These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1681 - 2013-11-17 21:04:13 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Would a 20-second reload time make them too OP, or would a combination of a 30-second reload time and increased ammunition be better?

PvP reasons aside, PvE needs old rapid launchers back. Nerf damage by 5%, nerf range by idk 20% but bring it back as it was.

You're miasing the point which is that rlml apply their damage nearly perfectly to every target regardless of speed. While their dps is relatively low at only 280 or so dps for a cruiser. . they are pushing that dps to 50km and hitting for full damage pretty much everu time. Now take heavy missiles and literally double the dps... 900dps over 50s is 45k damage dealt.. and the application of said damage is very good too...

50% dps increase is not "literally double", that would be 100%. You're the one missing the point.
Arthur Aihaken
Kenshin Academia.
Kenshin Shogunate.
#1682 - 2013-11-17 21:06:18 UTC
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Would a 20-second reload time make them too OP, or would a combination of a 30-second reload time and increased ammunition be better?

PvP reasons aside, PvE needs old rapid launchers back. Nerf damage by 5%, nerf range by idk 20% but bring it back as it was.

No, we're not nerfing anything.
The last thing we need is to go down the path of HMLs and end up with another marginal weapon system.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Thaddeus Eggeras
Urkrathos Corp
#1683 - 2013-11-17 21:08:44 UTC
True HMLs need fixed badly
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1684 - 2013-11-17 21:14:02 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Would a 20-second reload time make them too OP, or would a combination of a 30-second reload time and increased ammunition be better?

PvP reasons aside, PvE needs old rapid launchers back. Nerf damage by 5%, nerf range by idk 20% but bring it back as it was.

No, we're not nerfing anything.

It's already nerfed to the ground. I can't imagine anything worse than 40 seconds reload. Even deleting the weapon altogether wouldn't be as bad.
Arthur Aihaken
Kenshin Academia.
Kenshin Shogunate.
#1685 - 2013-11-17 21:16:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
You're miasing the point which is that rlml apply their damage nearly perfectly to every target regardless of speed. While their dps is relatively low at only 280 or so dps for a cruiser. . they are pushing that dps to 50km and hitting for full damage pretty much everu time. Now take heavy missiles and literally double the dps... 900dps over 50s is 45k damage dealt.. and the application of said damage is very good too...

it's not as simple as you suggest. Provided you use these weapons on the right targets you will melt them nearly every time. The long reload is to ensure you can't just sit there and wipe a whole gang solo.

1. Let's leave RHMLs out of this for the time being. They're an entirely new missile system, and they're going to be perfect as is (yes, even with the 40-second reload time).
2. It's unlikely that Rise is going to change RLMLs substantially from the new iteration. So I'll repeat the question: how do we fix these? Double the ammunition capacity and reduce the load time to 20 or 30 seconds?

Niena Nuamzzar wrote:
It's already nerfed to the ground. I can't imagine anything worse than 40 seconds reload. Even deleting the weapon altogether wouldn't be as bad.

You just suggested putting it back, reducing the damage by 5% and range by 20%! So no, I'd rather have the new weapon system than a neutered version of the old one.
Evil

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#1686 - 2013-11-17 21:18:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Zvaarian the Red
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Would a 20-second reload time make them too OP, or would a combination of a 30-second reload time and increased ammunition be better?

PvP reasons aside, PvE needs old rapid launchers back. Nerf damage by 5%, nerf range by idk 20% but bring it back as it was.

No, we're not nerfing anything.
The last thing we need is to go down the path of HMLs and end up with another marginal weapon system.


40s reload, 15-20% sustained DPS reduction, and ~40% PWG requirement increase isn't a nerf? Because you can now smear T1 frigs faster while being useless against everything else? Come on now.
Arthur Aihaken
Kenshin Academia.
Kenshin Shogunate.
#1687 - 2013-11-17 21:21:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
40s reload, 15-20% DPS nerf, and ~40% PWG isn't a nerf?

You want the old RLMLs back with a 5% damage and 20% range nerf?! Isn't 'adjusting' HMLs how we got into this mess in the first place?!

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Thaddeus Eggeras
Urkrathos Corp
#1688 - 2013-11-17 21:22:26 UTC
We have CCP pospone the release to the rapid chances, and have them take a real hard look into fixing them. Adding any reload time over 10sec for any weapon system is crazy and a slippery slope. There are other ways, I pointed out a pretty good way to fix the issue, it would need tested and adjusted but it would work, and I'm sure many others have had great ideas also. In a whole new missile luancher needed to be made fine, but I don't believe it does.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#1689 - 2013-11-17 21:23:52 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
40s reload, 15-20% DPS nerf, and ~40% PWG isn't a nerf?

