These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1381 - 2013-11-13 21:48:28 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
Taoist Dragon wrote:


The HVM and HAM work fine for killing cruisers. .


Just out of curiosity, when is the last time you have killed a cruiser, with say, fewer than 4 people and/or with anyone in your fleet using hmls? When was the last time you flew something other than a frigate or destroyer?

Edit: Ive gone back 6 months so far and I cant find one, but maybe I missed one?



Quite sure his point still stands that hams work fine on cruisers.

Range issues aside.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery
RAZOR Alliance
#1382 - 2013-11-13 21:54:53 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:

I would as well, it should remain an option... but I understand that revision involves mechanics that may take a bit longer.

Not to derail, but unless the jammer/ dampener is the only person aggressing you FOF's are of extremely limited value. They go for the closest person damaging or activating a module on you, and they only go after those within their range. This means that usually the go after any drones on you, possibly a tackler (usually ineffectively in either case), or if you are really lucky they'll go after someone repairing or boosting you on your own team. Smile


If those drones are ecm drones then this is actually helpful. Also great vs sabre/falcon camps and such. Really though this would make a good argument that fofs need to be changed in some way to make them worth carrying as you said yourself theres a decent change they wont do much. If they only shot at the source of the jam/damp then everyone would likely be carrying them.

Breaking the reload and damage swapping option, even if just to reiterate on it down the line is still a poor idea imo. People have suggested just straight nerfing the rof of the rlm (perferabley increasing its pg use as well) and implementing this 'ancillary launcher' as a new weapon system hopefully implemented after you take a hard look at the missile dmg application equations. This way people using rlms do take a hit, but if they swap damage properly (even though they wont have to do it often) they will still be reasonably competitive vs other cruisers both at killing tackle and handling cruiser sized ships with the same weapon system.

Changing ammo based on target is great, changing weapons based on target is nonfeasable in many situations and makes me feel that just using a different weapon system that performs decently in both areas as the superior choice. If cn hmls applied more damage to cruisers than fury light missiles and percision hmls applied as much damage to frigates as cn lights then hml would be the right choice 100% of the time. This problem stems from the missile dmg equations and fixing those should be a rather high priority.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1383 - 2013-11-13 21:55:05 UTC
This is really a dead horse until the next post-Rubicon update.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#1384 - 2013-11-13 22:03:10 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
This is really a dead horse until the next post-Rubicon update.


That doesn't stop people from continuing to argue with each other in the Marauders thread or ask if the SoE ships are deliberately missing a CPU bonus to probe launchers.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1385 - 2013-11-13 22:03:29 UTC
Viceorvirtue wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

I would as well, it should remain an option... but I understand that revision involves mechanics that may take a bit longer.

Not to derail, but unless the jammer/ dampener is the only person aggressing you FOF's are of extremely limited value. They go for the closest person damaging or activating a module on you, and they only go after those within their range. This means that usually the go after any drones on you, possibly a tackler (usually ineffectively in either case), or if you are really lucky they'll go after someone repairing or boosting you on your own team. Smile


If those drones are ecm drones then this is actually helpful. Also great vs sabre/falcon camps and such. Really though this would make a good argument that fofs need to be changed in some way to make them worth carrying as you said yourself theres a decent change they wont do much. If they only shot at the source of the jam/damp then everyone would likely be carrying them.

Breaking the reload and damage swapping option, even if just to reiterate on it down the line is still a poor idea imo. People have suggested just straight nerfing the rof of the rlm (perferabley increasing its pg use as well) and implementing this 'ancillary launcher' as a new weapon system hopefully implemented after you take a hard look at the missile dmg application equations. This way people using rlms do take a hit, but if they swap damage properly (even though they wont have to do it often) they will still be reasonably competitive vs other cruisers both at killing tackle and handling cruiser sized ships with the same weapon system.

Changing ammo based on target is great, changing weapons based on target is nonfeasable in many situations and makes me feel that just using a different weapon system that performs decently in both areas as the superior choice. If cn hmls applied more damage to cruisers than fury light missiles and percision hmls applied as much damage to frigates as cn lights then hml would be the right choice 100% of the time. This problem stems from the missile dmg equations and fixing those should be a rather high priority.

I'll have to agree with that last bit. I've felt, like many others, that although the current missile combat mechanics simulate things in a clever way... they are in need of a revision or entire revamp.

I feel this revamp should be from the ground up however, and also heavily involve modules and rigs that affect missile combat. A lot of missile mechanics are in place to make them a distinct weapons system (which is nice) and to simulate things that the game engine really can't handle any other way (misses, evasive action, proximity damage).

I'd love to see missiles do "huge" alpha, but have a good chance of missing or being rendered ineffective (chaff, point defense weapons, really good evasive flying).

