These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 1.1] Rapid Missile Update

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#81 - 2014-01-21 17:45:42 UTC
Mizhir wrote:
Jean-Baptiste Zorginho wrote:

Since they don't do twice the damage and you still have the disadvantage of damage type (in your example, let's say you've chosen the 2 wrong damage types, still sucks to reload 40s on each group).

And not firing a gun 40s is still stupid, sorry but it is.


The old RLML was still OP.



What gives you that idea?


seriously, I'd love to understand what was so O.P. about them?

also because you tell one post earlier that 2 old ones couldn't braek the tank on a dual rep navy exeq.?
Morwennon
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#82 - 2014-01-21 17:45:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Morwennon
Mizhir wrote:
The old RLML was still OP.

That may be your opinion, but there are absolutely no objective data to justify it - before Rubicon 1.0, it was selling far less than other medium missile launcher types, and for that matter far less than other competing medium weapon systems. Likewise, the hulls that used RLMLs were selling at comparable rates to other hulls of their type and were never the most popular ships in their classes. Based on the aggregate opinion of the player base as reflected in the sales volume going through Jita, RLMLs were pretty unremarkable.
JEFFRAIDER
THIGH GUYS
#83 - 2014-01-21 17:47:29 UTC
Hey I said this last thread:

JEFFRAIDER wrote:


If the RLML stuff was like 21 charges and 30 second reload i think it'd be a very attractive solo/small gang option to pwn tackle/frig gangs

do it


take ur time
Connall Tara
State War Academy
Caldari State
#84 - 2014-01-21 17:54:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Connall Tara
Morwennon wrote:
Mizhir wrote:
The old RLML was still OP.

That may be your opinion, but there are absolutely no objective data to justify it - it was selling far less than other medium missile launcher types, and for that matter far less than other competing medium weapon systems. Likewise, the hulls that used RLMLs were selling at comparable rates to other hulls of their type and were never the most popular ships in their classes. Based on the aggregate opinion of the player base as reflected in the sales volume going through Jita, RLMLs were pretty unremarkable.



this is inaccurate sadly, if rapid lights were a weapon system with bonuses available to both cruisers AND battlecruisers, then there may be comparisons. however, the number of ships which make use of heavy missiles is significantly more substantial than those which can use rapid lights.

drakes alone horrendously skew this comparison as it stands :/

were it possible to determine how many heavy missiles went to battlecruiser and command ship class vessels separate from the ones which were used on cruisers you might have more grounds to make this claim, without that data however its not all that useful.

Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything"
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#85 - 2014-01-21 18:00:15 UTC
Rise, whether these changes go far enough remains to be seen, but we are appreciative that you are willing to mitigate some of the perceived problems with this weapon system.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Maxor Swift
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#86 - 2014-01-21 18:07:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Maxor Swift
So after the 200+ pages of feedback on the state of Rapid launchers all Rise comes back to us with is 5 seconds reduction in the reload and a tiny increase in capacity?

Really Rise Really?? This is your answer, you should have just left it these revisions are insulting.

We give you page after page of fixes to the problem (i problem only to you and some missile haters) and you give us 5 seconds.
Well you have obvisiosly mind up your mind that this is happening and screw what the players think why even bother making these posts.
CCP 5 seconds it is then.

Like i said before i want a refund on my Rapids skill points as they are now 100% unusable in PVE and almost 100% unusable in PVP.

"What you talking about willis"
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#87 - 2014-01-21 18:13:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
CCP Rise wrote:
Please focus on the part of the post where I said we considered bigger changes because of how people felt about the extended reload in general, but decided to make a tweak and wait for more data and feedback rather than reversing things too quickly.

If you want to help us out on this topic, try to give specific reasons or examples and then just hang in there and watch for updates heading into the next few months.

CCP Rise, thanks for the update. The problem is two-fold: First, extended reloads aren't fun. While 35-seconds and a slight ammunition increase are improvements, it's still difficult to manage in PvE - as iit affords larger targets the ability to replenish health and often limits application to frigates and cruisers that can be taken out in several volleys. PvP is another matter entirely… Second, light missiles are fairly slow - and combined with the rapid launchers high rate of fire, this typically results in a lot of wasted ammunition. There's also the ongoing issue of ammunition swaps, which is a nightmare in PvP.

Based on numerous discussions with other players, this is the counter-proposal that I'm putting forward.
• Change the reload time back to the original 10 seconds; this also solves ammunition swaps
• Reduce the rate of fire on RLMLs to the original 9.6 seconds, and 7.45 seconds for RHMLs (1st iteration)
• Retain the proposed ammunition capacity of 20 (RLML) and 25 (RHML)
• Retain the current fitting requirements (grid, CPU)

RLML Counterproposal

I have enclosed a chart that shows the original RLML in Odyssey, Rubicon 1.0, proposed changes in Rubicon 1.1 and the alternate proposal I'm putting forward. Thanks for your consideration.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Mizhir
Devara Biotech
#88 - 2014-01-21 18:14:42 UTC
Mike Whiite wrote:
Mizhir wrote:
Jean-Baptiste Zorginho wrote:

Since they don't do twice the damage and you still have the disadvantage of damage type (in your example, let's say you've chosen the 2 wrong damage types, still sucks to reload 40s on each group).

