These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#81 - 2013-11-08 13:42:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Harari
If anything, i think just make a new launcher type that does this burst dps, if that is what you want.

Light Missile Swarm Launcher
Heavy Missile Swarm Launcher

Now you have a choice between burst dps and re-warping for the next 40s, and actually making continuous decisions about positioning and who to shoot, but without high burst.

Edit: Or ammo that you load into rapid launchers that basically does the same thing. Mjolnir Fury Light Swarm missile, etc

Thinking about it, I like the ammo option a lot. Increase the reload time for the swarm missiles to 60s, and then you are presented with real choices.

"I am tackled, do I reload to swarm missiles and hope to burst him off me, or do I stay with normal missiles because I think that more than 1 ship will tackle me before i can burst him" -> Risk of being tackled by secondary tackle and being unable to shoot reward for correctly reading enemy fleet and positioning and choosing the right ammo

"Do I start the fight with swarm missiles and hope their 2 frigates on field are the only tackle, or do I stay with normal missiles, kill the frigs a little slowly, but be able to shoot afterwards at the rapier that will decloak" - > Risk of being tackled by primary tackle vs risk of being unable to put dps on a recon.

Etc.

The ammo solution allows pilots to be rewarded for choosing correctly under stress, and punished for choosing poorly.
Gorski Car
#82 - 2013-11-08 13:43:27 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
This is a terrible idea.

1) Having a lot of downtime is just bad gameplay design. In a gang, you might stay on the field to provide point and webs, but if you are solo, you basically are going to kill 1-2 targets and warp out. And then nobody gets to do anything for the next 40s while you reload. It promotes non-interactive gameplay.

2) Its not intuitive. Its yet another thing that vets know that noobs dont.

3) Its not that people use rapid lights because they are really good. We use them because the other medium missile systems are utter trash. I would love to be able to use heavy missiles again, but there is just no reason since they are currently the worst weapon system in the entire game for anything but giant blobs.

4) There is no alternative. You can use normal shield boosters instead of ancillary boosters. You can use normal armor reps instead of ancillary reps. There are good reasons to choose each. For medium missile launchers, there isnt any alternative to rapid lights. Heavy missiles are too slow, do too little damage for the fitting, and apply too poorly. Heavy assaults are too short range, and apply even more poorly.

5) While roaming, its can be very difficult to make a 40s reload when going gate to gate. This will just slow gangs down, with no real reason to do so.

Making this change will basically just end the use of missile ships in small gangs. People will just go to other ships, instead of dealing with the possibility of being tackled and having to wait for close to a minute to return fire.

If you want people to choose heavy missiles, then make heavy missiles be something besides a trash tier weapons system.


This pretty much sums up why this is a horrible idea.

Collect this post

Morwennon
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#83 - 2013-11-08 13:52:59 UTC
Xequecal wrote:
Links make HAMs ****. It's true. HAMs have a very high DRF so any ship that has a speed of 160% of its signature radius or higher takes reduced damage from CN HAMs on an almost 1:1 basis. When links simultaneously provide a speed increase and a sig radius reduction, any missiles bigger than RLMs become garbage. Links mean RLMs are vastly superior to all other missiles on basically all other non-webbed targets. (even some battleships) RLMs also outdamage HAMs on most cruisers with a single web applied and will actually outdamage HAMs on the really low-sig cruisers (scythe fleet) even if they have two webs applied.

A linked ABing Machariel takes half damage from CN HAMs. A freaking battleship, but links mean you're doing half damage with a cruiser-sized weapon. That's with no mass/agility mods, no snakes or speed implants, and no overheating. Overheating the AB on the Mach drops HAM DPS down to 38.16%.

For a start, this is more of a "links are stupid OP" issue than a problem with HAMs per se. More to the point, however, HAMs are close range weapons so anything you're shooting with them should be hard tackled already. In more realistic situations, their damage application is absolutely fine for the kinds of fights that you'd want to use them in. You wouldn't fit RLMs on a sacrilege or a brawling missile legion, even if their bonuses applied to light missiles because in the situations where those ships excel, the drawbacks of HAMs are easily mitigated and their strengths in terms of raw DPS become much more valuable than the superior application of RLMs.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#84 - 2013-11-08 13:55:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Michael Harari wrote:
This is a terrible idea.

1) Having a lot of downtime is just bad gameplay design. In a gang, you might stay on the field to provide point and webs, but if you are solo, you basically are going to kill 1-2 targets and warp out. And then nobody gets to do anything for the next 40s while you reload. It promotes non-interactive gameplay.