You want the old RLMLs back with a 5% damage and 20% range nerf?!


I think a 5-10% damage nerf to light missiles and the PWG increase they implemented would've been perfect. It also would've also addressed light missile launchers which are widely considered to be a bit too good as well.
Arthur Aihaken
Kenshin Academia.
Kenshin Shogunate.
#1690 - 2013-11-17 21:29:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
I think a 5-10% damage nerf to light missiles and the PWG increase they implemented would've been perfect. It also would've also addressed light missile launchers which are widely considered to be a bit too good as well.

That's not a nerf, that's a minor adjustment. From what I understand, we were looking at a considerable RLML nerf and the current iteration was the alternative. Granted, this is just speculation - but since the new RLML version is quite radical I don't think it's a stretch to suggest we were going to see a substantial change one way or the other.

I think what everyone can agree on is that there should have been more of a discussion/dialog with RLMLs prior to any change.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#1691 - 2013-11-17 21:33:52 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
40s reload, 15-20% DPS nerf, and ~40% PWG isn't a nerf?

You want the old RLMLs back with a 5% damage and 20% range nerf?! Isn't 'adjusting' HMLs how we got into this mess in the first place?!


CCP overnerfs. That's what needs to stop. HMLs would be fine if they hadn't neutered their range, damage, and explosion radius all at once. Talk about overkill.
Arthur Aihaken
Kenshin Academia.
Kenshin Shogunate.
#1692 - 2013-11-17 21:35:12 UTC
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
CCP overnerfs. That's what needs to stop. HMLs would be fine if they hadn't neutered their range, damage, and explosion radius all at once. Talk about overkill.

I think we're seeing a trend here...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#1693 - 2013-11-17 21:39:06 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
I think a 5-10% damage nerf to light missiles and the PWG increase they implemented would've been perfect. It also would've also addressed light missile launchers which are widely considered to be a bit too good as well.

That's not a nerf, that's a minor adjustment. From what I understand, we were looking at a considerable RLML nerf and the current iteration was the alternative. Granted, this is just speculation - but since the new RLML version is quite radical I don't think it's a stretch to suggest we were going to see a substantial change one way or the other.

I think what everyone can agree on is that there should have been more of a discussion/dialog with RLMLs prior to any change.


CCP doesn't know how to balance in all honesty, and apparently your definition of "nerf" has been warped by their heavy-handedness. Game designers commonly use incremental 5-10% adjustments in game balance. It's the way to bring overpowered elements more in line rather than just making them underpowered instead.
Thaddeus Eggeras
Urkrathos Corp
#1694 - 2013-11-17 21:45:34 UTC
Rapid Missile Launcher Issues

The issues rapid launchers have are
1. They have amazing range, with the ability to do what close range guns and missiles and long range guns and missiles do in one.
2. A targets speed doesn’t affect the damage they do, in EVE every weapon is affected by speed.
3. They are a weapon system designed to work against smaller targets, while they do this; they also work just as well against targets of the same size, and sometimes even larger targets.

How to fix these issues
1. Have rapids use rockets and heavy assault missiles. This would fix the range issue but still on certain ships they would still have 20km to 30km range. This would also add to their explosion radius and take away from their explosion velocity, which is a big issue with them not being affected by speed.
2. They would need to have their rate of fire increased anywhere from 2 to 5 seconds to make sure they aren’t so effective against ships of the same size or larger.
3. Ships that use them Cruisers, Battlesruisers, and Battleships would need any bonuses they give to explosion radius or velocity not applied to rapid launchers.
4. Also the T2 missiles for rockets and heavy assault missiles will not make them OP like the T2 missiles did for heavy missiles and light missiles. As one is for higher damage at having less range and better explosion radius and the other adds range at less damage.

I believe this would fix a great deal of issues with rapids. It would need to be tested on SiSi, and adjusted as needed, but it would work. So CCP cancel the new rapid changes and hold them a till the next patch, and test out this theory and let's see if it doesn't fix the issues, I'd at least like to try something, anything else then adding to the reload time. Please like this if you rather have rapid changes pushed back to the next patch and looked more into!
Arthur Aihaken
Kenshin Academia.
Kenshin Shogunate.
#1695 - 2013-11-17 21:48:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
CCP doesn't know how to balance in all honesty, and apparently your definition of "nerf" has been warped by their heavy-handedness. Game designers commonly use incremental 5-10% adjustments in game balance. It's the way to bring overpowered elements more in line rather than just making them underpowered instead.

