Player Features and Ideas Discussion

armour buffer tanking also increases damage taken

If your main complaint is fire and forget than you should further read my post. I explain how the missile mechanics are flawed and unrealistic. I explain how missiles function how fighter pilots use them. Meaning that players should have to maneuver there ships to give their missile the best flight path to their target. Someone who flies stupidy would see there missile overshoot or turn too hard and loose lock. Missile pilot would have to do something to inflict damage. Turrets users should be happy about this change as well.

Modern missiles aren't nearly as limited as you imply, and space bound missiles would be even less so.

Generally the issue with caldari ships is that for a lot of them, their bonuses are JUST to missiles. To be fair, even though the bellicose does less overall missile dps than the caracal, it DOES have a target painting bonus, and a decent-sized drone bay. The issue pointed out many, many times over is that if you're fighting someone with an active tank in said caracal or missile-only ship with these burst weapons, and they don't die the first time around, all that dps was basically useless since they rep back up during your reload, and continue to apply dps.
In regards to tweaking, I would be totally for doing something like increasing the drone bay for some of these missile-only caldari ships. Part of the reason why they suffer so badly from this compared to turret boats is the missile mechanics deny usable damage application to smaller targets in any sense at all vs frigates. A cruiser using good AC's or even Pulse lasers can track an interceptor or frigate kiting it at range, wheres heavy missiles have difficulty even with cruisers, and HAMs, while nice, still do not stack up in the same way vs smaller, faster targets. Barring taking RLML to the old way, I would like to see them DRAMATICALLY increase the bonuses on ships that get missile damage application bonuses, specifically explosion velocity and sig radius reduction. And if they have to continue this route with burst weapons, bring the old ammo capacity back, or extend it even. Because Burst weapons DO NOT WORK against any kind of active tanking in this game if you can't kill them the first time around. Because paper dps is useless when you factor in damage application.

Lets say it is an armour, duel rep, cap booster, Thorax..
You can apply the damage of a HML Caracal to it all day and until he runs out of cap boosters will not die.

With all level 5 skills you get 284 DPS out of a HML Caracal (thorax can tank , 340dps with 1 damage mod) so even applying 100% damage, your going to have a hard time killing it, if at all.

I think people are confused as to how rapid launchers are suppose to be used.

Hint: You shoot the smaller ships! Smaller as in: What ever is smaller then your currently used ship.


Think about it. Already we have a system where on their own:

LM's are only good for Frigates, Destroyers.
HM's are only good for Destroyers, Cruisers, BC's.

If you make a 'rapid' launcher for the two missile types, then logically its going to still have the same ideal targets. Damage wise, the only difference is the payload is at a much faster rate. You can of course shoot ships that are not your idea targets. However there are already other missiles that do a better job.

So what are the consequences have using these rapid launchers? You need some consequence, otherwise the 'smaller' ships would be in great danger of these weapon systems, regular missile launchers would become obsolete, other weapon systems (Projectiles, Hybrids, Lasers) equivalents, would be inefficient.

So CCP has added to the rapid Launchers:

1. A large reload time.
2. The launchers have high cpu and power costs (thus can only fit on the larger ships).

Now if you work it out, do the math: Over time rapid launchers will do more damage, then regular launchers. That includes the reload times of each module. Rapids have a slight lead in damage output.

This already shows that given the choice, if you were using a ship and fitting it to kill smaller ships, you would use the rapid launchers, ALWAYS. Because they are better than the regular types. This shouldn't surprise you, considering their high cpu/power costs. And that your ship has to be more powerful (bigger), then the ones you are trying to destroy.


But I hear you say, the reload time is still too big! There is not enough ammo!

No its not too big. There is plenty of ammo. If you shoot some missiles from a rapid launcher, how much damage is that? Is it larger than the EHP of the small targeted ships your are trying to kill? Yes. In fact (I'm not certain but I am pretty sure this is true) a regular fitted ship with rapid launchers can kill multiple smaller ships before it has to reload. You are looking at a Kill:Death ration of 3:1 or 4:1 which is pretty good considering, by the time regular missiles launchers of the same type have dealt the same amount of damage, your ship may have already been destroyed because it took longer to deal that amount of damage (Remember Rapid Launchers deal damage faster!).

BUT this only holds true if you are using your ship to destroy the ideal targets:

RLML -> Frigates, Destroyers.
RHML -> Destroyers, Cruisers, BC's.
RCML (Rapid Cruise Missile Launcher, fits on Capitals) -> BC's, Battle Ships ... one day

That^ is all based on the missile stats. Exp velocity, Exp radius, Missile speed, etc.

