period of time. They have the capability to overwhelm RR during their burst duration... and unlike arty can maintain a high rate of speed and maneuver without the need to worry about tracking issues and have overall excellent damage application.

Of course the drawbacks to burst damage are significant as well. Basically after your burst is over you need to withdraw or evade during your long reload timer, or be confident in your ability to tank. Obviously the former is ideal, as if you wished to stay on grid and slug it out over a long period of time you would have gone with a standard weapons selection with better long term DPS.

What we need to look at is how over heating will affect the numbers (when used properly, this is key), and see how skills affect the final numbers.

It might even lead to new ship lines geared to these weapons systems, perhaps with bonuses to either ammo capacity or (even more interestingly) reductions in reload time. While the latter would be handy on any ship, it would be even more significant when paired with this particular weapons system.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

#1009 - 2013-11-12 14:52:37 UTC
The personal attacks on CCP Rise are not warranted in this thread. He's a nice guy, who was pro active with the community before he joined CCP. We are all just human beings trying to make the best in our short lives.

You're never going to win the argument by making things personal like that.

Like others have suggested though, I would like to see these changes pushed back to 1.1 and able for us to test them on Sisi. It's wrong CCP Rise to defend these modules inclusion, when nobody has been able to even try them outside of CCP, especially given the extremely short notice of their inclusion.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 

#1010 - 2013-11-12 14:56:26 UTC
Tune in next expansion: Same bat time, same bat channel.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Vae. Victis.
#1011 - 2013-11-12 14:57:02 UTC
Ravcharas wrote:
I guess there's always something to be said for shaking up the meta. I hope it works out better than the french autoloaders in WoT.

Autoloaders in WOT are awesome, no matter what nationality you are using... IF... you know how to play them correctly. Blink

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Minmatar Republic
#1012 - 2013-11-12 14:57:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagura Nikon
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Also math is much older and more renowed than any PVPer in this game ever will be.

And I would love to see him do his old streams now in a Rapid launcher caracal with his new rapid missiles.


We are all just posting mathematically supported posts that this will nerf the very small gang style PVP that this expansion says it shoudl promote.

Your maths, while correct, are heavily biased toward the cases where burst RLML would not work. You focus on these case and completely discard all the others where they would be almost OP.

Even your exemple of 2 Caracals vs 2 AF is plain wrong as the 2 Caracal would just wreck the first AF in mere seconds and easily tank the second one during the reload except if you shoot the bad damage (like kinetic to an Enyo, and even then I'm not sure she could survive 30k damage). In fact, two Caracal are exactly the situation where the burst RLML would shine, because no frigate would survive more than 20 seconds. All these MWD kiters for example will be dispatched in 5 or 6 volleys, which is less than 30 seconds for ONE Caracal at 60km !

Not to mention that you feel absolutely required to be able to kill a lightly tanked cruiser with an anti-frigate weapon.


I also did some tests with HAM : HAM hit a Vexor (armor or shield tank) for full damage. If MWD on, HAM do ~90% dps. To a Thorax, an attack cruiser with much lower tank, HAM do 90%/75% with MWD off/on. And this to 30km... And I'm not even considering TP.

HAM have been buffed when HML have been nerfed. Some people here should do the math again or explicit the use of links and AB in their numbers.

Of course AB drasticaly reduce missile dps (by ~50%), but it's the only counter to them so that's rather fair. The bigest problem seems to come from links in fact. For this, the faster they come on grid, the better.


I admit I focus on these cases, exactly because these are the cases that clearly the proponent of the idea has not seen.

As I stated in a few posts the idea is great for moderately large gangs of rapid launchers.

But as I posted, the web page about the expansion has among its calls, focus on small gangs, not large groups....

