Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I still think the base theme for these launchers is off and that killing smaller classes of ships should never be only viable if the launchers are used as main weapon systems.

What would work is sacrificing one normal DPS high slot for something that can handle smaller classes very well. Restricting fits to one such module doesn't overpower anything, especially if the module does similar DPS as a class matching weapon system, but with much better damage application to the smaller classes of ships.

That solution wouldn't cause balancing issues, it just shifts damage application ability. To accomplish bursts, we already have overheating and you could tune that per module as you like. Keep it simple, have separate variables to tune for separate aspects of damage application, nicely isolated. The current solution tangles everything up in one unmanageable mess and every change hurts somewhere.!

The current approach is costing too many resources and it is good to take a step back and rethink it!

In the original discussion about rapid launchers, that is very much ongoing, I thought that you were just butthurt that people didn't like your s*&%tty idea. Now I know for a fact that you referring to 300+ pages of complaining about your changes as something most people haven't heard about, with you only commenting every 50 pages or so, is clear proof that its deeper than that. I'm thoroughly convinced that you are either suffering from a chemical imbalance in the brainz or suffering from what we over in the states refer to as the " Tea Party Syndrome". It is characterized by a patient having an acute denial of the truth, telling lahs, misrepresenting clear facts to support their own views just to name a few. For instance, someone suffering from said syndrome as your self would deny eating a co workers sandwich when they turned their back and storm out of the room when another co worker shows raw footage of that person eating said sandwich, all the while declaring a conspiracy. Congratz, your fan base has lost confidence in you.

The problem was never rml's, it was your ****** missile code change that rendered hams subpar and heavies unable to inflict damage to anything smaller than a pos. You guys seem to take forever to do anything, and when you do it you always f--K something else up in attempt to fix or "balance" another. Making minor changes every other release is not a good business practice. Better get your s@#t together, because eventually someone else is going to get an idea and they are going to do it better than you. 10+years of more or less the same thing= FAIL

If my bellicose can kill frigs with rlml, your Caracal should as well. Never said I was an elite pvp'r, but I seem to grasp missile concepts better than most missile users.

This brings up a good point though. All I ever see are complaints from Cal pilots. Perhaps the caracal and cerb should be looked at for some tweaking.

I fought against triple lse rlml caracal often in null. I find it odd a t1 cruiser could hit my vagabond perfectly out to 60 to 80km and still having a 30k ehp tank. And still put out decent dps. And still blap frigs without problem. See anything wrong here? There is no risk with the old rlml. Now frigs can actually have a window to kill you, and not be rofl stomped.

It is hard to shake the impression that RMLs are being envisaged as a useful way of filling the spare left over missile slots on sniping turret based ships rather than being a useful weapon in their own right.

So a doomsday device for battleships?
Yeah, as much as it sounds like a great idea and would probably be a lot of fun to use, I don't see any possibility of CCP giving us anything close to that.

Good idea though


Mournful, I think you missed his point. He was talking about it as a support weapon, so only 1 used together with, possibly cruise missiles.

Benefit of Minmater and Amarr missile boats is that they have HUGE dronebays. Are you useing RLML ? no problem, have Hammerheads with you, and if you encounter cruisers, you can still do stuff. Are you useing Ham or HML? no problem, load Warriors or Hobgoblins and you can still fend off small stuff. For those ships the RLML changes hurt less then on the caldari hulls that have 10 mbit drone bays.

As for you vagabond: Kinetic damage is generally the weakest point of a vagabond. So its true that compared to other ships it does good damage vs a vagabond. Changeing a working weapon system to "let frigs have a window to kill you" can also be applied to Autocannons. How much trouble does your vagabond have against frigs? Autocannon ships have been dominateing against frigate sized for years. Your advocateing that a missile nerf is warranted just because you had to actually fight against a caracal instead of rofl stomp it like before?

Fact is that if you really wanted too you can tripple LSE a vagabond as well, put 220's on it and you get a 38 km range with Barrage, while haveing 45k effective hp. (1,5x the caracal) Has a 140 more dps (250 more dps if you count reloads), is capstable (the caracal isn't) and does 600 m/s more. (also noteworthy, if the caracal has to chase you (wich it can't) you can outfly its missiles a lot, with a max of 3.5km/s overheated on the standard vagabond, its 7.5 km flight time allows you to travel 26 km, wich needs to be deducted of its only 63km range (not 60-80) makeing its effective range only 37 km. WICH IS WITHIN your 220 falloff. )

Plus if you want to get close, you can increase the damage even more. (300 dps more vs its burst 400 dps more includeing reloads)

I dare anyone to name me one single attack or combat line cruiser that can't beat the caracal in some or all of it stats, even if ALL the changes were reversed. (i am in favor the increased fittings btw)

The only thing why everyone is screaming bloody murder is due to their inability to adept to a 10% increase of a missile system thats been around for YEARS.

I'm sorry but i'm getting sick and tired of everyone shouting OP because for the first time in a decade a T1 caldari cruiser hull wich is not a blackbird can actually be used effectively in a single role. Because THATS what were talking about. Its effective in shooting Frigates, Destroyers and MAYBE cruisers. Gun and Drone ships have been able to do multiple roles and targets with the same fittings for Years.