And not firing a gun 40s is still stupid, sorry but it is.


The old RLML was still OP.



What gives you that idea?


seriously, I'd love to understand what was so O.P. about them?

also because you tell one post earlier that 2 old ones couldn't braek the tank on a dual rep navy exeq.?


The old RLML could not only easily deal with frigs and dessies as it was designed for, but it was also very good against cruisers and somewhat good against larger. The paper dps aren't high, but the fact that they could do nearly full damage to anything within a rather large range (can't remember the number).

RLML caracals were very strong solo ships, and no matter how horrible you flew, you could still project a decent amount on damage on the target. And in small gangs their combined dps was able to wreck havock against much stronger forces. I still remember a fight I had where we were 6 caracals who attacked a 20-30 man nullsec defense force and still managed to break both scimis and battlecruisers while only losing a single caracal to a bombing run. I don't think we would have been able to do it with any other medium weapons. Because the only weakness of the old RLML was the low dps against large targets.

Navy Exeqs are beasts as dualrep. But I might be wrong when I said that 2 old RLML caracals couldn't break it on the long run. The new RLML still offers a better choice in killing active tanked stuff.

❤️️💛💚💙💜
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#89 - 2014-01-21 18:23:34 UTC
There's a common misconception that the old RLMLs were "OP". They were relatively good at applying damage to small and medium targets, which is as it should be - since this is a light weapon system after all. Missile players have typically far fewer choices for weapon systems than lasers, hybrids and projectiles - and the RLML and RHML filled these gaps nicely. If there was any problem with the original RLMLs it was that they had an insane ammunition capacity - somewhere around 85 for T2 launchers if memory serves me.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#90 - 2014-01-21 18:29:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrea Keuvo
CCP Rise wrote:
Hello

We were looking at a really wide range of options for these systems since the initial reaction was so negative, but over the last few weeks we started seeing more and more people adjust to using them and even start liking them



FYI - no one likes them and everyone would prefer you roll them back to pre-rubicon stats
Sigras
Conglomo
#91 - 2014-01-21 18:42:08 UTC
Have you thought of relating the reload time to the number of missiles needing to be reloaded?

Something like: reloading takes 10 seconds + 1 second for each missile the launcher is missing.

this would fix the ammo swapping problem, and it would reduce the pain in top-up reloading quite a bit . . .

thoughts?
Platypus King
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#92 - 2014-01-21 18:42:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Platypus King
This is a topic that has affected my gameplay hugely (in a negative way). However I feel changes in the right direction are being made.

The main things that come to mind for me is ammo swapping. The reason I use missiles is damage selection makes the lower dps than lasers and hybrids worth it. So I really look forward to ammo swap time.

Another thing is when RLML were reworked so were there fitting, making it impossible to effectively fit an XLASB on anything but a cerb. If the goal is burst damage with high reload that mocks the ASB gameplay it should mock the ASB gameplay completely and be able to fit a decent burst tank. I believe that would make RLML a very high speed choice that is effective for quick hit and runs.

Lastly with RLML changes I think on the cruiser hulls that previously used them it would make sense to take a second look at their drone bays. Most cruisers have a way out of frigate fights, be it neuts drones or constant dps from close range guns. I think it would make sense to have a bit of constant dps in the form of a single flight of light drones or the choice for a flight of ec-300s. Since all but the navy osprey lack any type of utility slots
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#93 - 2014-01-21 18:45:04 UTC
I don't think the old RLML was OP as such. I think the problem was more that it was so easy to fit, meaning that you could whack on a decent tank as well, such as an XLASB on a Cerb, for example. But the extra PG fixed that problem.

Also part of the problem was that HMLs are trash, making it not attractive to up-missile from RLMLs to HMLs. The HML nerf was justified when LR med turrets were rubbish, but not any longer.
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#94 - 2014-01-21 18:46:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Whiite
Mizhir wrote:




What gives you that idea?


seriously, I'd love to understand what was so O.P. about them?

also because you tell one post earlier that 2 old ones couldn't braek the tank on a dual rep navy exeq.?

The old RLML could not only easily deal with frigs and dessies as it was designed for, but it was also very good against cruisers and somewhat good against larger. The paper dps aren't high, but the fact that they could do nearly full damage to anything within a rather large range (can't remember the number).

RLML caracals were very strong solo ships, and no matter how horrible you flew, you could still project a decent amount on damage on the target. And in small gangs their combined dps was able to wreck havock against much stronger forces. I still remember a fight I had where we were 6 caracals who attacked a 20-30 man nullsec defense force and still managed to break both scimis and battlecruisers while only losing a single caracal to a bombing run. I don't think we would have been able to do it with any other medium weapons. Because the only weakness of the old RLML was the low dps against large targets.

