These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Technology and Research Center » Player Features and Ideas Discussion » [Rubicon] Rapid Missile Launchers - v2

Topic is locked indefinitely.

First pagePrevious page3839404142Next pageLast page

[Rubicon] Rapid Missile Launchers - v2 First post First post First post
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Viceorvirtue

The Hatchery

RAZOR Alliance

Likes received: 59

#781 - 2013-11-11 03:36:17 UTC

Right now if I want a ship to act as anti tackle in a small gang or even run solo, I have a choice between caracal, omen, rail thorax. This change to rlm will mean that I will never have any reason to use a caracal since the omen and thorax become flat out better due to not running into any severe limitations such as a low ammo capacity and long reload.

Rlm currently are not a viable weapon for blobs because they will have the ships with bonused webs and tps to apply hml and ham damage, and since you only choose rlm when you have no outside means of increasing missile application, they are stuck as a solo/small gang thing. If you are balancing on metrics then it simply is a combination of quick training time for new players (t2 rlm is basically as fast as t2 small turrets) to get into a ship that is roughly equal to other cruisers for solo/small gang play and more solo/small gang pvp happening than large fleet pvp.

This is why it would seem that rlm is always the right choice, it is the only missile system for cruisers that does not require additional modules to apply it's full damage. The strange thing is that hml do less damage against most ships than rlm so for small gangs they usually skip the chance at going for a dedicated application ship in favor of another rlm ship. Doing this is understandable because in a small fleet if you are relying on 1 ship to hold it all together and that ship goes down the rest of your fleet is useless and that's just terrible. Larger fleets can afford multiple application ships so this is not an issue for them.

The proposed change really really hurts new players, as they wont have a quick train into a good weapon system for solo/small gang. It hurts vets slightly less because they likely just have the support skills to go straight into an omen or thorax. For new players caught without this as an option, it has been noted earlier in the thread that you will be able to use Standard Missile Launchers to achieve something close to viable while they train rails/lasers to be more useful.

wowyouareacow

NANA221 Corporation

Likes received: 59

#782 - 2013-11-11 03:50:05 UTC | Edited by: wowyouareacow

I think this idea could work on a specialist ship for sure, and it's a good one.
However, please leave regular light launchers the way they are.
RLMLs are very important when fighting outnumbered to clear tackle.
After the interceptor changes they will be even more important otherwise soloers/small gang pvpers will be caught with ease by blobs.
Either that or buff the regular missiles so they can hit interceptors.

CODE.d 6,149
Arthur Aihaken CODE.d Likes received: 6,149	#783 - 2013-11-11 04:07:41 UTC 1 wowyouareacow wrote: However, please leave regular light launchers the way they are. Yeah… I have the distinct feeling that's not on the table. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Taniwha Rin

10MAN

Likes received: 5

#784 - 2013-11-11 04:10:15 UTC | Edited by: Taniwha Rin

So...

My current FW Caracal Fit

[FW Caracal]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Damage Control II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Warp Disruptor II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II

Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I

Warrior II x2

post Rubicon Carcal Fits?

[ Rubicon FW Kite Caracal]
Internal Force Field Array I
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Warp Disruptor II
Small Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 400
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400
Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction

Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile

Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I
Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I

Warrior II x2

[Rubicon FW Tackle Caracal]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Internal Force Field Array I

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400
Large Shield Extender II

Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile

Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I
Medium Ancillary Current Router I

Warrior II x2

undocking to test the post Rubicon fits later today.

Viceorvirtue

The Hatchery

RAZOR Alliance

Likes received: 59

#785 - 2013-11-11 04:45:32 UTC

Using your post rubicon kite caracal fit, if you drop the iffa for a nano you should be able to swap the small cap booster for a web. If you can manage your cap properly (should be relatively easy since you are no longer worried about tank given you have the xl asb) the defensive web can be massively helpful.

Fitting scram/web is actually detrimental as you are removing mobility, which is one of the caracals greatest assets. If you are using hams then scram/web is almost required as it is needed for damage application but it's just completely unneeded on a low damage mobility focused set up that you get with light missiles.

Debir Achen

Makiriemi Holdings

Likes received: 93

#786 - 2013-11-11 05:07:17 UTC

CCP Rise wrote:

You still have the option to switch as you run out of charges and would be reloading anyway.

But this highlights a couple of issues in the reloading mechanics.

(1) I'm not aware of a way to say "finish the current loadout, then auto-reload with X".
(2) I'm not aware of a way to say "Stop reloading with X, and reload with Y", except by initiating a session change.

