These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1701 - 2013-11-17 22:25:13 UTC
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:
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!


Some good ideas here. I'm confused when you said " targets speed doesn’t affect the damage they do". Speed of the target can reduce the damage by a missile. There's even a skill to minimize this. Unless rapid launchers get some special bonus to this?
Thaddeus Eggeras
Urkrathos Corp
#1702 - 2013-11-17 22:35:39 UTC
With RMLs the m/s of cruisers doesn't affect the damage that the cruier takes, with speed or none RLMs do the same damage per volley. The test I did with RLMs and HAMs showed this, the RML never change the amount of dmage they did no matter the speed of cruiser. Sorry I should have explained that better
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1703 - 2013-11-17 22:50:34 UTC
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:
With RMLs the m/s of cruisers doesn't affect the damage that the cruier takes, with speed or none RLMs do the same damage per volley. The test I did with RLMs and HAMs showed this, the RML never change the amount of dmage they did no matter the speed of cruiser. Sorry I should have explained that better


Ah that makes sense. I think the intent is for RLML to be used against frigates and destroyers and RHML to be used against cruisers and battlecruisers.

Either way I think the rocket/ assault missile idea is what CCP needs to look at. It sounds like they want massive short burst of damage so that would be the way to go. I think someone in CCP came up with this idea and no thought was put into how this would work. I can understand a dev coming up with this idea but his fellow devs should have reviewed it and gave some input. This fiasco could have been avoided.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#1704 - 2013-11-17 22:57:13 UTC
I've yet to see a single set of numbers that shows that the popularity of RLML was anything other than a result of the utter destruction of HML as a weapon system.

For gods sakes, if they were THAT awesome, HML wouldn't have been the golden children even before the nerfs.

If you want to see weapons in use other than light missiles, make bigger ones viable.


That being said - a new system like this has merit, but damnit not at the expense of existing systems. I'd like to see ideas like this expanded, really heavy front loaded DPS, including guns with long reloads alongside existing weapons, not instead of them.
Thaddeus Eggeras
Urkrathos Corp
#1705 - 2013-11-17 22:59:30 UTC
Ilshira,

I'm beginning to like you haha. I understand people hate the idea of less range and what not, but ANYTHING is better then 40secs reload time. And with some ships the Rapid rocket launchers and rapid assault missile launchers would still hit 20km to 30km or so out.
I agree that not much thought was put into this 40secs idea. It seems kinda the trend lately with CCP to find the fast easy way instead of the best way. I hope they go back to finding the best way to fix issues and to bring new things into EVE>
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#1706 - 2013-11-17 23:08:06 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I've yet to see a single set of numbers that shows that the popularity of RLML was anything other than a result of the utter destruction of HML as a weapon system.

For gods sakes, if they were THAT awesome, HML wouldn't have been the golden children even before the nerfs.

If you want to see weapons in use other than light missiles, make bigger ones viable.


That being said - a new system like this has merit, but damnit not at the expense of existing systems. I'd like to see ideas like this expanded, really heavy front loaded DPS, including guns with long reloads alongside existing weapons, not instead of them.


Well really it's hams/torps/rockets that should be the burst firing mods yes?
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1707 - 2013-11-17 23:12:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Bouh Revetoile
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:
I agree that not much thought was put into this 40secs idea. It seems kinda the trend lately with CCP to find the fast easy way instead of the best way. I hope they go back to finding the best way to fix issues and to bring new things into EVE>

Actually each time Rise came with an inovative concept people screamed in fear and rage before he fall back on a more conservative idea.

PS : the idea of making short range missiles the rapid ones is not good IMO, because they will then compare directly to short range turrets and be either better or worse. Making everything similar is not good.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1708 - 2013-11-17 23:12:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Well really it's hams/torps/rockets that should be the burst firing mods yes?

No. Let's not turn a single falling object into numerous ones...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#1709 - 2013-11-17 23:15:15 UTC
Not imo, burst fire should be a new module choice and not existing modules made into it.