2) Its not intuitive. Its yet another thing that vets know that noobs dont.

3) Its not that people use rapid lights because they are really good. We use them because the other medium missile systems are utter trash. I would love to be able to use heavy missiles again, but there is just no reason since they are currently the worst weapon system in the entire game for anything but giant blobs.

4) There is no alternative. You can use normal shield boosters instead of ancillary boosters. You can use normal armor reps instead of ancillary reps. There are good reasons to choose each. For medium missile launchers, there isnt any alternative to rapid lights. Heavy missiles are too slow, do too little damage for the fitting, and apply too poorly. Heavy assaults are too short range, and apply even more poorly.

5) While roaming, its can be very difficult to make a 40s reload when going gate to gate. This will just slow gangs down, with no real reason to do so.

Making this change will basically just end the use of missile ships in small gangs. People will just go to other ships, instead of dealing with the possibility of being tackled and having to wait for close to a minute to return fire.

If you want people to choose heavy missiles, then make heavy missiles be something besides a trash tier weapons system.


1. I don't see this as a problem.
2. Pfff, if people can't read weapon descriptions, more fool them.
3. They are actually pretty good.

4. This is a mess. HMs are faster than LMs, not slower. HMs are trash because they offer minimal advantages in range and applied DPS over RLMLS. HAMs apply damage better than than HMLs, ignoring range issues. Fix HMs (and stupid OP skirmish links) and the alternative to RLMLs will exist.

5. This is a serious problem, agreed.
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#85 - 2013-11-08 14:01:16 UTC
Quote:
1) Having a lot of downtime is just bad gameplay design. In a gang, you might stay on the field to provide point and webs, but if you are solo, you basically are going to kill 1-2 targets and warp out. And then nobody gets to do anything for the next 40s while you reload. It promotes non-interactive gameplay.

2) Its not intuitive. Its yet another thing that vets know that noobs dont.

3) Its not that people use rapid lights because they are really good. We use them because the other medium missile systems are utter trash. I would love to be able to use heavy missiles again, but there is just no reason since they are currently the worst weapon system in the entire game for anything but giant blobs.

4) There is no alternative. You can use normal shield boosters instead of ancillary boosters. You can use normal armor reps instead of ancillary reps. There are good reasons to choose each. For medium missile launchers, there isnt any alternative to rapid lights. Heavy missiles are too slow, do too little damage for the fitting, and apply too poorly. Heavy assaults are too short range, and apply even more poorly.

5) While roaming, its can be very difficult to make a 40s reload when going gate to gate. This will just slow gangs down, with no real reason to do so.

Making this change will basically just end the use of missile ships in small gangs. People will just go to other ships, instead of dealing with the possibility of being tackled and having to wait for close to a minute to return fire.

If you want people to choose heavy missiles, then make heavy missiles be something besides a trash tier weapons system.


1) Actual downtime is bad. Having to make decisions about how to manage timers is central to EVE and quite a few other games as well.

2) Having modules in a category not all work the same is pretty standard, and this isn't nearly as punishing of a mechanic before you understand it as several others.

3) People do use rapid lights because they're really good, they also use heavy missiles a lot despite your opinion that they are utter trash.

4) Just because you don't want to use HML or HAMs doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't like using normal shield boosters but that doesn't mean I can say there's no alternative to ASBs.

5) Gangs can decide if they are willing to wait an extra 5-10 seconds sometimes on some gates. I think module repair is a much more likely culprit in this example.

The idea that missiles won't get used in small scale pvp because of this change is bizarre considering people use missiles of all three types quite a lot already and this change has no effect on the other two types.

@ccp_rise

GallowsCalibrator
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#86 - 2013-11-08 14:03:54 UTC
Oh hey, Rise, while you're here can you make a new launcher specifically for Defender's so they aren't completely janky-ass terrible? Something like these but with a larger clip/fire rate but still massive reload time.
Morwennon
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#87 - 2013-11-08 14:07:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Morwennon
CCP Rise wrote:
The idea that missiles won't get used in small scale pvp because of this change is bizarre considering people use missiles of all three types quite a lot already and this change has no effect on the other two types.

Isn't this argument rather inconsistent with the one you make in the OP where you say that "[rapid launchers] are almost always the right choice"?

