These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#3861 - 2014-01-09 15:43:17 UTC
Hi, time to visit this thread again!

I wanted to let those of you still paying attention here know that we aren't satisfied with the current state of rapid launchers and are expecting to make changes in coming releases to improve the situation.

For now, I don't have details to give you but I want to let you know what we're looking at.

First, and most importantly, it's important to me that this mechanic feels fun to use. It still hasn't been that long since they hit TQ but a lot of the initial feedback is not great on this aspect. It's likely that for Rubicon 1.1 we will make a small adjustment to both RLML and RHML to either give you more active time or less reload time, I'll let you know when that change is pinned down exactly. Going past 1.1 we want to collect more data and feedback so that if we make a larger change (which we are considering) to the system as a whole it's as informed as possible. That larger change would come either in 1.2 or in summer depending on what it was.

Second, I've been working on the ammo swapping issue and will not be able to get in a change for 1.1. Solutions for this have been messy and we aren't satisfied enough with any of them to try and make them fit in this release. As we iterate after 1.1 I want to solve this issue one way or another.

Last, I'm doing some investigation for getting some kind of reload timer work going. Can't say if and when this would happen but it would have enormous value so I'm looking into it.

@ccp_rise

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#3862 - 2014-01-09 15:54:54 UTC
Cool

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Maxor Swift
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3863 - 2014-01-09 15:57:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Maxor Swift
CCP Rise wrote:
Hi, time to visit this thread again!

I wanted to let those of you still paying attention here know that we aren't satisfied with the current state of rapid launchers and are expecting to make changes in coming releases to improve the situation.

For now, I don't have details to give you but I want to let you know what we're looking at.

First, and most importantly, it's important to me that this mechanic feels fun to use. It still hasn't been that long since they hit TQ but a lot of the initial feedback is not great on this aspect. It's likely that for Rubicon 1.1 we will make a small adjustment to both RLML and RHML to either give you more active time or less reload time, I'll let you know when that change is pinned down exactly. Going past 1.1 we want to collect more data and feedback so that if we make a larger change (which we are considering) to the system as a whole it's as informed as possible. That larger change would come either in 1.2 or in summer depending on what it was.

Second, I've been working on the ammo swapping issue and will not be able to get in a change for 1.1. Solutions for this have been messy and we aren't satisfied enough with any of them to try and make them fit in this release. As we iterate after 1.1 I want to solve this issue one way or another.

Last, I'm doing some investigation for getting some kind of reload timer work going. Can't say if and when this would happen but it would have enormous value so I'm looking into it.


So when do i get my missle SP refund as for PVE i can only use HAMs /cruises which is far from ideal.

"What you talking about willis"

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#3864 - 2014-01-09 15:57:32 UTC
Sounds good. As you say, the "fun" aspect is important, and it's simply not much fun to be permanently worrying about the 40 s reload or whether you've got the wrong damage/missile type loaded, and it's currently sufficiently un-fun to generally obscure the actual combat value of the mods, or lack thereof.
Vinyl 41
AdVictis
#3865 - 2014-01-09 16:08:40 UTC
Wild idea fresh of my head
instead of playing with that great idea of huge rate of fire with super long reload why not just give rapids a penalty to application stats ( maybe 10%) while reverting them to pre rubi status - biggest grudge with rapid lights we had that they were to good vs all targets ( nearly perfect application vs all targets ) - this would fix the pesky rapid lights but the problem would remain with the oh god awfull application on heavys ( time to buff those finaly )
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#3866 - 2014-01-09 16:14:33 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I wanted to let those of you still paying attention here know that we aren't satisfied with the current state of rapid launchers and are expecting to make changes in coming releases to improve the situation.

For now, I don't have details to give you but I want to let you know what we're looking at.

First, and most importantly, it's important to me that this mechanic feels fun to use. It still hasn't been that long since they hit TQ but a lot of the initial feedback is not great on this aspect. It's likely that for Rubicon 1.1 we will make a small adjustment to both RLML and RHML to either give you more active time or less reload time, I'll let you know when that change is pinned down exactly. Going past 1.1 we want to collect more data and feedback so that if we make a larger change (which we are considering) to the system as a whole it's as informed as possible. That larger change would come either in 1.2 or in summer depending on what it was.

