Player Features and Ideas Discussion

how about larger charge for the launcher and a skill to lower the launchers reload time by 1 second per level.. maybe an x3 or x4 skill and then a secondary for an addional 1 second per level.. at x5 or x6 so both skills take you to 30 second reload..

or simply 1 skill for -2 seconds per level to 30 seconds.. and/or ship bonus to lower reload time too?

How about we just get back the original RLML ? It wasn't really broke to start with. Now we're trying to fix something that the bulk of this thread didn't want, but we got lumped with anyway.

As previously suggested, this new module would have been better introduced as its own module, allowing us to choose between this and the original RLML and the new 'Burst' Module. If people are fine with the 40 second reload, they would use it. If not, they could use a module that worked beautifully for over 10 years without any major complaints.

I think that this is a deeply misguided approach to solving what is basically a non-problem. You claim that RLMLs are "almost always the right choice", which I think is a pretty ridiculous assertion. There are two good cruiser-sized missile options at the moment, RLMs and HAMs. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, and they both see a lot of use in pvp. HMLs aren't much good, but that's nothing to do with the strength of RLMs, it's because HMLs are colossal turdpiles that are outperformed by just about every alternative, including the various long-range medium turrets, the other medium missile types, scorch M, and typing bad words in local. Breaking all of the current RLML use cases won't magically make HMLs more attractive, it'll just consign a currently useful weapon system to the scrapheap.

A weapon system that I can only use for 2 minutes (like the new RLML's) before a 40 second reload is useless at that point I'm better of sacrificing a rig slot for a T2 rigor and carrying a crash pill on a HAM ship. To many small cruiser engagements last more then 2 minutes and there's other options for clearing tackle. Also with the prevalence of T1 logi in the current meta I'm unlike to kill anything but maybe a tackler in that time window.

Also light and heavy missiles aren't currently a dps weapon (nor are they used that way) they're an alpha weapon as showcased by talwar fleets.

Currently rapid lights are picked because of their *reliable* damage application. The problem isn't that rapid lights are to good the problem is that you nerfed heavies so much that on field damage application is worse then that of rapid lights because they have terrible explosion characteristics.

The reason things like rlml are so good, is because they apply almost all their damage, they are partially e-war resistant (td's are useless and you can load auto-targeting) and they use so little powergrid that you can still massively overtank the ships you put them on.

Rapid Heavies looked a little underwhelming and you should probably change them from the original idea, but all rapid lights really need imho is making them harder to fit so you have to sacrifice some tank in order to fit them.

A 40 second reload choice is unplayable. The only reason why RLM's are use don every ship, is because the balance team in its infinite wisdom nerfed HML's into the ground. HAM's have always had horrible DPS application. Those systems are simply unplayable, so people were forced into RLMs.

Currently the RHML you have proposed, is just HML's that shoot slightly faster- with no added velocity / application bonus. This means that RHML's are bad, and will continue to be sub par to cruise missiles due to the inherent weakness built into the ammo, thanks to your previous round of 'balancing.'

RLML's with a 40 second reload time is simply going to be suicide. Small gang or solo pilots will not be able to fly these ships, due to the fact- that in those kind of PvP situations 40 seconds is an eternity. Not being able to shoot anything, and being at a large risk of becoming tackled from light ships with out the inability to shoot back is really poor game design.

Giving RLML's and RHMLs this option is not providing any meaning full alternative to game play/

As it stands now, if this horrible idea goes through- the only way to play with these ships would be this:

Split your weapon stack into two equal groups. Group A starting shooting, and once A is on reload- begin shooting group B. That way you can at least be doing some DPS during your eternity of a reload. The flaws in this game play design are as follows:

1. It is not intuitive to younger players
2. Doesn't open up any additional options, other than making a ship have anemic DPS, with the innability to change missile type or ammo type mid battle
3. Does not provide a realistic alternative to HMLs / HAM's as a usable weapon system

RLM's and cruise are the only missiles systems that are working (kind of) in the current PvP meta. Don't take away more Missiles with a rashly proposed design idea, with little to no community feed back- and force it into a new expansion.

This is a horrible change, and I feel that if you were wanting to make changes to RLML, make HML and HAM missiles usable. Then RHML's might actually have some use in game, and you can have an alternative to RLML's.

This is a terrible idea.

1) Having a lot of downtime is just bad gameplay design. In a gang, you might stay on the field to provide point and webs, but if you are solo, you basically are going to kill 1-2 targets and warp out. And then nobody gets to do anything for the next 40s while you reload. It promotes non-interactive gameplay.

2) Its not intuitive. Its yet another thing that vets know that noobs dont.

3) Its not that people use rapid lights because they are really good. We use them because the other medium missile systems are utter trash. I would love to be able to use heavy missiles again, but there is just no reason since they are currently the worst weapon system in the entire game for anything but giant blobs.

I think giving them the dps of larger short range missiles is a bad idea. Torpedoes, for one, have tremendous DPS. I think they should do more like heavy missile and cruise missile DPS. Otherwise people will fly them in large gangs and obliterate the competition quickly before they have to reload again. After all, why fit your Raven with torpedoes that go 25km when you can fit heavy missiles with the same burst DPS and a range of 70km? With enough friends, you don't need to worry about the long load time.

Torpedo Ravens and HAM Caracals should do significantly more DPS than RHML Ravens or RLML Caracals.

Seems we are at the mercy of these anonymous "games testers" because there's no way we can dispute test results if we don't have access to the data or even what these tests comprised of. Does anyone know if they are CCP employees or just random dudes Rise picked up on the forums, or recruited from the federal defense union?