You can't simultaneously believe both to be true. If RLMs are already well-balanced against the alternative medium-sized missile launchers then there's no need for this change whatsoever, and if they're not then you can't just dismiss the statement that HMLs are trash by citing usage figures.

(most eve players take a looooooong time to react to shifts in the meta and will continue using ships and weapons that have become sub-par due to recent balance changes out of habit, so pointing to ~metrics~ about the relative usage of different ships/weapon systems doesn't necessarily tell you much of anything about their actual state of balance)
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#88 - 2013-11-08 14:08:04 UTC
Morwennon wrote:
For a start, this is more of a "links are stupid OP" issue than a problem with HAMs per se. More to the point, however, HAMs are close range weapons so anything you're shooting with them should be hard tackled already. In more realistic situations, their damage application is absolutely fine for the kinds of fights that you'd want to use them in. You wouldn't fit RLMs on a sacrilege or a brawling missile legion, even if their bonuses applied to light missiles because in the situations where those ships excel, the drawbacks of HAMs are easily mitigated and their strengths in terms of raw DPS become much more valuable than the superior application of RLMs.


RLMs outperform HAMs on pretty much all cruisers, even if webbed.

HAMs would have OK application if it wasn't for links, but the fact that applying links alone reduces HAM damage by 50% while doing nothing to RLM damage just kills them. I'm pretty sure it's correct to fit RLMs to the Sac despite losing the bonus, you'll still do more damage. Tengu is best with RLMs despite losing a bonus too.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#89 - 2013-11-08 14:09:59 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:


1) Actual downtime is bad. Having to make decisions about how to manage timers is central to EVE and quite a few other games as well.

2) Having modules in a category not all work the same is pretty standard, and this isn't nearly as punishing of a mechanic before you understand it as several others.

3) People do use rapid lights because they're really good, they also use heavy missiles a lot despite your opinion that they are utter trash.

4) Just because you don't want to use HML or HAMs doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't like using normal shield boosters but that doesn't mean I can say there's no alternative to ASBs.

5) Gangs can decide if they are willing to wait an extra 5-10 seconds sometimes on some gates. I think module repair is a much more likely culprit in this example.

The idea that missiles won't get used in small scale pvp because of this change is bizarre considering people use missiles of all three types quite a lot already and this change has no effect on the other two types.


1) The choice in the timer is a false choice. The only way to manage the timer is to not fire your launchers, which is what the timer causes. There are very few situations in which you can fire, but dont want to fire.

2. ok

3/4. People use HMLs in blobs. People use RLMs in small gang. Nobody uses HMLs in small gang, at least not anyone that isnt terrible. HMLs are not a real alternative to RLMs. They are different weapon system, with different range, application and dps. Its like saying that autocannons are a alternative to artillery. In some sense sure, they are, but not really.

5. Its not 5-10s in many systems, esp in a cerb which warps faster. Module repair is a whole different issue, particularly how buggy repairing linked guns/launchers is (looking into this would actually be very excellent, although that might be some other team's domain)
Kaeda Maxwell
Screaming Hayabusa
#90 - 2013-11-08 14:10:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaeda Maxwell
CCP Rise wrote:

5) Gangs can decide if they are willing to wait an extra 5-10 seconds sometimes on some gates. I think module repair is a much more likely culprit in this example.


I would like to remind you that you are about to introduce massive changes to how quickly things can arrive on grid even from neighbouring systems and 5-10 seconds in 2 weeks will potentially have quite a bit more impact then they do now.

***

And once again damage type selection getting hit in the shins is a much bigger nerf then it's made out to be so far.

Also, yes HM's get used, but I'm willing to bet that's mostly for medium and up (>=20) gang PvP work where people can field sufficient webs and painters to undo the poor explosion characteristics of HM's, but obviously you have access to more data the us so I might be wrong.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#91 - 2013-11-08 14:13:01 UTC
Xequecal wrote:


RLMs outperform HAMs on pretty much all cruisers, even if webbed.


Only because of links. The problem is hilariously OP skirmish links, not HAMs.
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#92 - 2013-11-08 14:13:51 UTC
Morwennon wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
The idea that missiles won't get used in small scale pvp because of this change is bizarre considering people use missiles of all three types quite a lot already and this change has no effect on the other two types.

Isn't this argument rather inconsistent with the one you make in the OP where you say that "[rapid launchers] are almost always the right choice"?

