These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1741 - 2013-11-18 09:13:24 UTC
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:
[CCP Rise] has no idea how to balance. I am tempted to say that he doesn't know what the word means. That said, the process of balancing is to use small incremental changes. Not taking to a perceived/actual problem with all the grace and subtlety of a nuclear device.
You're off-base there mate. He's done a knock-down bang-up job with ships. And HMLs were balanced just fine for long-range medium weapons.... right up until the other long-range medium weapons were buffed. So yeah, that was a screw-up. And I'm not overly impressed with these RLML changes either. Nor the fact that he is doing it in the face of the majority of posters arguing against it.

But overall he's done good. Granted, if he keeps making crap decisions, I'll be standing there right next to you, screaming obscenities at the computer screen in a frothy nerdrage. But for the moment he's still got goodwill.



Sorry but the great success part of tiercide was before he was hired, so do not give him this credit.

Battleships were very baldy handled. Ones that did not need, were turned upside down, others in dire needs were not touched. And on overall battleships remained a weak class.

CS changes were flavorless and uncreative, with some of them even being nerfed. With the obvious exception of the now super powerful eos. Completely not in line with the others.


Hacs were a so so work. I hate the MWD bonus, because pingeon hole a ship. I have Shield boost bonus on vaga because pingeon hole it, one of the 2 great hacs is being nerfed in this very thread.

So no, no outstanding job there.


Tiercide was a massive success on cruiser hulls, a good success in frigates (even t2 ones) and mehh on BC> Was horrible with Battleships, very mehhh with HACS and CS.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Isabelle Case
Khanid Regional Reconciliation
Khanid Kingdom Regional Directorate
#1742 - 2013-11-18 10:18:19 UTC
An entire fighting style dies with this update. I was honestly all excited for the heavy rapid launcher but for 40 second reloads I'd rather stick with torps thanks... though that doesn't bug me too much because its a new module and I've been living without it all this time, i can continue to live without its BS now. its the RLML's that **** me off the most!!! was it ABSOLUTELY necessary that the original rapid launcher that has been a reliable and trustworthy weapon system throughout the EVE universe FOREVER get dragged down with the new launcher just for the sake of being like its new adopted big brother!.. honestly? what was being smoked in order to come up with the bright idea that a much LARGER cruiser sized module should use very obviously 'smaller' charges in less numbers for a shorter period of time and reload slower than the frigate sized launcher that is a 5th its size and power grid burden. you'd probably get more consistent damage from a light missile launcher anyway with this 'update' -snicker-

There needs to be someone at CCP who slaps the developers who come up with these stupid ideas and tell them to try again, now rapid launchers are going to go the way of energy vampires and become almost useless for 5 years untill someone with some sense gets their hands on them.

Now what am I gunna put in the missile slots on my Stabber huh? because its sure as hell not going to fit two heavy launchers I will tell you that for sure

I don't care how 'tactically specialised' it is now, only one out of every 10'000 EVE players will ever find themselves IN the tactical situation where the RLML would be useful. No-one is going to set themselves up to be pwned by this launcher. Its only good for reprocessing to build a much more heterosexual launcher now. Wasn't that the whole point of a rapid launcher? That it wasn't specialised? it could be used in a multitude of tactical scenarios with a delightful amount of effectiveness.! now almost NOTHING is universal or multi-role any more. soon there will be a ship specialising in sitting in the middle of a battlefeild waiting for the one solitary opportunity it has to insta-kill another ship

I just had to have a rage about this... vent some frustration. it doesn't matter though. CCP is still going to make this change anyway regardless of how much hate-mail they get for it

thanks a bunch

Now i'm gunna go eat a bucket of ice cream... so depressed
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#1743 - 2013-11-18 10:23:56 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Stuff
*shrug* Well I'm just gonna have to disagree with you then.

Battlecruisers were a great change, so they were no longer the default go-to ship of choice. Kinda required them to get nerfed a bit.

Battleships got more variety and differentiation, which was needed and good (even if it did change my beloved Domi), but without becoming overpowered deathmachines.

And HACs became just plain awesome. The MWD bonus changes nothing - it's just an extra bonus on top of everything else, not like we lost anything to get it. The Vaga comment is (as always) bewildering - speed bonus got rolled into the ship (yeah it's a whole 4m/s slower - boohoo!) and in return got a Shield Boost bonus which you can choose to use or not use. Still fits Extenders just fine.

Most of his changes have been fine and good. Think it's more of you not getting exactly what you wanted.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#1744 - 2013-11-18 10:41:23 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
As a totally separate line of thought deserving a post of its own, I have a question. I freely admit I didn't pay a lot of attention to the forums and such when we were leading up to Incarna. Was the negative feedback well-articulated and "helpful" or was it largely "unhelpful", generally disorganized and mostly just full of rage?