Personally I'd rather missiles were sorted out in general before full module changes like this, they're in a right old state and whilst they "work" on a number of levels you cant help but feel they "work" almost in spite of themselves.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#1710 - 2013-11-17 23:24:43 UTC
For all the close attention that he was allegedly paying to this thread, has anyone seen Rise in the last few days since he told us this was happening whether or not we wanted it and despite it not being a fully formed idea?
Someone check the outhouse, he might be out digging for his next big idea.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#1711 - 2013-11-17 23:24:44 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
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.


Unfortunately I agree with that. I was arguing for what should've happened though, not whether or not CCP would be willing to go that route. Personally, I'm thinking some people need to be replaced in the balance department to be honest. Good game balance, especially with old, established games is all about subtlety and incremental adjustments. CCP seems to have never gotten that memo.
Thaddeus Eggeras
Urkrathos Corp
#1712 - 2013-11-17 23:25:15 UTC
The idea of rapid launchers are to kill smaller targets, like the smallest close range guns are ment to go, Dual 180mm, Eletrons, Focus, etc so being compared is fine. They still aren't equal, as missiles take in signature radius much more then guns do. I think this would work, and it is a MUCH better idea then 40secs reload. For rapid this fixed 99% of the OP issues and done right they will do what they are made to do. And the range isn't going to be just crazy close, still will be around 10km and with some ships up to 20km to 30km. Guns and missiles will always have people bitching that one is better then the other, that's EVE, but this will take the bitching down a good deal, and I doubt they will be as affective as guns in some ways, and same the other way around.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1713 - 2013-11-17 23:25:57 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
For all the close attention that he was allegedly paying to this thread...

Surely you jest...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#1714 - 2013-11-17 23:26:05 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
For all the close attention that he was allegedly paying to this thread, has anyone seen Rise in the last few days since he told us this was happening whether or not we wanted it and despite it not being a fully formed idea?
Someone check the outhouse, he might be out digging for his next big idea.


I think it's clear that their call for feedback was just to create the illusion they give a **** about our opinions. Clearly they don't really. This thread has made that abundantly clear.
Thaddeus Eggeras
Urkrathos Corp
#1715 - 2013-11-17 23:33:08 UTC
I hope CCP reads all this, I didn't come up with my plan easy. I first tested HAMs against RMLs, and that helped me see the OP issues with them, then I went through all the different missiles and saw that rockets and HAMs would work well as rapids if adjusted right. My plan might not be the best but it's 100 times better then 40secs reload, and I'm hoping CCP will see it and improve on it to make rapids something useful.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1716 - 2013-11-17 23:34:10 UTC
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
Unfortunately I agree with that. I was arguing for what should've happened though, not whether or not CCP would be willing to go that route. Personally, I'm thinking some people need to be replaced in the balance department to be honest. Good game balance, especially with old, established games is all about subtlety and incremental adjustments. CCP seems to have never gotten that memo.

I think we can both completely agree on that point. I wasn't even aware RLMLs were on the radar for review, to be honest. For some strange reason RLMLs got lumped in with the introduction of RHMLs, which is unfortunate - because the "fix" for RHMLs (which again is bizarre, because there was zero indication of any issues with the first iteration of RHMLs in the original thread). I suggested (as did others) that changes to RLMLs simply be put off until Rubicon 1.1 in 3 months. Heck, with the number of Dust-related patches it's not like they couldn't implement a change or two along with a minor patch, either.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#1717 - 2013-11-17 23:40:56 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
For all the close attention that he was allegedly paying to this thread, has anyone seen Rise in the last few days since he told us this was happening whether or not we wanted it and despite it not being a fully formed idea?
Someone check the outhouse, he might be out digging for his next big idea.