I wouldn't call 25m3 huge, as that is generally what most minmatar ships have, except belli/huggin and a few others which have the oddball 40m3. However, this is what i've already mentioned in the previous RLML thread (theres a nice little comparison there, and it shows the caracal is better at everything but drones). Caldari ships need some more drones, otherwise they are specifically the fleet and pve faction (which may be intended, idk). Solo wise, they are a bit more difficult to work with. Not impossible, but more difficult.



I generally fill the kinetic hole on my vaga, always have as it serves 2 purposes, defending a against caldari kinetic, and gallente kinetic.

It cannot be applied to autocannons, autocannons miss and have fall-off, missiles do not. If a frig is within 1-5km of me, orbiting while i'm tackled, theres a good chance i won't be able to hit him, as my guns will be missing a majority of the time. Granted I have some wiggle room here, using the medium neut , or switching to titanium sabot as a last resort hoping to compensate on tracking. All of which have no impact on our discussion, which is about RLML, not hull fittings. What all does an RLML fit have to do in this scenario? OH top rack and wait?

So once again, this seems to be more of a caldari problem than RLML problem. No utility high, and lack of drones.



Please tell me how i intend to pvp with 3 LSE's and a MWD and no point? You would be insane to put 3 LSE's on a vaga solo, unless you like your targets warping away. Only 4 mids on a vaga.

So, you're pointing out (using current stats, not old RLML stats) that a t1 cruiser is worse than a t2 HAC? Who'd have guessed it? You're missing the point. A t1 cruiser could easily harass a t2 cruiser off field, or potentially kill it without much effort.

Old vagabond with double LSE, MWD and point had cap life of 1:30-1:45s roughly. Very close to the caracal. Meanwhile that lovely 37KM fall-off (that needs 2 TE's to achieve mind you) means i'm doing 237dps (with the chance to miss) with barrage if i'm constantly buzzing around and avoiding your missiles. Also meaning i'm most likely capped out shortly after the fight. Double LSE and some shield rigs mean you hit for your maximum dps with RLML regardless of what i do out to 63KM (my mistake, wasn't at my computer when i typed that). Yes, i said 63KM, because that scenario was with an old vagabond, before RLML change and HAC buff. So the chances of my capping out were very good in those fights. It actually happened in a caracal fight where i capped out because i was trying to avoid missiles.



Which stats do you mean? Stats vary depending on fitting.



As i've said in the past in the previous RLML thread, to much disgust btw, think of missiles as a Damage over time effect, if you're in their range, you take damage. You can mitigate some of that damage with a/b's and speed. But, its always there. Maybe in extreme cases you can achieve 0 damage to a missile hit.. maybe like a torpedo against an a/b daredevil. So, add 10% damage to a light missile that hits very well against cruisers and frigs, and now you've upped that DoT by 10% and theres not much you can do about it. You've made a weapon that perform great against 2 different ship sizes, therefore reducing the risk on your end. Guns can miss, frigs can setup an orbit that guns cannot track, and then they kill your drones, so then we're stuck sitting there, waiting to die. You can try to get transversal back, but against web/scram, it'll be hard to recover unless the frig pilot fucks up.

Explain to me how a small frig gang(3-5) would engage old RLML caracal without dying? Its basically saying.. ok, we're going to lose a few guys (maybe all) to 1 ship, regardless of how well we plan this attack.

Some of ya'll really need to understand burst dps. Its great for over powering healers and reps. Like alpha only without the 12, second cycle times on 1400s. Rlml was op as it was. This is a great change. Unfortunate for the ammo swap. If rlml gets insta swap ammo, can arties and auto cannons get that too plz? Just to make a point. Rlml had it good for a longd time. So did Minnie ship, but the balance happened. Less shinning and actual feed back.

I dont like that the Minnie ship that is bonused for rlml has a target painter bonus, as rlml is already very effective against small targets it feels partially useless. Intact I still think the Minnie t1 ships need a new seat bonus as target painters as still not widely used outside of stealth bombers and ravens/Coleman/cnr

Sorry for auto correct. Will fix when I get to a pc.... If I remember.

Problem is that nobody flying a caracal feels like there is another option. Its an attack line cruiser, designed to tackle stuff (ideally) that means that you have to get close to the target, wich means you generally get shot at more. In such case you want to have your mandatory tackle and then as big as tank as you can get. For missiles that means toneing down to RLML

If you've succesfully tackled something, then yes, Ham can deploy more dps then RLML's but the tradeoff is such a huge buffer difference. that its not deemed worthwile.

If you set it up for fleet with no tackle, you run in entirely different problems. Ham without web (and paint) does virtually no damage to targets especially if you compare it with RLML's. The buffer difference is still the same, except at longer ranges, you can't apply your damage verry well. Same goes for HML, its range is great, its alpha is decent, but its damage application is so abysmal that except when you go against battlecruisers or higher your better off useing the RLML. In fact the RLML is almost on par with the applied dps against Battlecruisers. You can still fit more tank then with HML as well.