I'm just curious because Rise mentioned how the negative feedback practically pouring out of this thread was "disorganized and not very helpful" so he "decided to go with the positive feedback instead". Something about that kind of approach seems... I don't know... a little bit off.


It's called cherry picking. Sure there was a lot of disorganized rage posts, but there were also some very well thought out posts by pvp vets saying the change was a bad idea. The bottom line is that Rise is full of ****. Not much more to it than that.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1745 - 2013-11-18 10:42:52 UTC
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Stuff
*shrug* Well I'm just gonna have to disagree with you then.

Battlecruisers were a great change, so they were no longer the default go-to ship of choice. Kinda required them to get nerfed a bit.

Battleships got more variety and differentiation, which was needed and good (even if it did change my beloved Domi), but without becoming overpowered deathmachines.

And HACs became just plain awesome. The MWD bonus changes nothing - it's just an extra bonus on top of everything else, not like we lost anything to get it. The Vaga comment is (as always) bewildering - speed bonus got rolled into the ship (yeah it's a whole 4m/s slower - boohoo!) and in return got a Shield Boost bonus which you can choose to use or not use. Still fits Extenders just fine.

Most of his changes have been fine and good. Think it's more of you not getting exactly what you wanted.



The BC nerf was needed, But done VASTLY uneven. Just check usage of ships. Phophecy and cycloen got lots of love. Hurricane was too hated (up to point that cycloen is completely uterly superior)

The battleships that everyoen wanted changed were not touched. And we had to make a SHITSTORM in forums for rise to aknowledge that the apocalypse shoudl not be faster than the tempest.

No.. that is NOT a great work.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#1746 - 2013-11-18 11:58:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Caitlyn Tufy
Kagura Nikon wrote:
And we had to make a SHITSTORM in forums for rise to aknowledge that the apocalypse shoudl not be faster than the tempest.


Speed is the least of Tempest's problems.

You're right, the balance is not perfect and there are still ships that see little to no usage. However, overall, far more ships are seeing use now than they did before the tiericide, so overall, I'd call it a relative success.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1747 - 2013-11-18 12:15:14 UTC
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
As a totally separate line of thought deserving a post of its own, I have a question. I freely admit I didn't pay a lot of attention to the forums and such when we were leading up to Incarna. Was the negative feedback well-articulated and "helpful" or was it largely "unhelpful", generally disorganized and mostly just full of rage?

I'm just curious because Rise mentioned how the negative feedback practically pouring out of this thread was "disorganized and not very helpful" so he "decided to go with the positive feedback instead". Something about that kind of approach seems... I don't know... a little bit off.


It's called cherry picking. Sure there was a lot of disorganized rage posts, but there were also some very well thought out posts by pvp vets saying the change was a bad idea. The bottom line is that Rise is full of ****. Not much more to it than that.


Of course he's going to go with the "positive feedback" that supports his idea and ignore the majority of posts saying how bad of an idea this was. That's exactly how US politicians do it LOL
Thaddeus Eggeras
Urkrathos Corp
#1748 - 2013-11-18 16:00:29 UTC
Quote:

Eh? Shoot a MWDing inty and get back to me.

Furthermore a cerb with todays RLML is only doing ~400-420 DPS (ish, dont remember if I had implants loaded).

That's just not a big number in today's game.


Go back and read my test, I put out the DPS for HAMs and RMLs, but then I do the test and RMLs rocked T1 cruisers, HAMs rocked faction cruisers, and they pretty much tied against HACs. The big things that make the RMLs OP is that they work good to great against destroyers and frigates, but also do good against cruisers. And against cruisers RMLs damage per volley doesn't change no matter the speed of the cruiser being shot, and no matter if you are shooting 500 meters or 50kms. NO other weapon system in EVE does the speed of a target not matter to the point that their damage per volley doesn't get affected. RMLs are OP thats just the truth, I didn't want o believe it either, but then I tested them. You can't have a weapon system made to be good against smaller targets, be just as good against targets of the same size, and not bad against BCs also, and RML do just that. They pretty much do what HAMs, HMLs, all cruiser size guns do in one weapon system. They need fixed, adding 40secs to thier reload time isn't a fix that is making them worthless and is a fast way to fix an issue. It will do nothing but make them need to be looked at again, but as HAMs need a slight buff, HMLs need fixed, defneders need fixed, FoFs need fixed, I hope missiles will be looked at heavily for the next patch. All I am trying to do is fix rapids in a way that works, instead of fixing them fast and in a way that makes them worthless in PvP, and I'm sure in PvE too.
Morwennon
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#1749 - 2013-11-18 16:09:32 UTC
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:
Quote:

Eh? Shoot a MWDing inty and get back to me.