You can't simultaneously believe both to be true. If RLMs are already well-balanced against the alternative medium-sized missile launchers then there's no need for this change whatsoever, and if they're not then you can't just dismiss the statement that HMLs are trash by citing usage figures.

(most eve players take a looooooong time to react to shifts in the meta and will continue using ships and weapons that have become sub-par due to recent balance changes out of habit, so pointing to ~metrics~ about the relative usage of different ships/weapon systems doesn't necessarily tell you much of anything about their actual state of balance)


You're right it sounds like I'm taking both sides a bit. I think RLMs are not well balance, but as you say, people adjust slowly so the usage doesn't represent balance completely accurately. I'm trying to say that while RLM are out of balance and making HML a bad choice usually, they aren't so bad that no one would use them if RLM changed. Even though I think they are definitely behind, I don't think it's by as much as Michael does and the ~metrics~ were meant to support that.

@ccp_rise

Katabrok First
Apukaray Security
#93 - 2013-11-08 14:14:05 UTC
You know what would be interesting?

If the amount of time needed to reload or change charges was based on the amount of charges still in the launcher. If you had 15 of the 23 charges on your RHML, you would take (23-15)/23 * 40s ~= 14s to reload. With 6 charges left, it would be (23-6)/23 * 40s ~= 29.5s . This way, if you choose to swap charges in the middle of the fight, the penalty wouldn't be so big.

Good idea?
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#94 - 2013-11-08 14:20:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Harari
Rise, the metrics in this case are meaningless, unless you explain what numbers you are using. Is this all usage stats? Does it include pve? Does it include 300 man gangs? Does it include ratters getting ganked and shooting back? Is it only last hits on kills? Is it weapon activations? Which metrics are we talking about?

If goonswarm came back with an HML drake doctrine, the usage of HMLs would shoot way up. This has no bearing on hmls being good or bad, particularly in small gang pvp.

Edit: I honestly cannot remember the last time I was in, or was fleeted with, an HML ship.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#95 - 2013-11-08 14:21:48 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
1) Having a lot of downtime is just bad gameplay design. In a gang, you might stay on the field to provide point and webs, but if you are solo, you basically are going to kill 1-2 targets and warp out. And then nobody gets to do anything for the next 40s while you reload. It promotes non-interactive gameplay.

2) Its not intuitive. Its yet another thing that vets know that noobs dont.

3) Its not that people use rapid lights because they are really good. We use them because the other medium missile systems are utter trash. I would love to be able to use heavy missiles again, but there is just no reason since they are currently the worst weapon system in the entire game for anything but giant blobs.

4) There is no alternative. You can use normal shield boosters instead of ancillary boosters. You can use normal armor reps instead of ancillary reps. There are good reasons to choose each. For medium missile launchers, there isnt any alternative to rapid lights. Heavy missiles are too slow, do too little damage for the fitting, and apply too poorly. Heavy assaults are too short range, and apply even more poorly.

5) While roaming, its can be very difficult to make a 40s reload when going gate to gate. This will just slow gangs down, with no real reason to do so.

Making this change will basically just end the use of missile ships in small gangs. People will just go to other ships, instead of dealing with the possibility of being tackled and having to wait for close to a minute to return fire.

If you want people to choose heavy missiles, then make heavy missiles be something besides a trash tier weapons system.


1) Actual downtime is bad. Having to make decisions about how to manage timers is central to EVE and quite a few other games as well.

2) Having modules in a category not all work the same is pretty standard, and this isn't nearly as punishing of a mechanic before you understand it as several others.

3) People do use rapid lights because they're really good, they also use heavy missiles a lot despite your opinion that they are utter trash.

4) Just because you don't want to use HML or HAMs doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't like using normal shield boosters but that doesn't mean I can say there's no alternative to ASBs.

5) Gangs can decide if they are willing to wait an extra 5-10 seconds sometimes on some gates. I think module repair is a much more likely culprit in this example.

The idea that missiles won't get used in small scale pvp because of this change is bizarre considering people use missiles of all three types quite a lot already and this change has no effect on the other two types.



Bizzare? Sorry but its MATH and math is not bizarre. If you cannot kill the most likely target that you will face before you need to reload for 50 seconds (time enoguh for the target to undo all your damage or even de agro and jump) .. then you would be a very bad player if you brough this weapon when you are flying solo.


Its math, its not opinion Rise. Peopel will not fit cerberuses just to kill a single t1 frigate (yes even the number of targets matter).