Second, I've been working on the ammo swapping issue and will not be able to get in a change for 1.1. Solutions for this have been messy and we aren't satisfied enough with any of them to try and make them fit in this release. As we iterate after 1.1 I want to solve this issue one way or another.

Last, I'm doing some investigation for getting some kind of reload timer work going. Can't say if and when this would happen but it would have enormous value so I'm looking into it.

Thanks for the update. It's definitely comforting to those of us who have stuck with our RLMLs to know that our efforts haven't been in vain.

I just wanted to touch base on the one comment you alluded to with respect to the system as a whole. Might we infer that this could mean an overhaul or review of the entire missile system, or would this just apply to the rapid missile launchers?

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

Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
#3867 - 2014-01-09 16:16:40 UTC
Really there is no place in the game for rapid lights. If you want an anti-frigate missile system it should be light missile launchers. Just the same as it is for turrets.

Giving cruisers the ability to destroy frigates easily without a compensating penalty against cruisers simply obsoletes frigates.

Or are we going to also have a proliferation of "rapid 150mm railgun arrays"?

It's time to end the experiment. Dump this wrong-headed idea. Force anti-frigate cruisers to fit light missiles and (probably) buff heavy missiles a little bit.


Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#3868 - 2014-01-09 16:33:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
RLML Options
Since pictures are better than a thousand words, here are some RLML options.
RLML Options

The first bar is the original RLML and the second bar is the new RLML. For an accurate comparison, reload time and ammunition capacity has been factored in. The three options I've presented are: a) 20-second reload time, b) 30-second reload time and c) +50% ammunition increase (40-second reload time).

Although my preference is the 20-second reload time, as you can see from the chart this slightly edges out the original RLMLs. And while the 30-second reload time would be an improvement, my personal preference is more ammunition (18 to 30 rounds) since there's almost no difference in reality between 30 and 40 seconds. An ammunition bump would also place the new RLMLs closer to the originals, requiring less reloading as a whole - and if they're able to address the ammo swap aspect it's win-win.

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

Morwennon
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#3869 - 2014-01-09 16:33:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Morwennon
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Giving cruisers the ability to destroy frigates easily without a compensating penalty against cruisers simply obsoletes frigates.

The "compensating penalty" is the bit where they have around half the dps of competing cruiser weapon systems. The idea that RLML ships somehow obsoleted frigates is quite simply absurd; their roles do not and never did overlap. RLMLs were good at killing frigates, but so are all of the other effective anti-tackle solutions; that's kind of what makes them effective anti-tackle.

Also, based on your argument that cruisers shouldn't be able to destroy frigates efficiently, will you be arguing for all drone damage bonuses to be revised to exclude light drones?
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#3870 - 2014-01-09 16:36:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Really there is no place in the game for rapid lights. If you want an anti-frigate missile system it should be light missile launchers. Just the same as it is for turrets.

I's not the same for turrets, because medium turrets can actually hit frigates. So perish the thought and leggo my RLML...

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

Zircon Dasher
#3871 - 2014-01-09 16:37:07 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hi, time to visit this thread again!

I wanted to let those of you still paying attention here know that we aren't satisfied with the current state of rapid launchers and are expecting to make changes in coming releases to improve the situation.

For now, I don't have details to give you but I want to let you know what we're looking at.

First, and most importantly, it's important to me that this mechanic feels fun to use. It still hasn't been that long since they hit TQ but a lot of the initial feedback is not great on this aspect. It's likely that for Rubicon 1.1 we will make a small adjustment to both RLML and RHML to either give you more active time or less reload time, I'll let you know when that change is pinned down exactly. Going past 1.1 we want to collect more data and feedback so that if we make a larger change (which we are considering) to the system as a whole it's as informed as possible. That larger change would come either in 1.2 or in summer depending on what it was.

Second, I've been working on the ammo swapping issue and will not be able to get in a change for 1.1. Solutions for this have been messy and we aren't satisfied enough with any of them to try and make them fit in this release. As we iterate after 1.1 I want to solve this issue one way or another.