I'd love to see it all redone, but that is a huge proposition.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery
RAZOR Alliance
#1386 - 2013-11-13 22:18:42 UTC
Nerfing rlm rof and increasing their pg requirement would actually work to make the decision of ammo change have more impact. Currently people can get away with not changing ammo at ideal times, but lower the dps a bit and suddenly that edge that you get with proper ammo swapping becomes much more important.

People might regret not changing ammo to fury to deal with the cruiser that came in after they finished killing the tackle with cn or percision. As harari said a number of posts ago having the right ammo preloaded is incredibly important. But by just reducing the rof on existing rlms, you create a situation where people can actively switch between ammo during a fight and be rewarded for making the right choice, or punished for making the wrong one.

If an rlm pilot think 'man, I totally should have reloaded to x' or 'hmm reloading to x ammo was a poor decision there' then congratulations you have both nerfed rlms and made the mechanic more interesting and decision based. Also you get to make an entirely new launcher with the ancillary feature (it's a good idea but not worth throwing away current rlms for imo) that can ideally come out alongside an in depth missile rebalance.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1387 - 2013-11-13 22:27:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
That doesn't stop people from continuing to argue with each other in the Marauders thread or ask if the SoE ships are deliberately missing a CPU bonus to probe launchers.

Sure... ask and ye shall not receive. 5 days to Rubicon, snowball's chance of anything changing...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#1388 - 2013-11-13 22:49:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Kane Fenris
i read it repeatedly but HVM are not fine against cruisers !

†RLML for solo welcome OP RLML large fleets....

or lets say:

"RLML are dead, Long live RLML!"

[edit]
i would support pg increase for rlml instead of proposed change
so 3x lse and xl-asb+lse fits are no longer possible
that would imho fix the issue
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1389 - 2013-11-13 22:59:42 UTC
Kane Fenris wrote:
i read it repeatedly but HVM are not fine against cruisers !

†RLML for solo welcome OP RLML large fleets....

or lets say:

"RLML are dead, Long live RLML!"

[edit]
i would support pg increase for rlml instead of proposed change
so 3x lse and xl-asb+lse fits are no longer possible
that would imho fix the issue



RLML's are fine

LML's themselves are the overpowered bit

For fucks sake, just reduce the range of all types of lml's by say 25% and application by 15%

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Kane Fenris
NWP
#1390 - 2013-11-13 23:08:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Kane Fenris
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Kane Fenris wrote:
i read it repeatedly ....

RLML's are fine

LML's themselves are the overpowered bit

For fucks sake, just reduce the range of all types of lml's by say 25% and application by 15%


application needs to stay else youl kill the weapon for frigs -> bad idea
range is maybe matter of discussion but a nerf to range alone wont balance it

the resulting fits of rlml are the issue here .

[edit] let me elaborate that a bit
if you dont allow the ships that are useing rlml to have exessive tank, the tradoff between tank and applied dmg would be inline with other ships.
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#1391 - 2013-11-13 23:08:27 UTC
Using the arguments of the main opponents to these changes. In their own words no less, "there are no weapon systems worth using other than rapid light missile launchers". I'm also told that if you use ANY other weapon system. Then you're bad, stup!d and or ret@rded. The aforementioned can be found on these forums and external forum.

Based on the aforementioned conclusion that are clearly well thought out, correct and cannot be disputed. Well. Based on said conclusion we would inevitably come to another indisputable conclusion. That is ALL weapon systems that DO NOT use light missiles are in fact BROKEN.

Well sh!t.

Turns out that all turret based weapon systems in game have significant draw backs... What about light missiles? Well. light missiles main drawback is absolute damage output. Apparently, absolute damage output is not an issue when you can apply the majority of whatever damage at significant range v0v

Now. The aforementioned statement does not factor in a ship off grid providing bonuses to another ship on grid. Why? Because clearly if skirmish link bouneses were applied to ship being damage by either heavy missiles or light missiles. Said ship would mitigate more of said damage. However, rockets and light missiles would be significantly less effected than any other target and click weapon system in game

Also, I like to use dual propulsion cruisers and have been since 2011. Without receiving bonuses from warfare links; dual propulsion cruisers can if not completely mitigate will at least substantially mitigate incoming damage from another cruiser using medium turrets at 500 - 2000m even with a stasis webifier applied.

Hmm. Lets play with our nuts for a bit and create a scenario.

The scenario I have in mind is 5 orbiting, after-burning REVengeances have magically tackled 5 cruisers @ 500m that use differing weapon systems. The 5 cruisers are using one of each of these weapon systems to esplode the ships that have them tackled: medium auto cannons (stabber fleet), medium Railguns (thorax), heavy missile launchers (caracal), heavy assault missile launchers (caracal) and rapid light missile launchers (caracal). No stasis webifier or drone damage applied and each Vengeance has only a damage control for tank.

In this sceinero.

What weapon system would do the most significant amount of damage in the shortest amount of time and which weapon systems would NOT eventually destroy their target?