Furthermore a cerb with todays RLML is only doing ~400-420 DPS (ish, dont remember if I had implants loaded).

That's just not a big number in today's game.


Go back and read my test, I put out the DPS for HAMs and RMLs, but then I do the test and RMLs rocked T1 cruisers, HAMs rocked faction cruisers, and they pretty much tied against HACs. The big things that make the RMLs OP is that they work good to great against destroyers and frigates, but also do good against cruisers. And against cruisers RMLs damage per volley doesn't change no matter the speed of the cruiser being shot, and no matter if you are shooting 500 meters or 50kms. NO other weapon system in EVE does the speed of a target not matter to the point that their damage per volley doesn't get affected. RMLs are OP thats just the truth, I didn't want o believe it either, but then I tested them. You can't have a weapon system made to be good against smaller targets, be just as good against targets of the same size, and not bad against BCs also, and RML do just that. They pretty much do what HAMs, HMLs, all cruiser size guns do in one weapon system. They need fixed, adding 40secs to thier reload time isn't a fix that is making them worthless and is a fast way to fix an issue. It will do nothing but make them need to be looked at again, but as HAMs need a slight buff, HMLs need fixed, defneders need fixed, FoFs need fixed, I hope missiles will be looked at heavily for the next patch. All I am trying to do is fix rapids in a way that works, instead of fixing them fast and in a way that makes them worthless in PvP, and I'm sure in PvE too.

This is a good and useful analysis because there are no ships bigger than cruisers in eve online and even if there were you probably wouldn't get more dps out of HAMs when shooting them than you would from RLMLs. Also, there is literally no way of increasing your applied damage nor is it worth considering how any such hypothetical method of increasing applied damage might interact with weapons systems with various effective ranges.
Alsyth
#1750 - 2013-11-18 16:11:12 UTC
Rapid light are not OP, HMLs are crap. So are FOFs, defenders...

Buffing turrets and nerfing missiles further is not a good solution.

This "thing" makes rapid missiles worthless in pve, horribly annoying in pvp: only useful to gank easy targets a bit faster.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1751 - 2013-11-18 16:12:45 UTC
I'm reposting this to see if anyone is interested... It got a couple likes.

I have a different idea.


How about instead of calling them rapids cause they fire off a bunch of missiles quickly,
instead,

Completely remove reloading from rapid launchers.


adjust their RoF and whatever else so that they're balanced.

But instead of worrying about reloading, the advantage that these launchers would have is that they never reload, unless you're swapping damage types.
Thaddeus Eggeras
Urkrathos Corp
#1752 - 2013-11-18 16:20:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Thaddeus Eggeras
The test was to show which worked better against cruisers not bigger ships, and RLMs work better against smaller ships, no doubt in that. RMLs are OP, having a system made to kill smaller ships work just as well against ship of the same size, and out perform systems that are made to engage ships of the same size that makes them OP right there. Again I love how people read what they want into everything, instead of reading the facts and what something was made to show. RMLs are OP, that is why they are used against frigates, destroyers, cruisers and sometimes BCs instead of just destroyers and frigates. They took the job of HAMs and HMLs. Sorry if you want your RLMs back so you have the best weapon system for 3 ship sizes, but it's not going to happen, they are getting nerfed, as they should be. Get mad, disagree with me, I don't care. I am just trying to find a way to not have them nerfed so bad they will be worthless.
Mega Payne
Brick Pharmaceuticals and Chicken Wings LLC.
#1753 - 2013-11-18 16:25:56 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hi!

As you guys know, we're introducing Rapid Heavy Missile Launchers in Rubicon for battleships that will echo the Rapid Light Launchers in design. Well, now that the current design has been out and available for discussion for awhile, we've taken on a lot of feedback and we don't feel completely satisfied with them.

The problem we're facing is that it's very hard to create a good balance between rapid launchers and their on-size counterparts(torpedo launchers, cruise launchers, heavy missile launchers and heavy assault missile launchers). Currently I feel we have the numbers high enough that they are almost always the right choice, but if we tune them down at all they will almost never be the right choice. We would much rather that the decision to use rapid launchers depended heavily on context and that you would choose them not because they were generally better than their competition but because your specific situation called for them.