Last, I'm doing some investigation for getting some kind of reload timer work going. Can't say if and when this would happen but it would have enormous value so I'm looking into it.


Thanks for the update re: swapping and reload timers!

In regards to the Up-time vs. Reload-time disjunction: Are you of the mind that it is an either/or situation? While it would not make the melodramatic posters happy, I could see a very small change to both being beneficial. By small I mean ~5sec less reload and ~5 more units of ammo in the clip for RLML.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#3872 - 2014-01-09 16:40:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Zircon Dasher wrote:
In regards to the Up-time vs. Reload-time disjunction: Are you of the mind that it is an either/or situation? While it would not make the melodramatic posters happy, I could see a very small change to both being beneficial. By small I mean ~5sec less reload and ~5 more units of ammo in the clip for RLML.

Personally, I'd simply prefer a bump in ammunition: T2 to 28(+10) and Faction to 30(+11).

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

Kip Troger
System lords Collective
#3873 - 2014-01-09 16:46:55 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Really there is no place in the game for rapid lights. If you want an anti-frigate missile system it should be light missile launchers. Just the same as it is for turrets.

Giving cruisers the ability to destroy frigates easily without a compensating penalty against cruisers simply obsoletes frigates.

Or are we going to also have a proliferation of "rapid 150mm railgun arrays"?

It's time to end the experiment. Dump this wrong-headed idea. Force anti-frigate cruisers to fit light missiles and (probably) buff heavy missiles a little bit.




I actually agree here. The old system was way too effective against all targets and the new one is just dull to fly in combat(though I do think the ammo swap compounds the issue.)

I don't like the idea of making weapon systems for larger ships that let them very easily apply high DPs to small signatures and large signatures. It seems to go against the very grain of the class system that makes eve PvP so unique.

LML always gave cruisers the option to fight frigates with a large penalty to DPs to larger signatures which is a fair trade off.

What is the intended purpose for rlml and rhml?
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#3874 - 2014-01-09 16:50:12 UTC
And the anti-missile crowd returns with a vengeance… Sorry guys, RLMLs are here to stay - and if anything, missile systems as a whole are due for a buff. I can almost taste the tears...

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

Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#3875 - 2014-01-09 16:57:39 UTC
Use the standard reload, give 100% bonus to ROF while overheated. Balance using module HP.
Notorious Fellon
#3876 - 2014-01-09 17:10:58 UTC
Fixing the underlying issue would be nice. You know, the issue where Heavy Missiles are sized for cruisers and BC and yet they cannot apply full damage to cruisers without 3 painters and 2 webs, thereby losing all range advantage they had.

Fix the core issues with missiles first (mostly just heavy missiles). Otherwise, you will need to re-visit all the band-aids you apply to the launcher.

Crime, it is not a "career", it is a lifestyle.

scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#3877 - 2014-01-09 18:09:51 UTC
Notorious Fellon wrote:
Fixing the underlying issue would be nice. You know, the issue where Heavy Missiles are sized for cruisers and BC and yet they cannot apply full damage to cruisers without 3 painters and 2 webs, thereby losing all range advantage they had.

Fix the core issues with missiles first (mostly just heavy missiles). Otherwise, you will need to re-visit all the band-aids you apply to the launcher.

Firstly, I agree with Arthur in that it is good to see an update of any kind and especially of the more positive sort. While I'm not entirely satisfied with the limited scope of your update, it is positive and fits this thread well so thank you.

On to the post I chose to quote and highlight, I am of the opinion that a quick fix to RLML/RHML's will help to improve the overall missile atmosphere but the larger goal should be to take a long hard look at missiles as a whole and individually. How does each missile function on it's own, and how does it function as part of the entire progression? And, as a missile pilot and given the discussions I have seen/heard, I feel that the opinion of turret pilots in regard to missiles being "fine" is taken without a big enough grain of salt. Without claiming trolls it is not a far-fetched idea, given the careers available in Eve, that certain factions of players have a vested interest in missiles staying in their current state.