I defend what I feel is defenseless nowadays, the very small scale PVP balance.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

#1013 - 2013-11-12 14:58:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Sven Viko VIkolander
Dalikah wrote:
Just to reply to your latest post Rise:

The 40s reload timer:
Do you really feel like a 40s period of not being able to effectively defend yourself against tackle is not a deal-breaker, when an Interceptor is going to be able to pass 2 systems and tackle you in this amount of time with Rubicon? And why would one ever invest 2-300m ISK into a HAC that can do nothing but warp in, kill a few Frigates and is then either useless for 40s or forced off? The same problem comes with the inability to switch ammo efficently, an Enyo can appear basically out of nowhere within seconds, render your kinetic missiles useless and force a reload - good luck kiting long enough to reload and kill an MWD-bonused AF.

Also, yes, RLML deal a whole lot of damage to MWDing T1-frigs, and a reasonable amount to AFs, but have you ever actually looked at a DPS graph against a properly fitted Interceptor backed up by the Rubicon changes? A current 3x BCU Cerberus does 90 DPS to a Malediction using faction missiles, which means it would take almost 40 seconds (or 30s with precision) to kill it . That sounds reasonable and well balanced, why does it have to change?
Yes, nice, it will take less time with the ROF changes, but you´re not going to kill more than 1-2 before you have to reload, which is nothing but a bad joke (this also assumes no links, no heat and ignores the greatly reduced range through the Ceptor´s high speed). And this is just about the Cerberus, the by far highest-DPS RLML platform - others like Caracal and Fleet Scythe would suffer even more.

You also state that the front-loaded DPS and ridiculous reload will bring "new kinds of decision making" and "spikes of tension", which basically translates to more tactical gameplay.
This is simply completely false. Missiles in general already tend to offer slightly less tactical and piloting options than turret ships in return for a more reliable dps output, just because the whole mechanics around transversal and maneuvers to force people into taking more damage from your weapons do not really exist in missile based combat. Instead, you have the immunity to tracking disruption, resistance to ECM and damps via FoFs as well as (semi-)fully selectable damagetypes - your changes would make all of those bar the td-immunity more or less obsolete in the heat of a fight. This leaves us with a very dull and stale weapon system, that basically only allows 1 tactic: choose ammo, warp in, try to gank the lowest ehp ship(s), burn off/warp off/die. This offers no diversity, no ability to react to changing circumstances in a reasonable amount of time (i.e. new incoming tackle, need of max (fury) dps, etc), simply no interesting nor challenging gameplay.

If you really feel like RLML are slightly overpowered in their current state (I don´t see people shooting monuments over RLML so they can´t be ridiculously strong and need a nerf into the ground, like you proposed here), then reduce their damage application and volley by a little, then see how things go.

I appreciate the fact that you want to try out new ideas and concepts, and the basic idea of front-loaded dps or swarm-missiles surely has potential, but it´s nothing to bring up 1.5 weeks before the patch goes live, nor something to replace "normal" launchers with - throw them onto Singularity along with tweaks to the "normal" RLML, give people time to test them out. gather data, adjust accordingly and consider a further rebalancing of RLML with Rubicon 1.1 (the changes in powergrid need already are a bit of nerf for now, aren´t they).
You even basically admitted yourself that making such drastic changes to a popular weapon does bring a lot of problems with it if not part of the future entire module/weapon tiericide and rebalancing - so please take yourself some time and think about your ideas again.
In fact, with the shifts of the Eve meta towards Cruisers/HACs and away from battlecruisers, reverting the nerf to HML application might be an interesting move on Singularity to see how people react and adapt, and then look at RLML again and ask yourself if they really are/were too strong, or the other medium sized missile systems too weak.


The best summary of the problems with this change IMO. I would love the ability to choose between v1 (say, with slightly nerfed dps) and v2 when reloading, though--that is what would add tactical decision making, rather than just v2 across the board.
#1014 - 2013-11-12 15:01:16 UTC
Removed one post that went over the line for civilized discourse. (I will be reading more on this thread to make sure it does not go there again.)

Many many many of the posts seem to be attacking the person rather than the idea.

Please be civil and keep me from getting out my ginsu knives to slice and dice this thread.

ISD Cura Ursus

Lieutenant Commander

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Rote Kapelle
#1015 - 2013-11-12 15:11:52 UTC
I have to echo the sentiment of many of my fellow pilots here. This change feels rushed, without a shred of play testing and announced days before the expansion. That's just bad form and poor design.