And if CCP is worried about not making things the same and irrelevant.. why they moved the Speed hardwiring implant and the MWD speed hardwiring implant (not the zor) be moved into the same slot? Effectively making one as relevant as a bag of salt in the middle of the pacific?

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

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#96 - 2013-11-08 14:25:05 UTC
Xequecal wrote:
Morwennon wrote:
For a start, this is more of a "links are stupid OP" issue than a problem with HAMs per se. More to the point, however, HAMs are close range weapons so anything you're shooting with them should be hard tackled already. In more realistic situations, their damage application is absolutely fine for the kinds of fights that you'd want to use them in. You wouldn't fit RLMs on a sacrilege or a brawling missile legion, even if their bonuses applied to light missiles because in the situations where those ships excel, the drawbacks of HAMs are easily mitigated and their strengths in terms of raw DPS become much more valuable than the superior application of RLMs.


RLMs outperform HAMs on pretty much all cruisers, even if webbed.

HAMs would have OK application if it wasn't for links, but the fact that applying links alone reduces HAM damage by 50% while doing nothing to RLM damage just kills them. I'm pretty sure it's correct to fit RLMs to the Sac despite losing the bonus, you'll still do more damage. Tengu is best with RLMs despite losing a bonus too.



The same links affect turrets a LOT as well. IN fact I feel much more difference agaisnt turret vessel than missile ones when I use links in my alts.


The issue is the missiel formula need to be worked to be less steep on its damage mitigation. The mitigation msut start earlier but culminate much further.


THe problem is nto on the links, is that the damage mitigation for missiles is too much "binary"

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

Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#97 - 2013-11-08 14:27:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Harari
I think the problem here is one of role.

RLMs have a role in small gang. They apply (low) consistent dps to small targets. RLM ships act as anti tackle.

HMLs do not have a role in small gang. They apply (low) inconsistent dps to small targets, and (low) consistent dps to medium targets. We already have ships in the gang that can apply (high) consistent dps to medium targets. These are the dps ships that make up the backbone of the fleet. HML ships just act as half of a dps ship, which is not something a small gang badly needs.

If you want people to choose HMLs over RLMs, then they need to either be good enough at anti tackle that they can act in that role, or good enough at some other role to act in that other role. At the moment they are bad anti-tackle, they are bad dps, and they are not even good range compared to other options. Even cruise missiles are better, because they apply almost as well but with much higher base dps. Instead of a drake, I can bring a typhoon and do more dps at more range, with more utility on my ship.

Also a plated typhoon is faster than a drake.
Morwennon
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#98 - 2013-11-08 14:33:39 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
You're right it sounds like I'm taking both sides a bit. I think RLMs are not well balance, but as you say, people adjust slowly so the usage doesn't represent balance completely accurately. I'm trying to say that while RLM are out of balance and making HML a bad choice usually, they aren't so bad that no one would use them if RLM changed. Even though I think they are definitely behind, I don't think it's by as much as Michael does and the ~metrics~ were meant to support that.

Well, that's fair enough, and I absolutely agree with you that RLMLs are not currently well balanced with HMLs. However, that doesn't mean that RLMLs are overpowered or that HMLs would be more widely used if RLMLs were nerfed, since it could equally well mean that RLMLs are basically OK but HMLs are poor. If you want to evaluate the merits of the two launcher systems, you can't just compare them to one-another, you have to compare them to *all* cruiser-sized weapons that can be used at medium-long ranges: pulse lasers with scorch, autocannons with barrage on falloff-bonused hulls, medium artillery/rails/beams, and sentry drones.

As it stands, HMLs come off poorly in almost all of those comparisons - their raw damage, volley, and damage application are all woeful when compared to *all* of the medium/long-range alternatives, not just RLMLs. Therefore, nerfing RLMLs won't push people who currently use them to switch to HMLs, it'll just make them abandon missile ships for the kind of mid-range kiting at which RLML hulls currently excel. People won't start replacing RLML fleet scythes with HML fits, they'll switch over to pulse navy omens and the like.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#99 - 2013-11-08 14:34:24 UTC
Kat Ayclism wrote:
Holy crap that's terrible ******* idea


Yea, not using these things at all now. If you do this Rise, you will simply have created another weapon that will collect dust on a shelf somewhere.
Traedar
InterStellar Trading Syndicate
#100 - 2013-11-08 14:35:32 UTC
My Fleet Phoon thanks you.

Seriously, you had better consider the balance implications for ships that get a damage bonus instead of rof bonus.