Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Ok i have an opinion.

While i agree that this does put RLMLs into more of a specialist role (which is good) than they previously were i think this generally is a buff to them because of the skirmishing style you tend to use them in.

I've very rarely had fights where i actually need to reload.

Being able to warp on a frigate blob and kill 2-3 of them faster than ever..


Also HML's weren't overnerfed.

They were nerfed and everything else buffed so i would agree that they are in a bad spot right now.

It however is hard to balance them without making HAMs garbage.

Alright, so far I feel like I'm seeing 3 major areas of complaint, alongside a lot of people who think this will be a good change. Those areas are:

40s reload is boring and will be miserable to use please don't do it

Switching ammo types (other damage types or to FOF(does anyone actually use fof?)) will be very difficult which is key for missile users

This is a nerf to RLML and I love them so please don't do it

I'm not convinced at all by the first complaint. As I've said before, this delay creates new kimds of decision making, it creates spikes of tension in fights rather than a flat amount of damage moving around and beyond those things it can be completely mitigated if you want. As others have pointed out, simply splitting your launchers into two groups and alternating them means you are never stuck in reload. It also means you lose the advantage of having your damage front-loaded into a very high DPS number. Still, if you can completely bypass this 'downside' I don't see how you can argue that this mechanic alone ruins the system.

I commented earlier on the missile switching - I think it is a valid complaint and I'd like to find a work-around for it as an iteration but I don't think it's a show-stopper. Several of the ships using these systems are kinetic bonused which means you don't switch that often. You still have time to switch on the way to a fight based on what damage type might be best. You still have the option to switch as you run out of charges and would be reloading anyway. But again, this is a legit complaint and I want to look into it.

Most of the complaints about it being a straight up nerf make me feel like going ahead with the old plan and leaving RLML in their current state would have been a mistake. I think most of you feeling this way are just disappointed with the idea of losing a slightly over-powered weapon system, which is understandable. Please keep in mind that this change represents a 15-20% damage drop over long fights but offers a new advantage in trade. I suspect that ships like FW Caracals with RLML will remain very strong. Also, if they don't, it's very easy to tune the reload time down slightly or the rate of fire up slightly to bring them into balance and we would absolutely watch that and make necessary adjustments. I would be extremely unhappy if the numbers were bad and rapid launchers disappeared from Caracals and Fleet Scythes completely.

Broader complaints about missiles vs turrets or training time often have merit, but they represent much bigger projects that we fully intend to take on, just not during this rebalance. We hear you though and hopefully we can start working on major module balance projects in the coming releases as we are closing in on finishing our first lap of all the ships in the game.

Hope this answers some of your concerns

you do realize that this makes me also loose #launchers/2*dps * 25s** in dps to begin with and fighting the rest of the fight in case of a cara with ~100dps less than before ?
i say thats not a valid solution, its a make belive argument

** from the launchers not fireing till the 2nd grp is half empty

Rise, I don't want to be a jerk here, but it's completely absurd to argue that if players react badly to a proposed nerf, the target of that nerf must be OP. After all, players would have similarly negative reactions to a nerf of a weapon system that is perceived to be well-balanced. If you proposed to reduce the sustained dps of medium blasters (to pick a random example of a medium weapon system that is regarded as being reasonably good but not OP) by 20% in return for a 40 second reload and a gimmick burst fire mode, people would get pretty mad not because blasters are OP and they want them to stay that way but because you're grabbing a viable weapon system and smacking it around for no readily apparent reason.

That. Clear sign of not being capable of interepretign the community (regardless of his skilla s a player giving him a personal vision of the subject and knowledge of the game).


RIse need to read the answers and see who is commenting after THINKING, making calculations, and givign proper examples, intead of "COOOOL this wil be super leet and I will kill thousand of noobs". Peopel taht react liek that are not reactiosn that shoud be taken into account in an annalysis.

Yeah, people do use FOFs. Tis rather amusing killing a Sabre with FOFs while jammed by his Falcon buddy.

Correct , I can assure with that change I would never bother mounting a RLML ever again, even on the ONE alt I have that can actually use them at T2


......yes, ten seconds is bad enough, 40 is a deal breaker

Chop the launcher multipliers or ROF, but I really don't like this idea.


Exactly this does nothing to change the areas that they are already strong, it just makes the downsides insane.


I'm not that thrilled with the extended reloads on AARs and (soon) probes, I can understand the need to make choices but waiting on cooldowns isn't a fun mechanic, and they seem to be multiplying.

So then why change them at all? You're essentially saying that if I just split my launchers it does the same it does now, except I lose the ability to flexibly and quickly swap ammo type and damage type. And yes I use FoF's. As a (former) solo pilot yourself you must be aware that on the fly damage type selection can make a big difference in the outcome of the fight.
It basically feels like you're changing the launchers just to change them, while many people using the are happy with them as they are.