If you're going to make a sweeping change and dramatically alter the mechanics for Rapid Missile Launchers, then you should have done it on a point release. That way, you could give adequate time to test and receive actual feedback, instead of having a chat with the CSM and declaring that it's going to launch.

The fact that you find the response in here "mixed" is troubling. It's clear that the vast majority of the replies are negative. If you found one or two people happy with the change--or white knighting Kil2--in the thread and used the small few to build an argument for "mixed" feedback, then it's disingenuous and shows a deep disconnect with the "feedback" you read and what is actually posted here. Maybe you could link to "external forums" where the feedback has been positive, or at the very least truly mixed?

Otherwise, there's actual issues that are still unresolved, including the effective removal of a missile launcher's greatest attribute of truly selectable, single-profile damage. Considering the change in relative warp speed, there isn't even an argument to be made for reloaded selectable damage type mid-warp.

It's a terrible choice on your part to announce last minute changes that can't be adequately tested that really should have waited for a point release.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Caldari State
#1016 - 2013-11-12 15:13:34 UTC
This is the gist I got from your post.

- We think the RLML is overpowered, so we're changing it no matter the feedback. Though we're not acknowledging the stats of the Light Missile which is the strength of the RLML.

- HAMs/HMLs are OK even they do pathetically less DPS compared to their gunnery alternatives.

- We also don't have any data on how the new RLML works against its intended targets, so we're going to release it anyways and see how it does on TQ.

- We know that not being able to change ammo type is a large problem, but who does that? We'll fix it soon(tm).



RIP Caracal - You were my first solo cruiser. The first ship that I could fight overwhelming odds in and come out ahead.





There goes all my missile skills... if I had known that missile skills don't carry past frigates and destroyers I wouldn't have spent all my SP on them.



#1017 - 2013-11-12 15:14:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
ISD Cura Ursus wrote:
Many many many of the posts seem to be attacking the person rather than the idea.

Yes, well - maybe players just aren't thrilled with the prospect of a new idea materializing in the span of a weekend, bypassing any kind of testing whatsoever and going straight to deployment. Oh, and perhaps because these feedback forums are virtually useless. It's not really our fault that we keep being offered a free set of steak knives with every new update...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Vae. Victis.
#1018 - 2013-11-12 15:15:36 UTC
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
Dalikah wrote:
Just to reply to your latest post Rise:

The 40s reload timer:
Do you really feel like a 40s period of not being able to effectively defend yourself against tackle is not a deal-breaker, when an Interceptor is going to be able to pass 2 systems and tackle you in this amount of time with Rubicon? And why would one ever invest 2-300m ISK into a HAC that can do nothing but warp in, kill a few Frigates and is then either useless for 40s or forced off? The same problem comes with the inability to switch ammo efficently, an Enyo can appear basically out of nowhere within seconds, render your kinetic missiles useless and force a reload - good luck kiting long enough to reload and kill an MWD-bonused AF.

Also, yes, RLML deal a whole lot of damage to MWDing T1-frigs, and a reasonable amount to AFs, but have you ever actually looked at a DPS graph against a properly fitted Interceptor backed up by the Rubicon changes? A current 3x BCU Cerberus does 90 DPS to a Malediction using faction missiles, which means it would take almost 40 seconds (or 30s with precision) to kill it . That sounds reasonable and well balanced, why does it have to change?
Yes, nice, it will take less time with the ROF changes, but you´re not going to kill more than 1-2 before you have to reload, which is nothing but a bad joke (this also assumes no links, no heat and ignores the greatly reduced range through the Ceptor´s high speed). And this is just about the Cerberus, the by far highest-DPS RLML platform - others like Caracal and Fleet Scythe would suffer even more.