Dear CCP Seagull,

I was very disappointed with CCP Rise's balancing of the Rapid Missile Launchers. As such, I went back to my calculations from the HML and CML balance discussions. In the process, I determined that the biggest issue with the Turrets and Missiles being balanced is the damage equation. Now, as a note in backgrond, I am a mechanical engineer by training and have a good understanding of mathmatics.

Under the present system, missile damage delivered is based on the quotient of Sig-Radius-Target/Explosion-radius and the Target-Velocity/Explosion-Velocity. Now, from what I understand this is supposed to mimic the tracking and optimal range aspects of turrets. I applaud the game designer that thought of this initially, as it is a good idea. However, it isn't the best idea, personal opinion, nor the most accurate.

In reality, missiles do not detonate in spherical explosions. In fact, the detonations are more like a cone-shaped blast like from a shotgun. Now, that would be the same for in space but with more range and velocity due to the lack of friction in space. It is these two quotients that are causing the problems between the parity of turrets and missiles as well as between the missiles themselves.

It would be more optimal to make the equations for damage more comparable. Since missiles technically explode in a cone-shaped blast, it would be logical to make use of that. The damage would be reduced as one moves farther away from the point of detonation within that cone. Similar to the dynamics of a blast from a shotgun if you are familiar with that. As such, a optimal-falloff similar system would make sense. In short, the closer the target is to the missile at detonation the more damage it should deal.

To imitate the other aspect of the missile detonation, is trickier. At present, I am thinking that some kind of tracking-resolution for the missile is the best way. IR missiles ability to apply damage is based on their speed and interception of the target. The previous paragraph addresses the later aspect. The missile speeds need to be more amenable to that fact we are talking a space-age tech. However, it would be the missiles ability to track that would affect its ability to hit. A missile with a finer tracking sensor should hit better than one with a less fine tracking sensor. Logically, the tracking sensor would be best tuned for its intended size of target: frig, cruiser, battleship etc.

To summarize my proposal to you is this:

Missiles could to be fixed in the following manner:
1) Explosion velocity needs to be replaced with a optimal and falloff rating on the missile. The reason is to represent the intensity of the blast with respect to distance from the missile.
2) Explosion Radius, needs to be replaced with a scan-resolution value for the missile. This will still simulate the increased difficulty of missiles tracking an under-sized target. (HMs @ Frigs/Dessies).
*Using the above changes would not need an adjustment to missile speeds.

Alternatively:
1) Explosion velocity is replaced with a comparison of Target-velocity and raw missile-velocity. This would simulate the missile's ability to intercept the target.
2) Explosion radius is replaced with scan-resoluton value. Same as the other suggestion.
*Would likely result in a need to adjust missile speeds to bring into parity with Turrets for intended use.

The other point that I would like to bring up with you sir, is the versatility. Logically, missiles by their design should be the most flexibile of all the systems. In addition, missiles shouldn't be short of alpha-damage capability. Their drawback should be the sophistication needed by their launchers. This should mean that missiles auto-track to the next target similar to real-life ones. Possibly with the potential of having a blank missile with load-able warheads to change missile damage or other characteristics. This would require a pilot to try and anticipate what challenges he would face and how to deal with them.

A similar switch out system could also be used with drones...which would bring that system also more in-line with the others.

Best regards,
~Kenshi

ps. Please forgive any errors in spelling or grammar, as it is quite late for me. If you have any questions or comments I would like to hear them.

The RLML caracal is going to be massively better than the HML variant under the new system.

So i tried to exclusively spend some time with the new RLMLs...and i have to say they are just as problematic as predicted. The "new tactical possibilities" Rise advertised pretty much are: Try to gank a T1 frig, then warp off. And at that they are actually pretty good. So i actually got quite a lot of kills with them.

Any prolonged engagement is prohibited by not being able to switch ammunition types. Bouncing around system for reloads or ammoswitches is a risky thing to do considering the new warpmechanics. Your main option to react to a changing battlefield is...to warp off. The lack of flexibility actually prevents you from engaging in a lot of fights which could have delivered some interesting experiences. At one point i got so bored that i actually found myself sitting at a gate in FW space ganking T1 frigs and dessies with a sebo´d Caracal while pulling gate gun aggro. Then i warped off. As soon as something got onto me which didnt fit my damage type i warped of. Killing T1 fasttackle works nicely, then...you have to warp off...or sit there for 40 second staring at your next target if there is nothing which can actually catch you and hope that you can break their tank with the next magazine...i mean you could always warp off, right? Your target sports a decent active tank? Better warp off. I think you can see where im going with this. I am sorry but i really couldn´t find any use for these things besides ganking single targets or to kill single frig/dessi size targets in what could have been interesting engagements. I put my efforts on hold to field RLMLs and just went back to turret boats. Oh look, suddenly my FLEXIBILITY gives me far more TACTICAL OPTIONS.

Haven´t really tested them in a fleet environment yet but i guess it´s not a nice thing to know that in a decent fight -which is not just a gank- half of your fleet is just sitting there doing nothing.

I tested the RHML on the testserver. And tbh they work quite nicely against single targets, even against hacs. But better make sure your targets are alone. Otherwise you are dead. Tactical options everywhere. If you aren´t sure that your target is 100% solo, don´t bother using them. All you want to do with these things is to gank stuff, then warp off..or MJD, then warp off. RR on field? Warp off. Fighting decent active tanks? Warp off. Warp off. warp off, warp off.

You can actually kill stuff with these things quite competently. The problem is that a formerly decently balanced weapon system is forced into a niche role with very limited uses. At least in their current state. And that niche is one of the most boring and mindnumbing ones on top of that: Gank targets smaller than yourself. Tinkering with the reload times and magazine sizes might deal with this issue to a certain extent. I for one won´t bother with both these weapon systems any more until they are fixed. There are just so many more viable options out there.