These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1141 - 2013-11-12 22:15:23 UTC
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Viceorvirtue wrote:
This is going to negatively effect solo and small gang rlm usage for these reasons and I have no idea why you didn't take another course of action such as reducing light missile dmg or increasing rlm powergrid usage to prevent the ships using them from fitting things like the triple lse caracal and lse+xl asb cerb.


I guarantee you that if Rise had done this instead, we'd still have a sixty page thread full of people complaining.


I would have supported a PGU increase (even quite a steep one putting near on par with fitting hams) without as much as a single post to the contrary, I suspect a fair number of the other vocal opponents in this thread would have too.


It's quite possible that something like that might happen if & when the fabled module tiercide project begins. And indeed I would argue for it.

Another possibility for that project would be for a similar (burst damage, "small weapon"-class range/sig res, long reload time) change to currently unloved and unused turrets like the Dual 150mm Railgun and the Quad Light Beam Lasers.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1142 - 2013-11-12 22:15:47 UTC
Taoist Dragon wrote:
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:
X'ret wrote:
3min (BURST DAMAGE) quick check on Sisi, without comments:

RLML Cerberus

So with good skills it even fails to kill NPC BS, what to speak of properly fitted player cruiser Lol


You are whining that a cruiser fitted with ANTI-FRIG weapons has a hard time against a BS? Even if it is an NPC BS....really?! Shocked

I'm not whining - obviously it couldn't. Just to inform you, NPC Mach can be killed by dps frigate easily. After first unsuccessful "burst" Mach was repping its shields back to full while Caracal had tralala time waiting for 40 seconds. That ancillary madness is just Lol
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#1143 - 2013-11-12 22:15:58 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:


I would like to point out that you promised to post your defences and views right here where we could respond to them. I've mostly (an early on post in this thread excluded )seen you defend these changes anywhere but here (TMC and Failheap come to mind readily), so if my 'snippy' comment makes you double down on that promise that will actually be much appreciated.



That's fair comment. I honestly did think that I'd actually posted in the first few pages of this thread, but a quick skim through the first half dozen shows me that I must have mixed that up with the FHC thread. Apologies.

The tl;dr of my position on this change is that most fights don't occur between two stationary ships in an isolated constellation and who had no idea about what was going to happen. This change should and will reward smart tactics and piloting (to the extent that I'm trying to be discrete about my enthusiasm for the potential here in case Rise nerfs it back a bit), whilst penalising easy-mode frigate-murdering F1ing somewhat (and actually not even all that much)

The hyperbole of people like Chessur is not only impossible to take seriously, but actively confirms my faith in my support. One recalls similar comments - and threats - in the Titan and Supercarrier nerf threads.

On a tangential side note, one particular CSM member went to bat very hard indeed for the Cerb back when the HAC tiercide happened, and as a result it got a substantially better deal than it was going to. So the fact that the Cerb is so good - or OP, if you like - specifically with RLMLs is partly my doing in the first place.




Honestly, this is pretty much only a buff for the 1v1 in isolation, and a nerf to any fleet work using the ship. The smart tactics you are talking about is just heating down your single tackler, and then warping out, leaving the rest of your gang to pvp without you for 40s.

You cant even do things like shoot at drones, or put a volley or two into the primary, because you will just run out of shots with your corpmates vagabond or whatever being tackled while you reload, followed by heavy tackle getting on him.


It's also a buff for blobs shooting at massively outnumbered targets.
Connall Tara
Conquering Darkness
#1144 - 2013-11-12 22:16:16 UTC
so... despite various bits of better judgement i've come back here and decided to crunch some numbers.

after all, what's a good shitstorm of whine to go through without someone beating a drum in the name of sanity at "this isn't actually that bad! and actually kind of awesome!"

so, i recall people a wee while back banging on the drum saying that the new rapid light missile launchers can only deal 20450 damage over the course of its 50 seconds or so of firing and that this would be useless as you couldn't kill your targets before they destroyed you and you reloaded.

so this got me thinking... what kind of fire power DO rapid light missile launchers do right now in the same timeframe?

using my majestic and wonderful powers of "turning on EFT" i replicated CCP rise's example caracal using rapid light launchers and 3 BCU's, T2 fury scourge missiles and turned all the skills to V. lets have a look and see how badly OMGWTFNERFEDANDRUINED these launchers are going to be after all.

so, at the current moment using the numbers available sans drones this caracal does 257 dps.