Now, #1 can be worked around by setting the launcher to manual reload, but that's annoying, and costs extra time during the reload cycle rather than allowing you to make the decision earlier and then have the launcher auto-execute. #2 is annoying with a 5-10 second reload time, but really painful with a 40 second reload time (i.e. 80 seconds to get the ammo you actually wanted into your launcher).

Is it possible to get damage and capacity numbers that work with a 10-15 second reload time, rather than 40?

And how much value does dynamic damage switching bring in the PvP environment? Currently, projectiles and missiles can do it; lasers and hybrids can't. For example, how much extra damage would you want out of Fusion in exchange for being unable to load EMP or phased plasma?

Finally, given that the performance profile of rapid launchers is now quite different than simple "faster version of their smaller namesake", are there any plans to include the damage application modifiers to them?

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?

Onictus

Federal Navy Academy

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 952

#787 - 2013-11-11 05:11:39 UTC

TrouserDeagle wrote:

Baron' Soontir Fel wrote:

TrouserDeagle wrote:

Kat Ayclism wrote:

That's not an issue of the RLMLs it's an imbalance issue of the heavies.

nope

Yup. If HMLs could actually hit targets you might see them used in small gangs/solo fleets. Instead you use RLML with pathetic less than Destroyer DPS so you can actually hit something.

It's akin to a Thorax using Light Neutron Blasters and people QQ'ing that it hits frigates.

light neutron blasters have about 3km range. range bonused lights have 60km and are immune to ewar. HMLs hit fine, why can't people just l2p and make an effort?

Bonuses lights get slightly over 70km on the destroyed and that with level 4 support skills.

School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 271
Sal Landry School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State Likes received: 271	#788 - 2013-11-11 05:22:37 UTC Onictus wrote: Bonuses lights get slightly over 70km on the destroyed and that with level 4 support skills. Are you sure about that?

Alvatore DiMarco

Capricious Endeavours Ltd

Likes received: 3,667

#789 - 2013-11-11 05:40:54 UTC

Arthur Aihaken wrote:

Alvatore DiMarco wrote:

8 days until Rubicon and I'm pretty sure people aren't working Sundays and coming in at 3am on Monday morning, yes. At the very least, I sincerely hope they're not working 7 days a week and putting in 20-hour days. That would make for some significantly bad results.

Pretty sure they are putting in substantial OT (would be very surprised if they weren't). You don't have to work 20/7 to post a simple update, so please stop trying to equate this with third-world slave labour. Again, I'm not the one that introduced the proposed change at this stage - and the RHML thread was all but ignored for the past month. I'm already prepared for this being implemented as is, and am not realistically expecting any substantial dialog on changes.

Please stop mischaracterizing my post. I'm not sure where you got any notions of third-world slave labor, but they could not have been from me. I'm certain there's a degree of OT being applied as well, it's just that I don't think they're applying it at 3 in the morning or on Sundays. I too am a bit concerned with the overall feel that this was revealed as an 11th-hour change and has had little communication - and that what communication we've gotten has seemed more-or-less totally dismissive of anything we've said.

Perhaps this is me simply misinterpreting things, but I'm not altogether sure Rise is entirely as receptive to feedback as he was before or could be. Especially not when he pre-nerfs ships before they're even available to test, saying "this is probably the last change before they go live".

Now you see why I said what I said before - I don't really think this thread is intended to get feedback so much as to prevent people saying that they weren't told changes were coming.

Debir Achen wrote:

CCP Rise wrote:

You still have the option to switch as you run out of charges and would be reloading anyway.

If I'm understanding correctly, Rise probably meant that you can disable auto-reload and manually choose your next ammo type or that you can leave auto-reload on, stop your launchers with one missile left in them and choose your new ammo type, thus initiating a full reload.

Empire Hooligans 53
Edwin McAlister Empire Hooligans Likes received: 53	#790 - 2013-11-11 05:48:57 UTC why don't they tweek with the explosive radius / explosive velocity and perhaps base damage of the ammunition instead of drastic **** everyone off type of changes or.... stop with ALL missile weapon systems changes currently in progress... initiate a full total 100% from ground up restructure of the missile combat system with possible release in spring time

Alvatore DiMarco

Capricious Endeavours Ltd

Likes received: 3,667

#791 - 2013-11-11 06:00:54 UTC | Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco

Edwin McAlister wrote:

why don't they tweek with the explosive radius / explosive velocity and perhaps base damage of the ammunition instead of drastic **** everyone off type of changes

or....

stop with ALL missile weapon systems changes currently in progress... initiate a full total 100% from ground up restructure of the missile combat system with possible release in spring time

The second choice sounds better and really does need to be done. Hopefully someone with a bit of authority over at CCP will agree and say "Wait a minute, let's not add that new weapon system just yet and instead let's go over missiles and launchers and their damage/application formula with a fine-toothed comb and make sure we're happy with all of it before we start adding more launchers. We'll release the missile rebalance as a point release and RHMLs in the point release after that."

Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 262
Baron' Soontir Fel Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State Likes received: 262	#792 - 2013-11-11 06:23:36 UTC Sal Landry wrote: Onictus wrote: Bonuses lights get slightly over 70km on the destroyed and that with level 4 support skills. Are you sure about that? lvl4 support skills hit out to 36km on a unbonused hull. lvl4 supports on a Caracal hull (10% velocity/lvl) get you to 55km. gg people IIT don't know anything about RLML posting that its OP.

Arthur Aihaken

CODE.d

Likes received: 6,149

#793 - 2013-11-11 06:31:19 UTC

Alvatore DiMarco wrote:

I too am a bit concerned with the overall feel that this was revealed as an 11th-hour change and has had little communication - and that what communication we've gotten has seemed more-or-less totally dismissive of anything we've said.

Perhaps this is me simply misinterpreting things, but I'm not altogether sure Rise is entirely as receptive to feedback as he was before or could be. Especially not when he pre-nerfs ships before they're even available to test, saying "this is probably the last change before they go live".

Now you see why I said what I said before - I don't really think this thread is intended to get feedback so much as to prevent people saying that they weren't told changes were coming.

You're not alone in this impression. And considering there was almost nothing on RHMLs until this update, and with Rubicon literally days away - I'm not expecting anything either. Winter is definitely coming...

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

Bob Niac

Aliastra

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 57

#794 - 2013-11-11 06:33:37 UTC | Edited by: Bob Niac

I am thinking this is going to be pushed back to a future patch. WAAAY too much negative feedback.

[u]I <3 Logistics:[/u] Pilot of all T2 logi and my shiny Archon [deceased.] Also a Chimera which may or may not be horrid. I don't make games, I play them. I get that ppl are passionate about change. I post here to plant seeds. You see your idea as is? Holy **** you win! So let's post, and see what the DEVs and our peers use.


Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd Likes received: 3,667	#795 - 2013-11-11 06:44:32 UTC 1 Bob Niac wrote: I am thinking this is going to be pushed back to a future patch. WAAAY too much negative feedback. While I (and I would assume many others in this thread) hope you're right, somehow I don't think that will be the case...


Arthur Aihaken CODE.d Likes received: 6,149	#796 - 2013-11-11 06:47:57 UTC 1 Bob Niac wrote: I am thinking this is going to be pushed back to a future patch. WAAAY too much negative feedback. How much ISK are we wagering? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Onictus

Federal Navy Academy

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 952

#797 - 2013-11-11 06:50:15 UTC

Sal Landry wrote:

Onictus wrote:

Bonuses lights get slightly over 70km on the destroyed and that with level 4 support skills.

Are you sure about that?

Yes, this toon can't even use T2 lights, but I need a sensor booster to lock to missile range on a Talwar.

Im at work so I can't look, but I'm pretty sure the listed optimal in-game odd 75km bombardment V and projection IV.

Onictus

Federal Navy Academy

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 952

#798 - 2013-11-11 07:10:22 UTC

Baron' Soontir Fel wrote:

Sal Landry wrote:

Onictus wrote:

Bonuses lights get slightly over 70km on the destroyed and that with level 4 support skills.

Are you sure about that?

lvl4 support skills hit out to 36km on a unbonused hull. lvl4 supports on a Caracal hull (10% velocity/lvl) get you to 55km.

gg people IIT don't know anything about RLML posting that its OP.

Yeah on a caracal, I was talking about a talwar, in comparison a HML drake with bombardment V and projection IV hits for only what 65-68km sans rigs or implants.

With about the same damage on a cruiser that isn't web'd down.

I never said that RLMLs were op, I said heavies suck.


Onictus Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation Likes received: 952	#799 - 2013-11-11 07:11:56 UTC 1 Arthur Aihaken wrote: Bob Niac wrote: I am thinking this is going to be pushed back to a future patch. WAAAY too much negative feedback. How much ISK are we wagering? No way I'm taking that bet, a week out from.the patch it's going live. No matter how stupid.

Parental Control Didn't want that Sov anyway. 33
Darling Hassasin Parental Control Didn't want that Sov anyway. Likes received: 33	#800 - 2013-11-11 07:29:12 UTC This idea is good and I stand firmly behind it. A brand new weapon system is a perfect chance to eperiment with something prfoundly different. If people think the reload time is too much they can simply pretend it does not exist at all and they are back to business as usual.