These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Madbuster73
State War Academy
Caldari State
#861 - 2013-11-11 16:13:11 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hi!

As you guys know, we're introducing Rapid Heavy Missile Launchers in Rubicon for battleships that will echo the Rapid Light Launchers in design. Well, now that the current design has been out and available for discussion for awhile, we've taken on a lot of feedback and we don't feel completely satisfied with them.

The problem we're facing is that it's very hard to create a good balance between rapid launchers and their on-size counterparts(torpedo launchers, cruise launchers, heavy missile launchers and heavy assault missile launchers). Currently I feel we have the numbers high enough that they are almost always the right choice, but if we tune them down at all they will almost never be the right choice. We would much rather that the decision to use rapid launchers depended heavily on context and that you would choose them not because they were generally better than their competition but because your specific situation called for them.

Here's the plan to improve the situation:

Rapid Launchers (both Light and Heavy) will be changed to have a much higher damage per second number, roughly on par with Heavy Assault Launchers and Torpedo Launchers respectively, but their ammo capacity will be reduced and their reload time will be increased increased (think Ancilliary Shield Boosters). Some specifics:

Rapid Light Missile Launcher rate of fire set to:
Rapid Light Missile Launcher I ------------------------- 7.8s
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II ------------------------- 6.24s
Prototype 'Arbalest' Rapid Light Missile Launcher --- 6.24s
Other meta types not shown

Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher rate of fire set to:
Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher I ------------------------ 6.48s
Rapid Heavy Missile launcher II ------------------------- 5.185s
'Arbalest' Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher I ------------ 5.185s
Other meta types not shown

Reload time for both groups set to 40 seconds.

T2 Rapid Light Launchers can carry roughly 18 charges
T2 Rapid Heavy Launchers can carry roughly 23 charges

This translates to a Raven with 3x BCU, T2 Rapid Heavy Launchers and Scourge Fury missiles doing 926 dps
This translates to a Caracal with 3x BCU, T2 Rapid Light Launchers and Scourge Fury missiles doing 409 dps

Both ships would have around 50 seconds of up time followed by 40 seconds of reload meaning that over extended engagements their true dps would be a bit more than half of the dps number above.

This would provide new strategic gameplay for Rapid Missile users as well as their opponents. It would make these systems stronger against ships that can be killed inside the active window(smaller ships) but worse over longer fights, which would usually mean fights against ships in the same class or larger. It would generally be more interesting but would also leave more space for the main missile systems to thrive as well.

Let me know what you think and keep in mind that numbers may be adjusted slightly as we continue to test.
Thanks




WORST IDEA EVER!!!!
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#862 - 2013-11-11 16:14:15 UTC
Wow, reading comprehension problems here...

The original problem was that RLML would have lower dps than LML. That was wrong except for ship with unbonused RLML which are ScytheNI and ONI ; what I didn't say was these ship indeed have bonuses to missiles, but it's to missiles DAMAGE so it apply equally to RLML AND LML.

My comment about being arrogant ******* is more true than ever then, but a lot more people than I expected actually qualify for it. Nevermind, I too am sometime an arrogant ******* and it only require to think again to fix it. :-)

Anyway, I made some calculations with RLML to better assess burst mode performances and I, in fact, see a problem.

First, to compare the burst fire mode to the standard mode, we need to account for the dps nerf.
current base RLML2 : 9,6s rof, 10s reload, 80 charges.
current allV RLML2 : 6,61s rof, -, -
Reload Penalty (for dps calculation) : 10s/80p = 0,125s
dps : bd / (rof + rp)
dps = bd/6,74 => 14,84

burst RLML2 : 6,24s rof, 40s reload, 18 charges.
RP : 40s/18p = 2,22s
dps = bd/(6,24+2,22) = bd/8,46 => 11,82

dps nerf = 20,4%

nerfedRLML2 : we need rof+rp = 8,46 ; rp is fixed, so new rof = 8,335s
That's indeed more than LML but doesn't take hull bonuses into account, nor the advantage burst fire gives.
=> nerfedRLML2 : 8,335s rof, 10s reload, 80 charges.

bRLML2 clip time (shoot+reload) : 18*6,61 + 40 = 159s
with firing rate bonus : 129,2s (caracal style)
with 3BCS2 : rof*0,776
BCS1 = *0,9
BCS2 = *0,914
BCS3 = *0,943
rof = 3,846
clip time = 109,2s (69s fire, 40s reload)

nerfedRLML2 rof w/ bonus+3BCS2 : 4,85s

advance volleys for old style : 23-18 = 5 volleys.
catch up time : -

nerfedRLML : erof = 4,85+0,125 = 4,975s
burstRLML : erof = 3,846+2,22 = 6,068

So in fact I didn't considered that BCS would compress firing time but not reload time, so with a lot of rof bonuses the burst fire become less and less effective compared to a normal firing mode. This would be alleviated by a lower reload time (like 30s) or a larger magazine which would also solve the LML comparison problem. Gypsio's solution of lowering fireing rate and reload rate is a good idea IMO ; as well as giving them 2 more missiles to secure some frigate kills.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#863 - 2013-11-11 16:15:22 UTC
Madbuster73 wrote:

WORST IDEA EVER!!!!