JAHA! you might say, 257x2 is more than 409! CLEARLY THIS IS A COMPLETE NERF AND EVERYTHING IS RUINED!

well... that's the thing... is it really?

I decided to grab out ye olde windows calculator and actually had a go at doing the most terrible of all crimes and plugging in the dps both versions of the weapon will do over 90 seconds. that is, to be specific, the 50 seconds of firing followed by the 40 seconds of reloading.

old rapid light missile launcher DPS without drones = 257

50 seconds at 257 dps = 12850 damage

50 seconds + 40 seconds ( reload) damage = 23130 damage

new rapid light missile launcher dps without drones: 409

50 seconds at 409 dps = 20450 damage

50 seconds + 40 seconds (reload) damage = 20450 damage (duh)

so the resounding earth shattering ruining of all that is holy difference which makes these new weapons completely worthless is!..

2680

well... sod... that's it? that's the number which is causing all this screaming and bawling? no wonder CCP rise is being dismissive of our entirely well justified complaints makes through reasoned argument and no superfluous use of the capslock!

why with 2680 dps we could kill a whole extra venture! a badly fitted one certainly!

so, what possible advantage does this change give the frothing bag of indignant rage also known as the RLML caracal user?

one of the interesting concepts within eve is the constant dance of gank vs tank. I'm sure some of you can understand the concept of the pros and cons of running a dps heavy fit with weak tank and a dps light fit with a heavy one?

the first ship is dealing a lot of damage, but also taking a lot so he has to hope that he does enough damage to survive.

the second ship is dealing a little damage, but he's got a massive tank so is attempting to outlast his opponent.

the interesting thing about these launchers is that it gives us this situation in a round about way.

consider, lets say the RLML caracal is fighting 3 targets. for the sake of ease of thought we'll assume that the combat plays out exactly the same way with both the old and new RLML caracals dealing 100% of their possible damage against 100% of hitpoints (its flawed but we are just doing a thought experiment here) and, in return, our 3 targets are dealing 150 dps each back. why? because reasons.

as a bit of an arse pull number lets say that between the frigates they have 21.7k hit points to play with, equally split. now clearly! the new rapid light missile caracal is completely doomed! he can't deal enough damage to defeat his foes in a single reload and he'll just die with empty launchers! but... will he?

to be frank? no... why? because burst damage has certain distinct advantages over prolonged duration damage and understanding this is important to making a decision on these weapons. so for this example i'm assuming everything is 100% applied

now hold on connall! this is absurd? you're assuming 100% damage application and arglFLAR-

yes, i am. but i am a fair fellow so lets flip it around, how much damage would a current RLML caracal deal in the same timeframe? as we know from above the answer 12850.

so, with this little thought experiment we are dealing 12850/21700 damage to these suspiciously identical targets.

each "target" has 7300 hitpoints each.

1:7300/7300
2:7300/7300
3:7300/7300

so lets apply our current caracal to the various targets over 50 seconds and mark the points at which the dps will suceed in killing them.

1:0/7300 - 28.4 sec - 150dps
2:1750/7300 - not dead yet
3:7300/7300 - not dead yet

huzzah! one foe vanquished and another on the way! enemy dps has been reduced by 150 meaning that the caracal is now taking 300 incoming dps for another 6.84 seconds before having that dps go down to 150.

now, how about the same situation with the "new" RLML's?

1:0/7300 - 17.84 sec - 150 dps
2:0/7300 - 35.69 sec - 150 dps
3:1450/7300 - not dead yet

huh... well that's not too shabby now is it?

