Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Read the post I linked above for a comprehensive analysis of the missile damage formula and why it is currently very flawed.

Heres a situation that is not an edge case scenario:

You are in a caracal with rlms, you engage an enemy cruiser, while shooting this enemy a frigate suddenly lands on field. Because of the new rlms, you do not have enough missiles to be able to kill the frigate straight up and must now wait an additional 40 seconds before you can remove tackle. This forces you to either immediately leave the fight or likely die as the frigate comes in and scrams you while you have no way to respond to it because you've only got a half dozen shots which wont kill it and then a 40 second reload.

Yes rise did say that was a concern, he also specifically stated that it wasn't a deal breaker and only introduced 'interesting and tense' play.

Why in the world would I want to fly rlms under this change outside of some very specific situations when I could very easily be completely and arbitrarily forced to disengage or die should I get caught with a low clip of ammo? Sure it would be overpowered vs t1 frigates but against cruisers and in any situation where I need to swap targets or god forbid swap ammo I am essentially flying a useless ship. What is the point of flying it compared to an omen or a rail thorax? All of these ships do well vs tackle but the rlm ship will have so many limitations that it just isn't something you can rely on to do its job well when compared to these other ships.

all eve pilots want is the RLML's to be left alone and the RHML's to be given the 1st set of stats but include all battleship bonuses

What I find most objectionable about this proposed set of changes is the 40 s reload interval (combined with insufficient clip-size).

The "just split your weapons" argument doesn't solve the problem, because instead it roughly halves your sustained dps... and this reduced output is particularly relevant when discussing these changes in the context of skirmish links usage (I'll get to that a little later).

Further, 40 s isn't a "tension inducing" interval. It is a deal-breaker. And I say this as a pilot who often flies as the bait for small-gangs (especially when flying against more numerous opponents).

The people who don't give two craps about the proposed 40 second refractory period are the types who fly in larger groups and who can envision just how devastating the additional 53% burst damage will be... i.e. they are blobbers who intend to rely on a largely range and piloting independent weapon system that can apply disproportionately high damage in a short time-frame from skirmish ranges in anticipation of their fleet-warp exit... and they will, along with their numerical advantage, field specialized fleet-tacklers so that the mainstay of their own role will be that of damage application... That is, you are opening up an entirely new can of worms, here. I don't see the point of further enabling a target-size-independent missile sniping doctrine (albeit a sniping doctrine that needs to accommodate for missile travel time). So much for 'encouraging interesting choices'...

The bottom line is that those who are excited about these changes do NOT represent the interests and concerns of people who fly in small gangs. 40 s is such a long interval of time (when in combat) that it conceivably inhibits one playstyle when considering the usage of the affected missile-based ships... and meanwhile promotes another arguably more abusive playstyle. Numerically advantageous blobs don't need any more 'help'. Eve doesn't need more in the way of 'sniping' either... especially not enabling a type of sniping that is target-size independent and outclasses the HML alternative.

I will concede that the merit in this balance vision is in attempting to ween players off of a weapon system that performs exceptionally well against smaller craft irrespective of range or transversal... wherein said weapon system is almost always the best choice for a fitting and wherein actual piloting has almost no way to mitigate incoming damage (i.e. the missile formula is governed by signature size and velocity)... However, part of the reason that these concerns are at the forefront of a small gang pilot's mind is due to the pervasiveness of skirmish links. Once committed to an engagement, linked tacklers are often exceedingly difficult to evade... Thus, the strategy when dealing with linked frigate class tangos switches from evasion to removal. A pilot and his gang will need to address the role of anti-tackle comprehensively, or otherwise be unable to combat swathes of opponents that are common to face when flying in a small gang. Interestingly, links are still such a 'problem' that certain frigate setups can nonetheless permatank the damage output from even specifically designed anti-frigate RLML cruiser platforms (even under webs and TPs). When comparing the performance of HMLs or HAMs against such linked targets, the picture becomes even more bleak... so bad, in fact, that one probably simply wouldn't elect to field HML or HAM missile ships in an anti-tackle role (while retaining the expectation of success).

What you are introducing with the burst and refractory mechanics are artificial intervals of vulnerability... as a means to circumvent the inherently flawed missile damage application formula. To suggest that the missile formula needs to be revamped is an vast understatement.

As other commenters have suggested, players won't adapt by seeking to fulfill the anti-tackle role with an artificially vulnerable missile platform. They will abandon it in favour of better alternatives. Meanwhile, the front-loaded damage burst change will merely promote 'sniper' doctrines that are target-size and target-piloting independent. Worst of all, if you rely on metrics to give you an indication of what is going on, you will see that RLML usage has increased and that people are 'loving it' (thanks to factors like Nullbloc adoption). What this balance pass calls for is some intuition and judgement... not artificial vulnerabilities... not an incomplete release with the intention of metrics-driven iteration.

If (!) the power level of the current RLMLs is deemed too strong relative to the HML and HAM alternatives, then nerf the RLMLs suitably either through fitting compromises or more straightforward damage reduction... not by completely hampering an entire non-blob oriented playstyle for missile based ships.

In summary, I am very concerned about the implications of morphing RLMLs into a largely piloting and target-size independent front-loaded 'sniping' weapon system... and as a small gang pilot, and I am dismayed by the proposed 40 second reload interval.