Whatever Rise is doing, I imagine he's likely doing it away from this thread. To be sure, I haven't seen him post at all since the last thing he said in here.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#1718 - 2013-11-17 23:47:18 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
For all the close attention that he was allegedly paying to this thread, has anyone seen Rise in the last few days since he told us this was happening whether or not we wanted it and despite it not being a fully formed idea?
Someone check the outhouse, he might be out digging for his next big idea.


Whatever Rise is doing, I imagine he's likely doing it away from this thread. To be sure, I haven't seen him post at all since the last thing he said in here.


I don't expect him to post again in this thread. His last response basically amounted to "You guys are idiots and I am consciously deciding to ignore your arguments against my idea. Deal with it."
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1719 - 2013-11-17 23:49:17 UTC
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:
So rapids are OP slightly, but to fix the range issues, explosion radius, explosion velocity, change rapids to HAMs and rockets, and add 2s to 3s to thier RofF compared to what heavy assault launcher and rocket launchers do now and everything is fixed. Their range is much less, explosion radius is more, explain velocity is less and taking a couple seconds from RofF will keep their DPS in check. Don't allow cruisers, BCs or BS to give their explosion bonuses to rapids. Also rockets still won't get the range or DPS HAMs would, and HAMs wouldn't get the DPS torps would, meaning rapids will be used mostly for smaller targets like they are suppose to be/ If adjusted right,it will work.

I'm resurrecting your earlier post with respect to RHMLs to make a few points.

• Heavy assault missile - 100 damage, 0.015 m3 volume, 125m explosion radius and 101 m/sec explosion velocity.
• Heavy missiles - 135 damage, 0.0 m3 volume, 140m explosion radius and 81 m/sec explosion velocity.

If you swapped heavy missiles for heavy assault missiles, you'd double ammunition capacity, increase explosion radius by 12%, explosion velocity by 35% - but reduce damage by 35% and range by almost 75%. The range reduction alone would kill RHMLs as an effective weapons platform, and they'd be further ahead running HMLs. So no, insofar as RHMLs are concerned this is an absolutely horrible idea. I also think you're misinformed on battleship missiles bonuses for RHMLs: all they receive is damage and rate of fire (no velocity, explosion radius or explosion velocity).

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Thaddeus Eggeras
Urkrathos Corp
#1720 - 2013-11-17 23:57:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Thaddeus Eggeras
[quote ]I'm resurrecting your earlier post with respect to RHMLs to make a few points.

• Heavy assault missile - 100 damage, 0.015 m3 volume, 125m explosion radius and 101 m/sec explosion velocity.
• Heavy missiles - 135 damage, 0.0 m3 volume, 140m explosion radius and 81 m/sec explosion velocity.

If you swapped heavy missiles for heavy assault missiles, you'd double ammunition capacity, increase explosion radius by 12%, explosion velocity by 35% - but reduce damage by 35% and range by almost 75%. The range reduction alone would kill RHMLs as an effective weapons platform, and they'd be further ahead running HMLs. So no, insofar as RHMLs are concerned this is an absolutely horrible idea. I also think you're misinformed on battleship missiles bonuses for RHMLs: all they receive is damage and rate of fire (no velocity, explosion radius or explosion velocity). [/quote]


You are right, so that makes them not OP and depending on ship speed with depnd on damage per volley, which makes them what? Not OP. Right now RMLs do the same amount of damage per volley no matter the target ships speed. (Check my test) The range reduction isn't anything crazy, it would be at the least 10km, and with Cerb, Caracel 20km to 30km, I think that is MORE then enough, so disruptors hit 24km. Really BS don't get explonsion velcoity, maybe look at the Golem, explosion radiu CNR. This does nothing BUT fix the issues rapids have now, and makes them work for the role they are made for. And if we are lucky takes this crazy 40sec idea away. So this is not a horrible idea, it's an idea that would work IF you read all my input on it, and went hrough my testing. This could work, will it ned to be adjusted, I'm sure it will but that's why SiSi is there. To test and to fix issues before hitting the real server. But as you rather argue with everyone on this post instead of trying to find away to fix the rapids have at it I guess.

Quote:

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.