Player Features and Ideas Discussion

@bouh: My example was more specifically geared towards if I were to engage another cruiser and it calls its friends, or perhaps I am doing a fw plax and am having to shoot rats. If I were just using the caracal to shoot lightly tanked or untanked tackle and warp out the new rlms would be far too good at this, giving the opponents much less response time. This again turns it into a 1 trick pony where in the majority of situation the omen or thorax will be flat out better.

Even a powergrid increase for rlm that would force the caracal to reduce its tank to a similar level of the omen or thorax would be much better because then it will be able to deal with a changing situation and adapt via being able to swap ammo easily.

As far as the thorax and omen having tracking issues, standard drop fixes this issue very easily for the omen. You need standard drop and a defensive web for a rail thorax to deal with tackle well if it lands on you. Both of these ships can easily handle tackle at range and unlike the new rlms, they are gaurenteed to atleast be able to shoot at it (barring the enemy gang using various ewar) every single time.

No trimarks on the Cerberus friend. Had Medium Core Defense Field Extender Is....

Cerberus, clean, with a 10MN MWD reaches 1730 ms.....

After much pondering, I have found a use for the new RLML's.

They're kinda nice as an option other then neuts in the Stabbers utility highs. Conceivably in other utility highs elsewhere as well. That doesn't help them much as a main weapons system, and only kind of works because you don't use the neuts on a stabber that much anyway. But it's a thing! And it really does look sort of viable on paper.

This is definitely the most difficult thread to try and interact with that I've made so far, so please excuse the delay between post if you can find it in your hearts to do so.

I've been discussing the response to this change almost constantly since the thread was posted, both with the CSM and with my fellow designers. I'll cut to the chase and say that the conclusion is to go ahead with the change, with the understanding that it needs to be carefully looked at following release.

It really seems there's two different discussions taking place. One is simply whether or not rapid light missiles deserve a nerf of any kind, and the other is whether or not the proposed mechanic will be fun/powerful.

I understand that the current RLML missiles are very strong and you guys like them and that many people would be very unhappy for them to get a significant change regardless of the method we chose. We definitely feel they need a change though. It's a weapon system designed to be best in a particular kind of situation rather than being the best choice for most situations and so one way or another it was going to get tweaked. However, if this change means the system isn't powerful in the situations it's meant for (dunking smaller ships), it will get adjusted until it is. The second part of this topic is whether or not the other medium weapon systems are actually viable. The way players are behaving says they are, but following this release I'd like to have a conversation internally about missiles as a whole and figure out where we stand. Maybe there is some more changes needed and I'd like to look into that.

As far as the long reload mechanic, the feedback is mixed in this thread and mostly positive elsewhere (CSM, internal development, external forums) from what I can tell. Again, I will say that the concerns about ammo swapping are completely valid and I've talked to my team and we can hopefully address that sometime after Rubicon. Part of the reason I lean towards putting this change in is the common sentiment in most balance threads that homogenization is a big fear among our players. I think favoring new types of interactions rather than adjusting numbers slightly within the same mechanic makes the game more interesting, and everything I've heard from the community points that direction as well (except sometimes when doing something new means changing something old). On top of this, there's no arguing that front-loading damage is powerful. As others have said, artillery is a good example of that. Whether or not it's powerful enough to compensate for the sustained dps nerf is just something we will find out once people get it in their hands.

I think we will come out of this with a very fun pair of weapon systems. If we don't, it will get changed.

PS - saying I don't play the game or use Caracals is completely ridiculous, I think you guys can find more reasonable lines of attack.

So what part of Rapid missile launchers being for attacking smaller ships than yours are you not comprehending? And most of the people in this thread for that matter? An a Caracal is a kiting ship tank is low on kiting ships...

If you want an all rounded cruiser weapon system, look for HML, or HAM if you don't need range, but you might need something to help damage application in some cases. I don't have time today to look at the application numbers, but I'm pretty sure they are far from bad considering all their caracteristics.

Would you mind remembering us these good arguments ?

As I recalled, there was :
- reload prevent ammo swapping (acknowledged by Rise) ;
- front loaded dps is bad (aka I know nothing at EVE pvp) ;
- not enough missiles in the clip (aka I can't kill a cruiser or AF in one clip, it's not OP enough) ;
- this is bad RLML are fine and don't need a nerf (aka I love my OP launcher doing everything without any drawback) ;
- and the best of all : Rise you are stupid and bad (aka I hate these changes but I'm too stupid to argue).

Did I miss anything ?


Do you have any idea of the dps medium turret do outside of web range ? I'm talking applyed dps, not paper one. I only checked it quickly, but HAM do 100% dps to a Vexor (either shield or armor) at full speed, and 85-90% with MWD on ; up to 30km.