Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Ok look. Please consider this.

We have rapid launch with long reload times. Some have implied maybe some other sacrifice, like flight time.


So, how about we have the power to "script" these launcher. Yes, those people who started liking the rapid launchers after the change I'm sure are finding them to be great gank bays.

But not everybody ganks.


So please, if possible, let us script them. Let us decide how fast we want them to work, and that that be through scripts. Rapid launch? OK longer reloading time. Faster reloading time? Ok, lower rate of fire then. The longer reload time only dissatisfied some players and made others happy. So let the players decide, let the launchers be script-able.

Scripted Launchers are actually a good idea, I think Rise should consider it. On the other hand, Rise asks for specific causes or motive of why should we go back to old rlml or why the new one suck.
As every other antisupport weapon system, it must rely on the constant, precise and fast application of damage during all stages of the combat to be effective. RLML ARE MEANT TO BE AN ANTISUPPORT WEAPON, if you add a 40s reload timer you are basically being useless, how are you going to make a tactical decision according of the ships on field if you have to count with a 40s delay after killing 1 or 2 ships in the best scenario. In that time many things can happen, more ships can land on grid and the target you were shooting might not be the most appropiate to shoot; you can get scrammed, neuted, etc.
If you want to decrease the overall performance of rapid lights its acceptable, but don't create a whole new weapon system with a purpose that wasn't meant to be and call it like it "gives a new array of tactical choices" because it doesn't, it only lets you feel happy because you killed 1 frig and then you have to gtfo

Problem Identified: Ammo Swapping takes way, way too long, as pointed out by the community months ago.
Solution: Make ammo swapping only take way too long instead of way, way too long.

:CCP:

So, I take it we can expect a reasonable RLML by Rubicon 1.4? How's that SoE BS coming btw?

First of all:

Welcome back Rise,

The initial changes are a step in the right direction and i can understand why incremental changes are prefered instead of big major adjustments.



What i would like to know, now or right after Rubicon 1.1, is exactly what kind of options you guys have left for us on the table. I admit after unsticking the intial post, i was afraid that the missile issues had been postponed again. Missiles are a multifactored headache in terms of balancing, thus i believe that the earlier one can start a discussion of the options to adjust them the better, and more sound data you get from your response team (the players)



Thats exactly what one of the problems are. While in theory its nice to have a good working support weapon, it leaves ships who are specialized in missiles with one fewer option. Rapid missiles became popular because the other options were deemed inadequate for most people, or in most situations compared to the Rapid missile system.



The idea of burst dps is great. I do like the concept of the rapid fire, long reload option for missiles but, my main concern is that it replaces one of only 3 weaponsystems, without haveing a viable fallback. I prefere the old Rapid missile mechanic, because its a reliable steady stream of dps. What i would like NEXT to those option is the burst dps option, not designed to hit smaller targets, but designed to improve weapon system options. That would mean an new system designed for this. Not adapting a working weapon system to something most people don't want to use anymore, while at the same time not adressing the situation that made those people choose to go to this system.

Rapid missiles have existed for a long time, when i started playing back in 2007 they were already in the game. If they were so broken, why did we get it formatted only 6 years later? Why is it that it got picked over a weapon system that already has more Burst dps (Alpha) more range and a higher DPS in total?

Because of in real life situations this paper mechanic proved unuseful. Real situations showed concluseively that in the majority of fights you were better of with the Rapid missile system. Yes there are situations where the ham or heavy outshines the situation, and that you can predict when those situations happen. Guess what? in those situations people often chose a different ship already.

Forceing this change to our troats to me would feel the same as proclaiming: Medium Autocannons are to good to deal with frigates, so were going to have them have a longer reload time then artillery.

Imagine, just for a second how much upheave that would cause.



When exactly will that be? In most situations where reload time starts beeing an issue is in those times when your not blapping a single frigate or destroyer. With the increase of ammo capacity, youve reduced the likelyhood that we have to swap ammo when that first single frigate isn't dead yet, and de death gap of when we do have to reload has become slightly smaller. In the case of (especially ASB) cruisers the likelyhood of beeing able to kill it in one clip drasticly reduces. More importantly if the ASB cruiser thinks he can survive for 20 seconds (now 25 seconds) without haveing to use its ASB a smart ASB Cruiser will start reloading its ASB. Completly negateing ANY benefit the Rapid missile system has to offer.

Also on contrary to ECM, its not a matter IF we are getting jammed, but WHEN we are getting jammed. ECM while occasionally on the field isn't always on the field. While you occasionally getting targeted with ECM doesn't mean you always get targeted. ECM while able to jam you doesn't always jam you.

This version of Rapid missiles does. Its Always on the field, It Always targets you, and it Always successfully hits for 2 full cycles.



Because like many people pointed out over the more then 200 page treat when the first changes were announced that Heavy missiles are so broken, even with the bad parts of this launcher they still outperform them in 90% of the real situations.

I don't know. I liked the rapid lights. A caracel with rapid lights is not to be trifled with, but with interceptors becoming so powerful and the proliferation of intie gangs, I thought that a "frigate killer" ship, made possible by rapid lights, would be the ideal counter to that.

Scripting all missile bays would be nice - but so far we have rigs to alter their behavior so some would presume overkill? Not sure. But with rapid launchers being new to the game, and apparently their use at odd these days, I think being script-able so that players can choose how they operate would settle this conflict, a compromise between players who liked them the way they were and those who like them now.

Pretty much this. Reducing the capacity was not so bad. The 40 second reload time (or ammo swap) was just plain cruel.

I wonder if a compromise for reloading of :- 1 sec = 1 missile loaded, if the launcher holds 25 missiles it takes 25 seconds to load.
I would gladly give up flight time when using RLML / RHML for a faster reload. If I need to get in and do as much damage as possible in a short time (kill tacklers, bubblers, etc) I don't need 80km range.

Scripts for launchers could be;
- RLML load 20 missiles in 20 seconds minus 75% flight time (T2 launchers with Furies = approx 22km range)
- RLML load 20 missiles in 35 seconds with 100% flight time

I previously posted the numbers in another thread, but to quickly summarize: Reinstating the original RLML rate of fire, 10-second reload and retaining the current 18-ammo capacity is only *marginally* better than the Rubicon 1.1 version that CCP Rise has tabled. How much better? 2%. If we bump the ammo to 20 it's a 4% improvement.

So overpowered that its salves all around new eden dropped 48%? Its such a horrible system that we woudl probably kick any member of ours if it flew with those things.

I might not get it but why wouldn´t I just fit normal small missile launchers?

and still have the fitting bennefit?