What a spectacular post. Care to expand on it so that Rise might take you at least a little seriously?
Cordelia Mulholland IV
Hum Bole Enterprises
#864 - 2013-11-11 16:20:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Cordelia Mulholland IV
Hello CCP Rise

I had a think about this for a few minutes over the weekend. Have you considered this:

Give rapid launchers a bigger overheating bonus than is usual so that their DPS increases more than other launchers do when heated. Make their normal DPS sub-par but make their over heated bonus above par.

This way, no annoying long downtime whilst changing ammo but the desired effect of good burst DPS and not so good average DPS is retained.

Goodbye.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#865 - 2013-11-11 16:28:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Cordelia Mulholland IV wrote:
Hello CCP Rise

I had a think about this for a few minutes over the weekend. Have you considered this:

Give rapid launchers a bigger overheating bonus than is usual so that their DPS increases more than other launchers when heated. Make the their normal DPS sub-par but make their over heated bonus above par.

This way, no annoying and limiting downtime whilst changing ammo but the desired effect of good burst DPS and not so good average DPS is retained.

Goodbye.


I do enjoy overheating modules. I actually enjoy it quite a lot. I wish the heat measurement system was 1,000 times more precise than it is now but that's a subject for a different thread.

I don't have any links to support this, but I do seem to recall various CCP members saying at different times that they'd like to see more expansion on the notion of overheating - in combat and in general. If you're looking to create "interesting choices" and "spikes of tension" then give us the "interesting choice" of whether to overheat or continue having sub-par DPS and the "tension" of wondering whether or not we'll be able to kill our target/get that last volley of missiles in before the launchers burn out completely.

I don't know about others, but I would support this absolutely - even though I would continue to clamor for missiles as a whole to undergo a complete top-to-bottom re-evaluation.
Pertuabo Enkidgan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#866 - 2013-11-11 16:40:08 UTC
Isn't this more of a turret/launcher problem in general?

Also when are you working on AT/Defender missiles? especially defenders. Make them 5 second to reload or something. They've been neglected for far too long.

I still can't agree with the 40 second cooldown on RHML but you seem pretty adament about this so lets see what happens.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#867 - 2013-11-11 17:10:57 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:


"10% bonus to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile velocity
10% bonus to Kinetic missile damage, 5% bonus to EM, Explosive, and Thermal missile damage"

10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire
10% bonus to Missile damage

Bonuses to light missiles (and the others), not RLMLs. Please, not this **** again Chessur. Roll



No, it has a bonus to ALL missiles. Unfortunately I am yet to find a way to fit a citatel launcher on it :P


Yes. A bonus to all missiles' damage, not to all missile launchers. Nothing in the bonuses affects the RLMLs' stats. You're agreeing with me!

I feed that there's some confusion about the difference between a missile and a missile launcher here.



And what is the relevance if you cannot use one without the other?

Its like saying that 3*(2*4) is different from (3*2)*4

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Chessur
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#868 - 2013-11-11 17:15:08 UTC
So, lets try and clean the stupid from this thread.

Osprey Navy- Has a bonus to RLML's, kinetic, 5% other DMG types and velocity
Caracal- Has a bonus to RLML's, Velocity and ROF
Scythe Fleet - Has a bonus to RLML damage
CNI- Has a bonus to RLML ROF, however it does not apply its application bonus to RLMLs Which is what i mentioned a few posts ago. CNI is bad because of this.
Cerb- Kinetitc + Velocity bonus on RLMLs, along with Kin Damage, and ROF to RLMLs
Sac has an RLML ROF bonus
Bellicose- Has ROF RLML bonus


Hopefully this should help out all of the wanna be PvPers in this thread.
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#869 - 2013-11-11 17:17:05 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Madbuster73 wrote:

WORST IDEA EVER!!!!


What a spectacular post. Care to expand on it so that Rise might take you at least a little seriously?


To be honest, Madbuster is one of the best solo / small gang pilots out there, so that is more than enough statement right there. God, what more needs expanding on, there are 44 pages of hate and vitriol that has sprung up in just three days. Many many people have already pointed out why this is a terrible idea already, not sure what expanding on at this point, apart from CCP deciding what a terrible idea it all was and goes away and comes back with something for the .1 release instead - that isn't in anyway like this idea.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 
Chessur
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#870 - 2013-11-11 17:17:23 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Chessur wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:

Those ships have bonus to light missiles, not RLML. You would see the difference if you ceased to be an arrogant *******.