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#1392 - 2013-11-13 23:13:43 UTC
from the start , RLML are abdomination.
maybe it needs "rapid light missiles" with different application then lights
or maybe just remove it and fix med size missiles

Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn ♡♡♡

Baron' Soontir Fel
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1393 - 2013-11-13 23:30:15 UTC
If you factor in links. HAMs and HMLs perform terribly. Even with a web applied.



And there's nothing the user can do to improve his damage output. Gunnery ships can maneuver to reduce transversal but missile boats are just dead in space.
Kara Trix
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1394 - 2013-11-13 23:33:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Kara Trix
This is a terrible idea and you are destroying the use of these weapons.

They will not be used for PVE at all now. No one in there right mind will fit these again if it takes a year to reload them (40 seconds is very much a year in EVE combat)

I have several toons skilled for RLML as they were wonderful weapons for the following reasons.

1) They hold 80 Missiles (That is fantastic) and you are making them only hold 18.... (Unusable, as is they insta popped PVE frigs, why more damage?)
2) They reload quickly (like 10 seconds) which is fair.... now it's going to 40 seconds (Crazy)

Wow,,, talk about a total and complete fail.

If anything, make a RLML variant that is called something else (unless I am reading this wrong already).

You are effectively removing this weapon from PVE use period.... and they will unlikely be used for PVP as well, due to the reload times.

I am blown away by this news..... what a complete fail.

Did I say FAIL enough times.........wait..... FAIL.. there now I am going to reskill for the already failed HML...
Kara Trix
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1395 - 2013-11-13 23:51:11 UTC
GallowsCalibrator wrote:
Lots of people not getting the potential of front-loaded dps against smaller targets in this thread I think.



if you want to make a Front loaded weapon, .... make a new one... don't keep killing missiles....wow!
Vypri
Doomheim
#1396 - 2013-11-14 00:13:13 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.

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

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



Guys, remember it takes a long time to skill for weapons, ships, etc.

RLML were the only good thing about Missiles for PVP.

They will no longer be used at all, so if the point was to remove them from game, looks like you're doing it the right way.

Why not make every weapons reload time as stupid as this idea..... it's like you're putting a BS weapon on a cruiser now.
I won't even comment on the charge capacity, since it's just another nail in the coffin.

Better sell all those Caracals, Cerbs, quick.... otherwise they're just good for scrap reprocessing now.
Elisk Skyforge
State War Academy
#1397 - 2013-11-14 00:14:18 UTC
How about implementing two firing mode for these launchers? Just like how bastion mod is activated, these launchers can activate their "rapid" mode with these new stats including 40 sec reload time penalty, while the "classic" mode is there if anyone wants to switch to and have the previous rapid launchers stats. I think everyone will be happy this way.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1398 - 2013-11-14 01:07:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
700+ DPS on a Tengu with RLMLs. Yeah, I'm cryin' my eyes out...
Just suck it up and adapt (it's not like you have a choice for the next 3 months anyway).

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#1399 - 2013-11-14 01:08:21 UTC
Kara Trix wrote:
This is a terrible idea and you are destroying the use of these weapons.

They will not be used for PVE at all now. No one in there right mind will fit these again if it takes a year to reload them (40 seconds is very much a year in EVE combat)

I have several toons skilled for RLML as they were wonderful weapons for the following reasons.

1) They hold 80 Missiles (That is fantastic) and you are making them only hold 18.... (Unusable, as is they insta popped PVE frigs, why more damage?)
2) They reload quickly (like 10 seconds) which is fair.... now it's going to 40 seconds (Crazy)

Wow,,, talk about a total and complete fail.

If anything, make a RLML variant that is called something else (unless I am reading this wrong already).

You are effectively removing this weapon from PVE use period.... and they will unlikely be used for PVP as well, due to the reload times.

I am blown away by this news..... what a complete fail.

Did I say FAIL enough times.........wait..... FAIL.. there now I am going to reskill for the already failed HML...


Wow another perfectly formed argument based on fact and testing to prove how much the new system is going to broken!

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#1400 - 2013-11-14 01:09:58 UTC
Vypri wrote:
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.

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

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



Guys, remember it takes a long time to skill for weapons, ships, etc.

RLML were the only good thing about Missiles for PVP.

They will no longer be used at all, so if the point was to remove them from game, looks like you're doing it the right way.

Why not make every weapons reload time as stupid as this idea..... it's like you're putting a BS weapon on a cruiser now.
I won't even comment on the charge capacity, since it's just another nail in the coffin.

Better sell all those Caracals, Cerbs, quick.... otherwise they're just good for scrap reprocessing now.



Meh indicidual weapons systems upt medium spec don't take that long in reality with a decently foccussed skill plan etc.

And once again another perfectly formed argument based on facts and a touch of whine at all here. Shocked

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.