For most common situations, if you want to fly a caracal, the RLML is hands down the best choice. If HML or Hams are better in such a situation, its often that a Drake will be FAR superior in that situation.

As for the Bellicose:

The bellicose is a prelude to a recon ship, its a disruption type class of ship, wich in all intends of purposes is designed to let your fleet deal better with small targets. In case in the fleetsetup, except when the FC would ask for a minimum range that can't be reached with light missiles, your role is to help deal with -SMALL- Targets. The RLML is designed to deal with -SMALL- targets. The entire design already shouts RLML without even haveing to check if there actually better or worse then other options, because that should be your designated role.

In general:

Current Missile selection is poor for medium sized hulls. If you expect to fight Cruisers or below, go RLML, if you expect to fight Battlecruiser up Go Ham or HML. T1 cruisers like the Bellicose and Caracal, don't match up against Combat battlecruisers. In an somewhat even remotely fair fight, They should, and will run from battlecruisers.

I'm sorry but i truelly feel that on cruiser hulls you currently don't have the choice to choose one of the other options. Also keep in mind that the Battlecruisers do not have any RLML bonuses. For them, the entire meta is completely different.

If you take "Jita sales" as a referance point, the drake, Prophecy and Cyclone are still popular ships. Since they have no RLML bonuses Ham and HML makes still more sence. They also require more launchers then a Cruiser. "Jita Sales" showing % of launchers sold can't factor in how many actually go on cruiser or battlecruiser hulls.

I would be verry intrested if CCP could give us data of how many Cruisers actually are useing wich weapon system

---

Wich bring up the RLML and why I think the Burst weapon system should become a new weapon system. and the Rapid Light Missile should get different ammo.

You have a weaponsystem, that is designed to deal with a ship size, thats the role of another Ship Class, Destroyers.
To me Rapid Launchers, giving up damage and range to deal with smaller targets makes sense. However, smaller then Cruiser to me means dealing with Destroyers, not with Frigates. That role is intended for the Destroyers. In that regard, yes i think the Rapid missile launcher is OP because it targets a class size, it shouldn't be intended for. That can ONLY be solved by switching the ammo of the RLML to a new specificly designed to be optimized for Destroyer size ships. It will still be the best weapon against frigates, but would lose about 30% in efficiency against frigates compared to Destroyers.

Second you have the intentions of Makeing a Burst weapon. The idea is great, but adapting the current itteration of rapid launchers is a poor choice for that. First of all, it replaces (not tweaks or modifies but plainly replaces) the current launcher. Leaveing the missile choices with one fewer (medium sized) or one more (large sized) option. Because it Replaces a system, instead of beeing added to it, the response is so negative. Its not that we don't WANT a burst weapon. Its that we don't want our current selection changed. Guns have 6 different sized weapons in each of the size ranges. That allows enormeous flexibility in the matter of chooseing for fitting requirements, intended targets, most likely combat situation, and range. Next to the Guns you also have Ammo that allows you for even more flexibility with Range, and damage application. And finally you have Modules that can further enhance range and damage applications.

Missiles have 2 small options, 3 medium options, and now 3 large options. This means missile users have a lot less choice for fitting selection, range selection, or damage application with the weapon system. They have fewer types of ammo, drasticly reducing the amount of options for range and damage application again. And furthermore they have a lot less modules that allow range and damage applications.

Changeing a weapon system this drasticly (+300% increased reload time, -75% Ammo capacity, Rate of fire adjustments and fitting adjustments) all in one go with rougly 2 weeks of public testing, on the weapon type that already had by far the fewest options available, is an irresponsible idea.

It would have been less irresponsible to remove rapid launchers from the game temporarily while internal an public testing underwent trials.

No nothing wrong there, because you can do the same with turrets under slightly different conditions. For example.. take a navy omen.

On the need to check caldari ships...nope not at all. The complains come from caldari pilots because caldari is the race with less PG on their ships, therefore the race that benefit most from the reduced fittings of the rapid launchers.. HAMS are too hard to fit on caldari ships (they were made thinking on khanid ships).

Sacrileges for example do not need to save PG like that.

Also no, by your earlier statement you have no CLUE about missiles, or at least why they are affected differntly. You cannot comapre missiles to guns with nubmers like you made, the formula of application is completely different. Turrets do not get as screwed by signature as Missile do. Because turrets have a single component on the formulae, while missiles have the MINIMAL between sig/exploradius and the ratio of explosion velocity/speed over sig/explosion radius. That means a missile can do very little damage to a target standing still, while a turret will hit it full power.

Just compare the following standign still interceptor.. fire arties on it (whiel you also immobile). Full damage.. or nearly full. Fire hams... very little damage. That is why missiles need for some scenarios a weapons with smaller explosion radius. That was a niche use, expanded by the better fitting of the rapids. Now with the changes, the niche became even more niche, since smart and well fitteed AF and some intercetprs will not be killed by a full load of rapids.. AND the other extra advantage, the fittings.. is GONE.