THIS is the advantage of the new system: burst dps.

remember firepower goes both ways both you shooting at them and them shooting at you. there is very much an advantage to dumping out a similar amount of damage in a shorter time frame as, if fighting multiple smaller targets LIKE THIS WEAPONS ARE INTENDED TO the faster you remove opponents from the field the less time they have to apply dps in return to you. yes, you are going to be "offline" for 40 seconds, but you have killed more of the enemy permitting them less time to deal damage to YOU. is

yes, i'm aware i'm being a little patronizing and YES i'm aware this is all "ideal situation" stuff, but the basic concept of burst damage vs prolonged needed some damn explaining and a thought experiment seemed the best way to explain it. ^_^

Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything"

Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#1145 - 2013-11-12 22:16:45 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
What external forums are supporting this idea by the way? I really want to see that.


Failheap Challenge.



Failheap is a great community, but it is fair to say, that it is proportionally more populated by players that live and breathe in 0.0. This comes across more in the folks mentioning the much more expensive Cerberus more often in the thread, than say the Caracal. Hint - only one of these ships gets a RLML bonus.

And hey, a burst mechanic is naturally attractive to a crowd that loves alpha.

But on the thread, this is by far one of the best things I have read so far:

"Lets be fair here, RLML is a little op in its current form....

The loss of utility from reload times means it is a nerf for a number of applications. I'd rank it as follows:

1. Nerf
Solo RLM Boats (initial burst not enough to kill most, dps is a wash after reload reload, loss of utility)
Adding RLM to Random mixed gang (RLM is not primary dps, lack of synergy, loss of utility)
Slower RLM Fits (can't control the engagement to make use of burst)

2. New Synergy
Hit and Run compositions ("Alpha" fleets, other RLM)
ASB fits
Improved battle space management: Snakes, Links, Fancy Point, Long Range Web support

I think strangely enough, one of the biggest "problem" with New RLM is that the rest of the game doesn't support it that well.

Burst damage is very powerful, but RLM just don't have the damage to define a strong gang concept on its own while tools to control the engagement (enable escape/etc) is expensive and very powerful in other contexts already. If there were like, say, Rapid Medium Artillery or Ancillary long range webs or something crazy like that for RLM to be combined with then it'd obviously be good.

If RHML is actually made good then a gang concept could be built around it, but 900 dps burst without supporting missile bonuses is just bad."



I think that is a solid idea, introducing new types of 'burst' weapons with penalties is both interesting and opens up new types of game play.

But this should not be what the RLML becomes, it should remain as it is or its rate of fire mildly downgraded.

A burst weapon is a completely new idea that is being shoe horned into an existing weapon module, and we will lose what it had before, instead of gaining choice over a new module.

Take the shield cap fed boosting module. Its an entirely different module - its a CHOICE to go with that, OR a traditional shield booster.

With the RLML we are not getting that choice, we're getting this change and losing existing functionality.

Let me tell you - if CCP Rise had offered the 'Burst' weapon idea in its own individual form, it would have been welcomed with open arms, because it offers us, the players choice and changes the battlefield. In otherword fun.

Instead what CCP Rise is doing is effectively killing one weapon platform and replacing it with an entirely new model, that is bad design.

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

Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#1146 - 2013-11-12 22:19:28 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
the Quad Light Beam Lasers.


Quad light beam lasers are actually the best medium laser for brawling at 0. They have (with gleam) higher tracking and higher damage than med pulse lasers.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1147 - 2013-11-12 22:19:39 UTC
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:


I would like to point out that you promised to post your defences and views right here where we could respond to them. I've mostly (an early on post in this thread excluded )seen you defend these changes anywhere but here (TMC and Failheap come to mind readily), so if my 'snippy' comment makes you double down on that promise that will actually be much appreciated.



That's fair comment. I honestly did think that I'd actually posted in the first few pages of this thread, but a quick skim through the first half dozen shows me that I must have mixed that up with the FHC thread. Apologies.