This is how rapids are to be used, as stated a thousand times.

If for example:
You are using a RLML against Cruisers or bigger. You are doing it wrong! HAM's, RHML's and Assault missiles do it better!
You are using a RHML against Battle Ships or bigger. You are doing it wrong! CM's, Torpedoes do it better!

But remember with rapids, you excel [ONLY] at killing smaller targets. This is the trade off. Do I target ships of the same size or bigger? Or do I only target ships of smaller size. You cannot have both, otherwise its over powered.

***If*** you are still determined to be able to stand a fair chance against smaller and larger ships, then I recommend you carry Javlin and Rage missile types so that you can switch for the appropriate target.

***However*** the regular launcher types will still do better for their respective ideal targets, because their consistent damage payload (rate of fire/ammo space) means you will destroy the enemy ship before having to reload (Reloading leaves you vulnerable unable to kill the target, thus more likely to die - one of the main cons of rapids).


See list below:

Rcks -> Drones, Frigates, Destroyers.
LML -> Frigates, Destroyers.
RLML* -> Frigates, Destroyers.
HML -> Destroyers, Cruisers, Battle Cruisers.
AML -> Destroyers, Cruisers, Battle Cruisers.
RHML* -> Destroyers, Cruisers, Battle Cruisers.
CML -> BC's, Battle Ships, Capitals.
TPL -> BC's, Battle Ships, Capitals.

* Excel in their role but require more cpu/power.

You can see a pattern emerging. If we one day had a rapid Cruise missile launcher it would have to be only be able to be fitted on Capital ships and it would only be effective against BC's, Battle Ships. If it was effective against Capitals as well, then there wouldn't be any need for regular cruise missile launchers would there?

Rant over, you are all welcome... Update is good. Stop complaining.

I always though the front loaded damage weapon system was arty...

You're an idiot.

1. actually, projectiles used as they are in the game would only serve as short, short, short range weapons. They do not have anywhere near the velocity needed to cover the vast distances in space, nor would they have comparable kinetic energy needed to damage anything other than satellites.
2. Rail guns? yes, but they wouldn't work the way they do in the game. They can function as both long range and short range.And can inflict devastating amounts of ke to a target. Only downside is the heat generated by the projectile being accelerated between the rails which would degrade them. This can and has been significantly reduced by using them in sabot form. There are naval rail guns being tested for deployment on board new navy destroyers.
3. Lasers, are actually not as effective and actually would not work as they do in the game. They GENERATE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF HEAT. More powerful the laser, the significantly higher the power needs, heat generation and efficiency loss. Lasers= directed radiation. I'm not going to go into how a laser would actually apply damage. I suggest you look it up. Basically it superheats a point on a target. In addition, laser beams "bend" or arc with increased distance in space.

4. Blasters are actually reminiscent of short range particle beams (in a sort of of super charged bolts), which unlike lasers can inflict massive amount of kinetic energy, and unlike railguns have near lightspeed velocity. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--------- The prefered space weapon. Actually the most realistic weapon.

5. Mssiles: in reference to missiles you are correct in the case of extreeeeeeeeme ranges of lets say 10,000km. However, you are incorrect in saying that they are useless for close range ie a few thousand and below engagements. I said explosive and warhead concussion force in a light term. I am referring to the way space based missiles are used today. Shaped charge detonates behind a steel or tungsten plate just behind the warhead housing which discharges/launches the warhead ( which in current times would be shrapnel in its various forms( from a batch or 10ft long molten steel beams or a cloud of steel pellets at super to hyper sonic velocities. Missiles can change its missile type to any damage that you can fit in it's housing. example a missile with two stages: 1st penetrate hull, 2nd explode inside of hull increasing damage significantly. Missile dont have to be charged unlike mass drivers and directed energy weapons. Missiles fly quite well in space, they direct thrust through vectoring. A space based missile platform would couple both thrust vectoring and on board maneuvering thrusters. It would also have velocities much higher than earth based missiles. Missiles have the ability to track their targets and can be programmed to attack a designated target.

It seems that everyone is ignoring my point. That is: a proposal that is better than the current and would remove the ability of turrets users to ***** about missile guys just having to push buttons. You cant get mad at a proven weapon system because you dont like it.

Actually, A coilgun would be the most efficient space based weapon as it is similar to a rail gun except the tungsten projectile doenst make contact. it effectively levitates inside of the coil and is accelerated in step to the next coil,,,,,,,,next coil.... It has no heat damge like the rail guns do.

The Rapid Light Missile are perfect like this. Thank you.