You also state that the front-loaded DPS and ridiculous reload will bring "new kinds of decision making" and "spikes of tension", which basically translates to more tactical gameplay.
This is simply completely false. Missiles in general already tend to offer slightly less tactical and piloting options than turret ships in return for a more reliable dps output, just because the whole mechanics around transversal and maneuvers to force people into taking more damage from your weapons do not really exist in missile based combat. Instead, you have the immunity to tracking disruption, resistance to ECM and damps via FoFs as well as (semi-)fully selectable damagetypes - your changes would make all of those bar the td-immunity more or less obsolete in the heat of a fight. This leaves us with a very dull and stale weapon system, that basically only allows 1 tactic: choose ammo, warp in, try to gank the lowest ehp ship(s), burn off/warp off/die. This offers no diversity, no ability to react to changing circumstances in a reasonable amount of time (i.e. new incoming tackle, need of max (fury) dps, etc), simply no interesting nor challenging gameplay.

If you really feel like RLML are slightly overpowered in their current state (I don´t see people shooting monuments over RLML so they can´t be ridiculously strong and need a nerf into the ground, like you proposed here), then reduce their damage application and volley by a little, then see how things go.

I appreciate the fact that you want to try out new ideas and concepts, and the basic idea of front-loaded dps or swarm-missiles surely has potential, but it´s nothing to bring up 1.5 weeks before the patch goes live, nor something to replace "normal" launchers with - throw them onto Singularity along with tweaks to the "normal" RLML, give people time to test them out. gather data, adjust accordingly and consider a further rebalancing of RLML with Rubicon 1.1 (the changes in powergrid need already are a bit of nerf for now, aren´t they).
You even basically admitted yourself that making such drastic changes to a popular weapon does bring a lot of problems with it if not part of the future entire module/weapon tiericide and rebalancing - so please take yourself some time and think about your ideas again.
In fact, with the shifts of the Eve meta towards Cruisers/HACs and away from battlecruisers, reverting the nerf to HML application might be an interesting move on Singularity to see how people react and adapt, and then look at RLML again and ask yourself if they really are/were too strong, or the other medium sized missile systems too weak.


The best summary of the problems with this change IMO. I would love the ability to choose between v1 (say, with slightly nerfed dps) and v2 when reloading, though--that is what would add tactical decision making, rather than just v2 across the board.


While I have no problem with your suggesting that Rise take his time with this, I must point out that the style of game play you describe above as "stale" is in fact very similar to old style nano combat which many considered some of the most interesting and challenging game play available. Where lightly tanked, lightly armed, fast ships engaged much more powerful groups routinely. They relied on focused fire followed by evasion to take out their more powerful, and often more numerous, adversaries.

Burst damage is an ideal way to focus large amounts of damage with excellent damage application, while at the same time maintaining a high speed without worry for tracking. When your ammo runs low you either pull range, or warp out to reposition and have yours scouts select and set up your next target.

What you describe as stale and limited the better EVE players will instead turn into fast paced and highly challenging, with small groups routinely facing off against larger, tankier opponents with confidence.

Focusing a significant boost in damage (outside of other boosts available) is ideal for small fast gang use (or ganking, for that matter).

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Vae. Victis.
#1019 - 2013-11-12 15:21:30 UTC
Quote:
RIP Caracal - You were my first solo cruiser. The first ship that I could fight overwhelming odds in and come out ahead.


Caracals will be incredibly dangerous if this goes through, providing you know when to engage and when to warp out.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

C C P Alliance
#1020 - 2013-11-12 15:24:19 UTC
I'm not sure where the idea comes from that this plan came out of thin air in a few days has come from. Yes, it's late in the release cycle, but we spent weeks talking about how to deal with this problem and went through multiple review processes before anything showed up here, just like we do with all changes.

I also assure you that I am not ignoring negative feedback. There are absolutely a lot of people giving that in this thread. In the past when I've gotten negative feedback which is backed with well articulated arguments I don't hesitate to make changes (see industrial rebalance, electronic attack frig rebalance, battleship rebalance), but in this thread the majority of complaint is very disorganized and unhelpful, that's why I'm instead going with the positive feedback coming from the CSM, from our testing and from some posters here.

@ccp_rise

Forum Jump