The tl;dr of my position on this change is that most fights don't occur between two stationary ships in an isolated constellation and who had no idea about what was going to happen. This change should and will reward smart tactics and piloting (to the extent that I'm trying to be discrete about my enthusiasm for the potential here in case Rise nerfs it back a bit), whilst penalising easy-mode frigate-murdering F1ing somewhat (and actually not even all that much)

The hyperbole of people like Chessur is not only impossible to take seriously, but actively confirms my faith in my support. One recalls similar comments - and threats - in the Titan and Supercarrier nerf threads.

On a tangential side note, one particular CSM member went to bat very hard indeed for the Cerb back when the HAC tiercide happened, and as a result it got a substantially better deal than it was going to. So the fact that the Cerb is so good - or OP, if you like - specifically with RLMLs is partly my doing in the first place.



And what of the complete inflexibility of RLMLs in terms of damage type?


Agreed that is a disadvantage, and it's a really difficult one to mitigate within the parameters of this change. It's a pity EVE weapons work so simplistically (Why can't I load my launchers with 10 EM missiles then 8 explosives?) but there it is. On the other hand as mentioned previously, this change does give you options like splitting your launchers into two groups with different missile types loaded, and still getting "like now" DPS with your first group whilst reloading your second.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Taoist Dragon
The Flying Dead.
#1148 - 2013-11-12 22:20:32 UTC
Well after plugging the new RLML stats into my fave bellicose fit all I can say is bring it on! Twisted

My ship was good before at killing T1 frigs. Now it's gonna go nuts. It is fast enough that I can control the battlespace while reloading my launchers and ASB while still holding point etc. YAR!!!

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1149 - 2013-11-12 22:20:37 UTC
maybe we shoudl go back to the concept that Dreads shoudl have target painters that was presented by a CCP dev some years ago. Its not much worse than this... at least would hamper the life of much less people since no one flies the phoenix anyway

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

Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#1150 - 2013-11-12 22:20:51 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


Agreed that is a disadvantage, and it's a really difficult one to mitigate within the parameters of this change. It's a pity EVE weapons work so simplistically (Why can't I load my launchers with 10 EM missiles then 8 explosives?) but there it is. On the other hand as mentioned previously, this change does give you options like splitting your launchers into two groups with different missile types loaded, and still getting "like now" DPS with your first group whilst reloading your second.


People keep saying that. Its not true. You dont get DPS similar to now by splitting weapons.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1151 - 2013-11-12 22:21:45 UTC
Mhari Dson wrote:
Run the same calculation on heavies and they have no chance to compete without at least a 3x paint scenario, and who can afford 3 option mids and still fit a decent shield tank?


You have succinctly summarised Rise's reason for making the change in the first place.

I argued very passionately against a flat RLML nerf; what we're seeing is the alternative he came up with.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1152 - 2013-11-12 22:22:06 UTC
Taoist Dragon wrote:
Well after plugging the new RLML stats into my fave bellicose fit all I can say is bring it on! Twisted

My ship was good before at killing T1 frigs. Now it's gonna go nuts. It is fast enough that I can control the battlespace while reloading my launchers and ASB while still holding point etc. YAR!!!



Calculate a bit more how much damage you can dish with 4 launchers. You wil have a hard time against a punisher well fit :)

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

Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#1153 - 2013-11-12 22:23:08 UTC
Taoist Dragon wrote:
Well after plugging the new RLML stats into my fave bellicose fit all I can say is bring it on! Twisted

My ship was good before at killing T1 frigs. Now it's gonna go nuts. It is fast enough that I can control the battlespace while reloading my launchers and ASB while still holding point etc. YAR!!!


Unless there is 1 more frigate than you can kill on a single clip (ie, 2 frigates, maybe 3 or 4 depending on fits). And then you get scrammed. For 40s. Better hope their heavy tackle is at least 50 AU out.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1154 - 2013-11-12 22:23:25 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


Agreed that is a disadvantage, and it's a really difficult one to mitigate within the parameters of this change. It's a pity EVE weapons work so simplistically (Why can't I load my launchers with 10 EM missiles then 8 explosives?) but there it is. On the other hand as mentioned previously, this change does give you options like splitting your launchers into two groups with different missile types loaded, and still getting "like now" DPS with your first group whilst reloading your second.