Take for example the incursion community as a whole, they are highly set in their ways, stubborn, and overall resistant to any changes in the "incursion formula". I am not arguing a missiles-in-incursions" point, that does not belong here, instead I bring that up to illustrate that a community like that is highly resistant to anything which might change their accepted play style. A more viable system of missiles, with more than 1 missile-specific module, could hamper certain play styles or force changes and those groups are being represented in some of the posters claiming that missiles do not need changes.

Missiles might have been balanced in the past, but currently they do not measure up to turrets equally and choosing to play with missiles is much too situational a choice to force on an entire weapon group. As a missile pilot I roam the digital Eve-verse feeling like I am harboring a handicap, and coming to the forums and seeing everyone telling me that missiles are "fine" is an affront everyone that has tried to make missiles competitive outside of their, mostly, PvE niche.

In closing, a "quick fix" to make the Rapid launchers more usable is definitely a good thing, but missiles as a whole are due for a lot of love and I know that I would very much appreciate some clarity and feedback as the process evolves to help mitigate the feeling that missile pilots are marginalized and that representatives of the dug-in "don't mess with my play formula" groups have too much of a voice in the process.
Komodo Askold
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#3878 - 2014-01-09 18:29:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Komodo Askold
CCP Rise wrote:

Thank you for the update! It's good to see you're working hard on trying to find an optimal solution. Looking forward to 1.1 and future patches!

PS: ... Rapid Cruise Launchers? =3?
Now seriously, I wouldn't think about them before finding the sweet spot for Rapid Launchers in general or even doing the Capital rebalance. That said, it would be awesome...
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery
#3879 - 2014-01-09 18:57:26 UTC
Personally I would rather the rlm nerf be reverted, keep the pg increase to prevent tripe lse from happening and lower rof by 10% instead of raising rof and reload time. Reasoning is simple, extended reload time, especially in a ship with low damage makes you regret undocking it whenever you have to reload or swap ammo. Now I know you wouldn't want to do this mostly because it would be sen as a failure of a 'fun new interesting tense mechanic' that the 40 second reload was intended to be but until you can disassociate the act of ammo swapping with actually reloading the launcher then any extended reload is going to be punishing and unfun.

Also this will make rlms less binary than they are now, right now they can act as a frigate blender but against multiple targets or anything reasonably tanky such as assault frigs or cruisers you wish you had used a different ship instead. Fofs, while I know Rise does not claim to use them or see them as good, are situationally fantastic yet without a 10 second reload time you start playing the 'will I be jammed twice in a row or not' game trying to figure out if you should swap to them or not against common things like ecm drones. Currently you would need to be jammed 3-4 times in a row to make fofs worth it, with a 20 second reload you would need to be jammed twice in a row, 10 second reload means you can switch to fofs and actually immediately respond to being jammed.

The biggest complaints about the rlm is that you can't respond or react well to things with a 40 second reload and that sucks all the fun out of using them. The solution is separating the act of swapping ammo from the act of reloading but since you can't do that then even a 20 second reload time is probably going to be unhelpful. Releasing burst launchers as an entirely different missile launcher would be far preferable as it gives you much more time to actually balance it (no, internal testing and a week on sisi is not enough time for proper balancing) from the ground up as well as potentially having the reload and ammo swap disassociation be specific to the launcher itself for better overall weapon balancing.
Inspiration
#3880 - 2014-01-09 19:33:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Inspiration
CCP Rise wrote:
Hi, time to visit this thread again!


I am wondering if you considered playing with the heat statistics of modules instead of playing with reload times and ammo capacity. It is a more natural way to tune things and allow periodic burst damage without having complete damage blackouts.

I do like the idea of having lower class missile systems used on ships tho, even if limited to say one module. That way a battleship can fit one rapid light launcher to deal with small speedy frigates at the expense of one high slot for damage against bigger targets. Thus simply give it very high fitting requirements in line with the ship class you intend to fit it on. If you also want to see this option for cruiser and BC like hulls, introduce a medium rapid light missile launcher as well.

My take is that these new modules should not turn into a full replacement of existing modules and serve just as efficiency enhancements in ship class mismatches instead. Having different tiers for different ships to mount them on makes tuning to each situation a lot easier and the modules more useful for the intended class.

I am serious!