Wow, you are so, so wrong. Get out of this thread. And stop shitting up the worthwhile conversations going on here- with your mind blowing misinformed ideas.

Scythe fleet, and Osprey Navy both have bonuses.


"10% bonus to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile velocity
10% bonus to Kinetic missile damage, 5% bonus to EM, Explosive, and Thermal missile damage"

10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire
10% bonus to Missile damage

Bonuses to light missiles (and the others), not RLMLs. Please, not this **** again Chessur. Roll


Go fit up a NOSPREY with RLMLs, and then tell me the range. Also switch its damage types around, notice the increase with kinetic DPS.

Stop talking like you have a clue, because it is evident that you (along with other trash in this thread) keep talking out of their asses.
Chessur
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#871 - 2013-11-11 17:19:58 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Maybe Chessur meant to have wrote:

Wow, I am so, so wrong. I'll get out of this thread. And stop shitting up the worthwhile conversations going on here- with my mind blowing misinformed ideas.


Though I do admit that shiptoasting complete inaccurate nonsense is much easier and faster than checking your facts and linking your sources.


My facts are right, my source is EFT. You on the other hand, are simply quoting and editing- a post that I made that is correct. I don't understand how this is so difficult. Go in EFT and look yourself. You are wrong.
Angelus Ryan
One Ronin
#872 - 2013-11-11 17:22:13 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
I don't know about others, but I would support this absolutely - even though I would continue to clamor for missiles as a whole to undergo a complete top-to-bottom re-evaluation.


Shelving this idea and taking a good, long, hard look at missiles is the only sensible solution at this time. But the OH idea is definitely better than the current abomination of a concept - If I must choose one of the two, I'd go for the OH one in a heartbeat. It is far superior and actually does add value to the game, rather than just detract value from the game.

The problems, in my opinion, can be summed up with this:
1) Larger missiles apply too little damage to fast/small targets, even when the targets are webbed or target painted (just run the numbers on HAMs/HMLs shooting at a dual-webbed and scrammed AF - They are hilariously bad, even with Javelins/Precision). This happens with no regard for range (whereas longer range implies reduced transversal and means that turrets are more likely to apply damage at range, assuming they have the range to hit the target). This essentially leaves missile users with very little defense against smaller/faster threats, which is especially acute for Caldari pilots and their small(er) drone bays. This is entirely piloting-independent, so the missile user cannot do anything to improve his damage application.
2) RLMLs are popular because they are the only missiles that actually make sense to use on ships that can utilize them. Assuming they are too good at this point in time (a point which I am not entirely sold on), they need to become less effective, but there is no reason to break them altogether for the sake of the god of all things ancillary.

If I were to offer a solution, I'd be looking in the direction of rebalancing the missile damage application formula so that at least (dual?) webbing a small target would give the missile user an opportunity to actually apply his damage with anything but RLMLs. This, coupled with a reduction of RLML damage and an increase in fitting requirements (if they are indeed deemed OP) should be the solution. Alternatively, perhaps the ammunition needs to looked at so that Javelins and/or Precision missiles are rebalanced as to apply damage far better, but at a further reduced DPS rate.

Whatever the case might be, however: Kill the original Rise proposal with fire.
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery
RAZOR Alliance
#873 - 2013-11-11 17:30:29 UTC
Even if you further increased the damage of the proposed rlms, standard launchers would still be better. Why? With the proposed rlms, your ship is useless nearly half the time, and believe it or not most of the time in pvp with missiles it is a very good idea to switch your damage type or missile type to the most effective form for the part of the fight that is happening. For example, if I see a couple frigs and a cruiser I will switch to either navy or percision in order to deal with the frigates, then to fury to deal with the cruiser. As more targets come on field or the fight changes I may have to change ammo again to respond to the situation.

Even if standard missile launchers end up doing less sustained than 'new rlm' standard launchers will be better because you will be able to actually respond to a potentially rapidly changing situation with the best ammo type possible. Otherwise you end up getting caught during reloading or with the wrong ammo type (fury vs intys for example) more often than not and forced to leave the field or die in many currently common situations.

Currently if I am in an omen, I don't feel like I have to switch to a different ship to be effective. Same if I am flying a thorax, it is just as good at its job, with minor variables that make each choice have a slightly different flavor, as the current omen or caracal. With the proposed changes, if I am in a caracal I will not be able to actually do anything nearly half the time at which point I just throw the ship away and go get an omen or thorax which do the same job but don't have any crippling limitations.