Navy Exeqs are beasts as dualrep. But I might be wrong when I said that 2 old RLML caracals couldn't break it on the long run. The new RLML still offers a better choice in killing active tanked stuff.


First thanks for the serious reply.

I will not deny the Caracal was a good ship with RLML, if that makes RLML O.P. is an other question.

It could mean the Caracal is O.P.
I believe it was Gipso that made a case about the gang links causing much of the problems.

it also not that high in the most used weapons list in eve kill.


And even if, if it was over powered, that doesn't mean there is a need remove the entire mechanic an bring in something entirly different.

especialy with the other missile systems in sucha mess as they are now compared to turrets.
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
#95 - 2014-01-21 18:50:10 UTC
I think what CCP needs to decide is this: Is this a weapon designed to fight smaller ships, IE: Frigate hunting caracal. Or is it designed to be a volley weapon like artillery, where you unload a lot of ammo onto a target really fast, but then have to wait to fire again? I don't think you can exactly have it both ways and that's what it feels like to me now.

In my opinion, you need to about quadruple the ROF and ammunition capacity of these launchers, in order to make up for the long reload time. You want a hit and run weapon, give us a hit and run weapon. Give us a real macross missile massacre weapon. Where you do tons of damage and might very well wipe out a target in the first volley, but if you don't, you're going to be hard pressed trying to survive until the next one. If each volley is poweful enough, you can even increase the reload time up to a full minute, and have it still work well.

Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#96 - 2014-01-21 19:01:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
Platypus King wrote:
This is a topic that has affected my gameplay hugely (in a negative way). However I feel changes in the right direction are being made.

The main things that come to mind for me is ammo swapping. The reason I use missiles is damage selection makes the lower dps than lasers and hybrids worth it. So I really look forward to ammo swap time.

Another thing is when RLML were reworked so were there fitting, making it impossible to effectively fit an XLASB on anything but a cerb. If the goal is burst damage with high reload that mocks the ASB gameplay it should mock the ASB gameplay completely and be able to fit a decent burst tank. I believe that would make RLML a very high speed choice that is effective for quick hit and runs.

Lastly with RLML changes I think on the cruiser hulls that previously used them it would make sense to take a second look at their drone bays. Most cruisers have a way out of frigate fights, be it neuts drones or constant dps from close range guns. I think it would make sense to have a bit of constant dps in the form of a single flight of light drones or the choice for a flight of ec-300s. Since all but the navy osprey lack any type of utility slots


Agreed. Caldari cruisers lack utility/drones for defense. That is the issue for Caldari and rlml. This is something I mentioned in the original rlml thread. would adding a few drones help? Sure, but people will still cry about the reload since they fail to understand the new concept.

Ammo swap isn't a big deal to me. I generally have a good idea what ill be fighting thanks to this revolutionary tool called d-scan, or scouting around. Yes it needs to be fixed, but isn't the end all for rlml.

Yes I solo with a rlml scyfi and belli. I've fought single or multiple frigs, never had an issue. If there's incoming blob, I OH mwd and gtfo

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Jureth22
State War Academy
Caldari State
#97 - 2014-01-21 19:02:17 UTC
this update doesnt help.the reload time is still too big,and the magazine isnt nowhere big enough.either decrease the reload time or increase the magazine.

p.s : heavy missiles suck,thats the main prober of rapid heavy launchers
Anomaly One
Doomheim
#98 - 2014-01-21 19:04:06 UTC
1 frustrating example is missions, with the change of RLML in rubicon they are completely obsolete in missions.

Never forget. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8sfaN8zT8E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l_ZjVyRxx4 Trust me, I'm an Anomaly. DUST 514 FOR PC
Mizhir
Devara Biotech
#99 - 2014-01-21 19:06:25 UTC
Mike Whiite wrote:


First thanks for the serious reply.

I will not deny the Caracal was a good ship with RLML, if that makes RLML O.P. is an other question.

It could mean the Caracal is O.P.
I believe it was Gipso that made a case about the gang links causing much of the problems.

it also not that high in the most used weapons list in eve kill.


And even if, if it was over powered, that doesn't mean there is a need remove the entire mechanic an bring in something entirly different.

especialy with the other missile systems in sucha mess as they are now compared to turrets.



Hmm, good points. And Gypsio also had some good points with the PG.

Caracals weren't the only ships that was strong with the RLML. The Cerb and ScytheFI was beasts as well.

However the new RLML system opens up for new possibilities and interesting gameplay so I still think they shouldn't trash it. Instead they should work on bringing the HAM and HML back in line again.

❤️️💛💚💙💜
I am disposable
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#100 - 2014-01-21 19:19:40 UTC
They are still going to suck and are going to remain infuriating to use, just slightly less so. I wish I could say I'm surprised by this weak attempt to fix what was a massive overnerf, but I'm not.