People keep saying that. Its not true. You dont get DPS similar to now by splitting weapons.


How does it compare to eg: a flat 15% RoF nerf for RLMLs?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Chessur
Fweddit
Free Range Chikuns
#1155 - 2013-11-12 22:24:33 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:


I would like to point out that you promised to post your defences and views right here where we could respond to them. I've mostly (an early on post in this thread excluded )seen you defend these changes anywhere but here (TMC and Failheap come to mind readily), so if my 'snippy' comment makes you double down on that promise that will actually be much appreciated.



That's fair comment. I honestly did think that I'd actually posted in the first few pages of this thread, but a quick skim through the first half dozen shows me that I must have mixed that up with the FHC thread. Apologies.

The tl;dr of my position on this change is that most fights don't occur between two stationary ships in an isolated constellation and who had no idea about what was going to happen. This change should and will reward smart tactics and piloting (to the extent that I'm trying to be discrete about my enthusiasm for the potential here in case Rise nerfs it back a bit), whilst penalising easy-mode frigate-murdering F1ing somewhat (and actually not even all that much)

The hyperbole of people like Chessur is not only impossible to take seriously, but actively confirms my faith in my support. One recalls similar comments - and threats - in the Titan and Supercarrier nerf threads.

On a tangential side note, one particular CSM member went to bat very hard indeed for the Cerb back when the HAC tiercide happened, and as a result it got a substantially better deal than it was going to. So the fact that the Cerb is so good - or OP, if you like - specifically with RLMLs is partly my doing in the first place.



Hyperbole? Surely you're joking.

As someone who agrees with prom, your outlook and understanding of PvP is dubious at best.

I also find it funny that you have an extreamly small percentage of kills in RLML ships, and in small gnag / solo situations. Yet here you are, as pompous as ever coming into a thread and calling my arguments hyperbole? You have no experience to speak on the subject matter being posted.

My arguments are tehe reality, they are the meta. THese RLML changes completely ruin the weapon system ,adn I will never fit another RLML ship again. Your misinformed and obtuse views of PvP are what shape your willingness to defend this weapon system. 40 Seconds of reaload is not playable. Certainly when ammo switching is so important.

Get your collective bigoted veiwpoints out of your ass, and try to comprehend the rammifications of the new Rubicon warp mechanics, and a 40 second reload time after having a short clip.

If you can't even undersand that, there is simply no hope for you.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1156 - 2013-11-12 22:25:35 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Mhari Dson wrote:
Run the same calculation on heavies and they have no chance to compete without at least a 3x paint scenario, and who can afford 3 option mids and still fit a decent shield tank?


You have succinctly summarised Rise's reason for making the change in the first place.

I argued very passionately against a flat RLML nerf; what we're seeing is the alternative he came up with.



That could have been made far more bearable with a tiny change of 2 more charges ( allowing enough damage to kill a t2 frigate if you sekect any damage type that is not the most tanked on it)

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

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1157 - 2013-11-12 22:28:29 UTC
Connall Tara wrote:
so for this example i'm assuming everything is 100% applied

now hold on connall! this is absurd? you're assuming 100% damage application and arglFLAR-

yes, i am. but i am a fair fellow so lets flip it around, how much damage would a current RLML caracal deal in the same timeframe? as we know from above the answer 12850.

so, with this little thought experiment we are dealing 12850/21700 damage to these suspiciously identical targets.

each "target" has 7300 hitpoints each.

1:7300/7300
2:7300/7300
3:7300/7300

so lets apply our current caracal to the various targets over 50 seconds and mark the points at which the dps will suceed in killing them.

1:0/7300 - 28.4 sec - 150dps
2:1750/7300 - not dead yet
3:7300/7300 - not dead yet

huzzah! one foe vanquished and another on the way! enemy dps has been reduced by 150 meaning that the caracal is now taking 300 incoming dps for another 6.84 seconds before having that dps go down to 150.

now, how about the same situation with the "new" RLML's?