You just called a 5-10% change a "nerf". I called it an "adjustment". Now you're calling it an "adjustment" after criticizing my definition of "nerf". You sure you're firing on all cylinders today? Lol

The only real issue with RLMLs seemed to be their dominance, and it could be argued that nerfs to HAMs and HMLs contributed in no small way.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#1696 - 2013-11-17 21:55:45 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
CCP doesn't know how to balance in all honesty, and apparently your definition of "nerf" has been warped by their heavy-handedness. Game designers commonly use incremental 5-10% adjustments in game balance. It's the way to bring overpowered elements more in line rather than just making them underpowered instead.

You just called a 5-10% change a "nerf". I called it an "adjustment". Now you're calling it an "adjustment" after criticizing my definition of "nerf". You sure you're firing on all cylinders today? Lol


Nerf is just slang for negative adjustment. You're the one who seems to be making some arbitrary distinction between the two. A 5% reduction in dps is a nerf. So is a 20% reduction in dps. There are big nerfs and there are little nerfs, well unless you are CCP. They only do big nerfs for some reason.
Arthur Aihaken
Kenshin Academia.
Kenshin Shogunate.
#1697 - 2013-11-17 21:58:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
Nerf is just slang for negative adjustment. You're the one who seems to be making some arbitrary distinction between the two. A 5% reduction in dps is a nerf. So is a 20% reduction in dps. There are big nerfs and there are little nerfs, well unless you are CCP. They only do big nerfs for some reason.

If you've seen little 'nerfs' lately in EVE, I'd love to hear about it. All I've seen are massive rebalancing and things hit repeatedly with the whiffle bat... Which was basically my point: one way or the other we were going to see some radical changes to RLMLs. We've seen one facet with the latest iteration, and I can pretty much guarantee that a 5-10% DPS and power grid adjustment borders on fantasyland.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1698 - 2013-11-17 22:08:36 UTC
DHB WildCat wrote:
I swear you guys get hired by CCP and you lose touch with the game. Whats in the punch bowl up there?

The smaller sized missile launchers on larger sized ships are used to outlast a larger number of smaller ships. Paper DPS doesnt matter here. Applied DPS does. Just reduce the damage of the missiles. If a caracal wants to use large DPS against similar or larger ships he'll go with HAMS over RLML. The same will go for the raven using cruise missiles over heavy (lets be honest... torps are still broken and suck no one with a brain will ever use them)

Now the big purpse of the smaller weapons system is to be able to dictate the engagement. Its not about raping frigates in 5 seconds with high DPS light missiles. Its about applying constant and reliable damage to smaller targets over time. Give me 200 DPS over 1 minute with a 10 seconds reload, over 400 DPS in 30 seconds with a 40 second reload. This way I can defend myself constantly and stay fighting.

You guys need to remember the old film saying..... "Sometimes less is more". You dont need to "fix" everything by adding features.... maybe just reduce some stats once in a while if you find they are working "too well".


The biggest thing to take away from this... Is that constant applied DPS over the entire engagement is what we need to fight outnumbered. We dont need omg uber DPS for 50 seconds, then omg im F****** cant do anything for 40 seconds while this merlin that just caught me kills me. Or in a way Kil2 can relate..... sweet my Armageddon does 2k DPS for 40 seconds! 40 seconds later after fighting a mega that died and a tempest...... okay mega down, reloading for 40 seconds.... omg a curse just landed I need to get him off the field..... oh **** I have to wait 40 seconds and sit here like a moron while the curse eats my cap and now my active tank dies to the tempest......... but if I had lower dps that was constant I could have forced the curse off and still fought the mega and tempest.

Wild

Everything considered, this role should be HML one. RLML should not be a weapon to shoot at anything larger than a frigate. If you want steady dps to shoot all over the battlefield, HML should be the weapon, with fury for large targets, precision for smaller ones, and faction ammo for everything else.

Because let's be honest : RLML are better these days than HML at almost anything you can ask from HML (the exception being shooting large targets with fury) ; and any advantage HML could have is offset by the lower fitting or RLML allowing for huge tank.

That's what CCP realised in the first RHML thread : it's impossible to balance such weapons because there is too much overlap between RHML and Cruise and there's the same problem between RLML and HML, so they designed a new role for RLML, and I think it's interesting.
Arthur Aihaken
Kenshin Academia.
Kenshin Shogunate.
#1699 - 2013-11-17 22:10:35 UTC
Is there any reason we couldn't look at rebalancing LMLs, HAMs, HMLs and Torpedoes?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1700 - 2013-11-17 22:18:24 UTC
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:
We have CCP pospone the release to the rapid chances, and have them take a real hard look into fixing them. Adding any reload time over 10sec for any weapon system is crazy and a slippery slope. There are other ways, I pointed out a pretty good way to fix the issue, it would need tested and adjusted but it would work, and I'm sure many others have had great ideas also. In a whole new missile luancher needed to be made fine, but I don't believe it does.


This is a good idea