I could put standard launchers on and fly it anyway but outside of smallgang if I would need something absurdly tanky to help screen for oracles and ishtars, it's far easier for me to just get an omen or thorax. New players will be forced into standard launchers or potentially be a liability in a fight should they have to reload which is really really bad design imo.
HazeInADaze
Safari Hunt Club
#874 - 2013-11-11 17:34:10 UTC
I think the missile damage should based more on sig radius than velocity. Higher dps /close range missiles should go slow enough that a smaller class ship can use speed to escape and those missiles still benefit from webs. Long range missiles should go fast enough they almost always catch the target but deliver a smaller punch over a larger area, thus benefitting from paints more than webs. The entire mechanic of explosion velocity is the route of the problem making smaller missile systems so much better at damage application that potential damage is a completely ignorable statistic.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#875 - 2013-11-11 17:38:03 UTC
Its not even just swapping damage types. If things land on grid partway through a fight (like say, interceptors who undocked 30s ago, 2 jumps out), you almost certainly cant kill them, so its basically just warp off or die.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#876 - 2013-11-11 17:43:30 UTC
HazeInADaze wrote:
I think the missile damage should based more on sig radius than velocity. Higher dps /close range missiles should go slow enough that a smaller class ship can use speed to escape and those missiles still benefit from webs. Long range missiles should go fast enough they almost always catch the target but deliver a smaller punch over a larger area, thus benefitting from paints more than webs. The entire mechanic of explosion velocity is the route of the problem making smaller missile systems so much better at damage application that potential damage is a completely ignorable statistic.


The problem is the base stats on the missiles
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#877 - 2013-11-11 17:57:07 UTC
40 second reload time? That seems a bit excessive. I'd be fine with 20 seconds. Example, you are in a Medium plex and a gallente frig shows up on short, you have EM-based missiles loaded, you need to switch to EXP, you will not be able to switch out damage types before he hits grid, and will most likely have to warp out. This will really suck with the addition of the new warp features. Not to mention that RMLs are usually the counter to interceptors. Got to say I am not a fan of this proposed change.
Klister Ethelred
Parallax Shift
#878 - 2013-11-11 18:06:33 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hi!

Currently I feel we have the numbers high enough that they are almost always the right choice, but if we tune them down at all they will almost never be the right choice.


We don't see this in low sec. Sure people use them, but not "almost always." Not even "often."

However, if you make this change, then it really will almost always be the right choice to use Caracals in low sec. Our blobs are pretty small, usually 5 - 10, perhaps up to 50 ships. The battles are short, never lasting more than a couple minutes. (although, sometimes battle is joined, then there's a break away, and battle is joined again shortly). With this kind of front loaded DPS, I can't see how it would make any sense to fly anything else in Low Sec battles on gate and in plex. Also, after these are implemented, the only place you'll see a frigate in Low is inside a Novice or Small.

So, not only is there no problem that needs fixing (people don't 'always' fight with rapid launchers), it looks to me like this will create the problem that you seem to think you are fixing.

This is not a balancing tweak, this is a radical change.

Also, one of the main features to missiles as a weapon system is their ability to change damage types. With this change, that will no longer be true.

"If everyone is special, then no one is special." It's okay to have a ship, or weapon system, or a person be exceptional. These are the stuff of legend, and players themselves will devise workarounds to deal with any OP system, if you give them a chance.

I don't understand why you are spending time working on little piddly **** like this when there are so many major problems that need to be addressed like 1. boring, repetitive missions, 2. TiDi, 3. a horrid user interface...etc.

"I'd rather be pissed off then pissed on"

"This is one of those times when it's important to know the difference between 'then' and 'than'."
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#879 - 2013-11-11 18:08:34 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
Its not even just swapping damage types. If things land on grid partway through a fight (like say, interceptors who undocked 30s ago, 2 jumps out), you almost certainly cant kill them, so its basically just warp off or die.

You are forgeting that you will have fired a lot faster than you would have with a regular weapon, and hence you might also be able to kill your target before the interceptor land on grid. You only see the glass half empty here.
Chessur
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#880 - 2013-11-11 18:17:54 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Michael Harari wrote:
Its not even just swapping damage types. If things land on grid partway through a fight (like say, interceptors who undocked 30s ago, 2 jumps out), you almost certainly cant kill them, so its basically just warp off or die.

You are forgeting that you will have fired a lot faster than you would have with a regular weapon, and hence you might also be able to kill your target before the interceptor land on grid. You only see the glass half empty here.


You can't kill any target with only 18 missiles, as this point has been repeated ad-nausem. Apparently, even though you have been slapped again, and again in the face with this information you still don't get it. You just can't seem to grasp how the inability to shoot consistantly, and having a 40 second reload time is simply unplayable.

Maybe if you actually did PvP you might understand, but again looking at your killboards- thats way to far of a stretch. Why don't you stop wasting everyones time, and just starting reading- instead of typing in this thread.