1:0/7300 - 17.84 sec - 150 dps
2:0/7300 - 35.69 sec - 150 dps
3:1450/7300 - not dead yet

huh... well that's not too shabby now is it?

THIS is the advantage of the new system: burst dps.

remember firepower goes both ways both you shooting at them and them shooting at you. there is very much an advantage to dumping out a similar amount of damage in a shorter time frame as, if fighting multiple smaller targets LIKE THIS WEAPONS ARE INTENDED TO the faster you remove opponents from the field the less time they have to apply dps in return to you. yes, you are going to be "offline" for 40 seconds, but you have killed more of the enemy permitting them less time to deal damage to YOU. is

yes, i'm aware i'm being a little patronizing and YES i'm aware this is all "ideal situation" stuff, but the basic concept of burst damage vs prolonged needed some damn explaining and a thought experiment seemed the best way to explain it. ^_^



Your scenario consist on firign on badly fit frigs that cannto avoid a single point of incomming damage? On real game You woudl kill just 1 frigate and half with your damage at most! (I do not count scenarios were you fire in noobs in horribly fit ships. These woudl die anyway no matter how much you nerf the module, I am thinking on really well fit targetts always)

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

Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#1158 - 2013-11-12 22:29:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Harari
Malcanis wrote:
Michael Harari wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


Agreed that is a disadvantage, and it's a really difficult one to mitigate within the parameters of this change. It's a pity EVE weapons work so simplistically (Why can't I load my launchers with 10 EM missiles then 8 explosives?) but there it is. On the other hand as mentioned previously, this change does give you options like splitting your launchers into two groups with different missile types loaded, and still getting "like now" DPS with your first group whilst reloading your second.


People keep saying that. Its not true. You dont get DPS similar to now by splitting weapons.


How does it compare to eg: a flat 15% RoF nerf for RLMLs?


I would prefer that to this. Its the same dps nerf (less actually), but you dont get the staggering inflexibility of inability to change damage types, change to fofs, reload while jammed, reload while warping to/from a pounce.

With 40s reload you also cant shoot primary, shoot drones, etc
Karle Tabot
Wormlife Freeport Operations
Wormlife
#1159 - 2013-11-12 22:30:27 UTC
My apologies for this short tangent, but I just wanted to thank those who posted to me in particular, and those who posted generally, but informatively, in this thread about this subject. It has been a lot of reading, but thanks to those posts I think I have learned a lot about this segment of pvp in a short time.



Anomaly One
Doomheim
#1160 - 2013-11-12 22:31:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Anomaly One
In what world does a 40 sec reload timer considered fun or adding depth or gameplay, this is a horrible change and you are pretty much ignoring every single feedback provided by the community.

It is not good neither for the user or the receiver, you either die in those secs or kill that single frigate, it doesn't even make any sense, a BS weapon system can reload faster than a cruiser light weapon system.

It decreases the flexibility to add more dps, which is disadvantage since there's a reason why we choose AC and Missiles over the other weapon types, they provide this flexibility of dmg types, this change pretty much kills that.

Quote:
The tl;dr of my position on this change is that most fights don't occur between two stationary ships in an isolated constellation and who had no idea about what was going to happen. This change should and will reward smart tactics and piloting (to the extent that I'm trying to be discrete about my enthusiasm for the potential here in case Rise nerfs it back a bit), whilst penalising easy-mode frigate-murdering F1ing somewhat (and actually not even all that much)


"tactics" as in go in murder a frig and gtfo for 40 secs.
the change does nothing but cater to a very small niche type of gameplay and even then not that much, why would I use a caracal now instead of an omen, thorax, etc. except for very specific situations.
You said it yourself this doesn't change the "easy-mode frigate-murdering " that much so this change is useless since it does nothing but make the RLML caracal bad in comparison to other ships.

Never forget. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8sfaN8zT8E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l_ZjVyRxx4 Trust me, I'm an Anomaly. DUST 514 FOR PC