Here's the plan to improve the situation:

Rapid Launchers (both Light and Heavy) will be changed to have a much higher damage per second number, roughly on par with Heavy Assault Launchers and Torpedo Launchers respectively, but their ammo capacity will be reduced and their reload time will be increased increased (think Ancilliary Shield Boosters). Some specifics:

Rapid Light Missile Launcher rate of fire set to:
Rapid Light Missile Launcher I ------------------------- 7.8s
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II ------------------------- 6.24s
Prototype 'Arbalest' Rapid Light Missile Launcher --- 6.24s
Other meta types not shown

Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher rate of fire set to:
Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher I ------------------------ 6.48s
Rapid Heavy Missile launcher II ------------------------- 5.185s
'Arbalest' Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher I ------------ 5.185s
Other meta types not shown

Reload time for both groups set to 40 seconds.

T2 Rapid Light Launchers can carry roughly 18 charges
T2 Rapid Heavy Launchers can carry roughly 23 charges

This translates to a Raven with 3x BCU, T2 Rapid Heavy Launchers and Scourge Fury missiles doing 926 dps
This translates to a Caracal with 3x BCU, T2 Rapid Light Launchers and Scourge Fury missiles doing 409 dps

Both ships would have around 50 seconds of up time followed by 40 seconds of reload meaning that over extended engagements their true dps would be a bit more than half of the dps number above.

This would provide new strategic gameplay for Rapid Missile users as well as their opponents. It would make these systems stronger against ships that can be killed inside the active window(smaller ships) but worse over longer fights, which would usually mean fights against ships in the same class or larger. It would generally be more interesting but would also leave more space for the main missile systems to thrive as well.

Let me know what you think and keep in mind that numbers may be adjusted slightly as we continue to test.
Thanks




After much reading and thinking hard I really must say that this is not well thought out at all.
- Please don't touch any more mods, the damage is already done. The Eve community and I don't want you further infecting the game with complete rubbish any further.
- Seriously, 0 dps for 40s? You must be mad.
- You bungled this one up so bad it makes me want to unsub all 5 of my accounts. Thank you.
Fears
Flatulence Occurs
#1754 - 2013-11-18 16:29:36 UTC
I think it looks good, and all who complain should open their heart to changes.

Buhu, its not good for solo.. maby not.. so adapt, thats what this game is all about anyways.

I give my love to ccp, for giving us somthing new to try and figure out ;)

Cheers
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#1755 - 2013-11-18 16:38:31 UTC
Fears wrote:
I think it looks good, and all who complain should open their heart to changes.

Buhu, its not good for solo.. maby not.. so adapt, thats what this game is all about anyways.

I give my love to ccp, for giving us somthing new to try and figure out ;)

Cheers


I just want to point out one part of your post.

"It's not good for solo.. maybe not, so adapt"

Do you mean "adapt" as in stop using rapid missiles for solo and use HAMs/HMs, or do you mean "adapt" as in stop using missiles at all for solo and start using guns?

Either way, people have already declared their intention to "adapt" by using something other than RLMLs so I don't know what you're going on about.
Thaddeus Eggeras
Urkrathos Corp
#1756 - 2013-11-18 16:42:00 UTC
The 40secs reload won't work good for solo, small gangs, medium gangs, or any type of PvP, it just isn't good to have people in your fleet that can't put out damage for 40sec.
Fears
Flatulence Occurs
#1757 - 2013-11-18 16:43:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Fears
[/quote]

I just want to point out one part of your post.

"It's not good for solo.. maybe not, so adapt"

Do you mean "adapt" as in stop using rapid missiles for solo and use HAMs/HMs, or do you mean "adapt" as in stop using missiles at all for solo and start using guns?

Either way, people have already declared their intention to "adapt" by using something other than RLMLs so I don't know what you're going on about.
[/quote]

Its not up to me to tell peeps how to adapt, im simply pointing out, that its not the end of the world as we know it (yet)

"If the game changes, ill change with it"

Even messed up that quote thing ;)
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#1758 - 2013-11-18 16:44:54 UTC
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:
The 40secs reload won't work good for solo, small gangs, medium gangs, or any type of PvP, it just isn't good to have people in your fleet that can't put out damage for 40sec.


It will be amazing for blobs.
Anomaly One
Doomheim
#1759 - 2013-11-18 16:49:37 UTC
they should have just made a new weapon system for this "burst" design and nerfed RLML if needed ... sigh..
removing a gameplay aspect is never good design just the easy way out.. also, **** blobs..

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
Thaddeus Eggeras
Urkrathos Corp
#1760 - 2013-11-18 16:51:29 UTC
It won't work against blobs either, all they'd ave to do is learn how to last a till the 40sec reload and blob is dead. As missiles have never been able to alpha in one shot, I doubt it be hard to learn how to hold out till rapids reload.