The current solo/small gang meta is very heavy on ships with high kinetic resistances I use EM/Explosive damage a LOT atm.



So find another way to balance them. Increasing the PG requirements seems like a much better and simpler approach and significantly reduces the survivability of the ships they're fitted on. Also again it's not the weapon system that is over powered, talwars are super popular in fleets and they have normal light launchers, it's light missiles themselves that are slightly overpowered not their delivery system.



From your earlier comment about looking at the reloads in .1 and the ones you just made one might get the impression this is going to be in Rubicon release regardless of what we put forward in this thread.

Is that concern justified?

Thank you for somewhat addressing our concerns at least.

Already did point out the negative side of this proposed change in my previous post - time for some constructive posting:
- some people compare the proposed RLML/RHML 40 sec reload time to the 20 sec(ish) cycle time of large(1400mm) arty;
that comparison/similarity would only be valid for the exact missiles equivalent of large arties - the RHML, cause in that case a BS has the EHP to survive the reload, but similar to medium/small arties having much lower cycle time than large ones, the RLML has no chance in hell to be viable if the reload/cycle time does not scale down proportionally, around a value of 20/45 s; i am not saying that the frontloaded dps idea should be acted upon, i am just saying that if we really have to accept it, at least scale the reload cycle so that the waiting time between shooting sessions is appropriate to the weapon system size
(large arties have that huge cycle time compared to medium/smalls cause their alpha scales proportionaly - not scaling similarly the reload time on rapid launchers would heavily gimp their utility - in paralel to small/medium/large arties you have to think that each weapon size is best for some distinct types of engagementsif you take into consideration the number of people involved and the duration - for smaller guns/fewer people/shorter engagements faster cycles with smaller waiting times(reload) are better, while for bigger guns/more people/longer engagements slower cycls with bigger waiting times(reload) are acceptable)

TL;DR Please scale the cycle/reload time of RHML/RLML according to their weapon class size, in a similar way used for cycle times of all other types of weapons - what you're proposing now is similar to what would happen if suddenly you would change medium artillery guns cycle time to be similar to that of large arties, which would kill any non-niche use of them

-some people compare the proposed functionality of the proposed RLML/RHML to the ASB's - comparison is valid but not totally accurate - asb's are great, i admit, but they do use only one charge type at a time - they do not need charge type changes in middle of battle to tank different damage types better, launchers do - is one of the redeeming points of using missiles(low dps, no modules to tune the application of it etc.) - if you have to force a large reload time, at least allow for faster ammo type change - maybe having an ammo swap time of 5-10 s after which you will have in your launcher a different type of missiles than before, but same number(so this would make ammo type swap viable without allowing a faster general reload - if you have half of launcher full with inferno missiles, after the ammo swap you will have half launcher of scourge for example - so this would not be OP, while keeping the flavor offered by damage selection)

-another point in the asb comparison would be that while they are nice mods, a good thing about their creation was that in the day they appeared other shield boosters did no dissapear - so make maybe a separate mod, that would offer missile users extra options for fitting alongside the perfectly good ones they have now - this way we would get to keep both the current uses of rlml and we get the interesting posibilities offered by the current changes - even better than that, make the new rlml/rhml more similar to the AAR - a module much more balanced and reasonable than the asb's - this way you would have a launcher that has the OMGPWN factor on its side when loaded with some sort of auxiliary charge(some sort of lubricant) - equivalent to the current frontload proposed and after the charges get consumed a crippled dps - maybe 1/3 compared to a normal RLML/RHML, forcing you to go for the long recharge if you want another burst of missiles - a modul like this released alongside the normal one would broaden the missile users options, allow for new strategies, instead of forcing the current module to a niche.

Some say this topic is similar to the one about the HM nerf - they called the missile users crybabies that do not want to give up their OP HM's; well guess what - after the "totaly reasonable" overnerf, when the dust settled the hm's went to the garbage bin, and they were left there even after the rest of the medium long range weapons were buffed over them(not being in line was one of the overnerf excuses", excuse not longer valid after the mentioned buff). Let's not repeat that mistake CCP - worst case scenario - if you really wanna go for it at least not in the initial proposed form - those half assed initial stats need to get to a reasonable form before release.

Alright do it Rise..! Its boring, i feel myself like someone who tryin help to understand what sunrise is to another who blind from his born.

Have fun! Wont check this thread again, it just makes me mad, very mad.

Cant wait to see another great EVE Trailer where the commentator tells 80% of the fleet left the field bcoz they reloading their weapon systems, advanced spaceship technology!

Wait, its a prank right, right?? There must be a camera somewhere, fun to see people RAGE!?

Unbelievable..