These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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] Rapid Missile Launchers - v2

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#2881 - 2013-12-09 14:56:28 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Moonaura wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. As I'm sure you know, we're keeping an eye on how people are using the new Rapid Launchers, watching how people adapt to the new strengths and weaknesses of them and keeping a close eye on the metrics surrounding them. We're also getting some good experience flying with them on our own player characters in a live environment. Rest assured that we're not ignoring these modules.

As a quick tidbit of metrics for you: Over the last week the number of characters using RLMLs each day was 6.5% lower than the pre-Rubicon average. We were actually expecting the decrease to be a bit more significant at this point, and this easily falls within acceptable ranges.

Thanks as always for the continued feedback!


First off, thanks for following the thread still. Hard to ignore it though I guess - its now the second largest Rubicon thread after marauders, and that had a months lead time.

But sadly, I had to cringe really when reading this. If the goal then, was to reduce people using the RLML by introducing an awful mechanic, then yes, you've achieved your goal. But CCP Rise said this was supposed to be 'Fun' so surely we should be seeing an increase surely?

This just makes me think you've basically introduced this to kill RLML over use, without understanding the reasons why it became popular in the first place.

1. The Light Precision Missiles hit almost every target perfectly

2. Heavy Precision Missiles hit for only a third or half their DPS against Frigates and Fast Cruisers and do less DPS than the old RLML, so why bother using them - so nobody did.

If you fit 5 Target Painters to a Caracal and its missile still can't hit at their full potential, then, clearly there is something very wrong. And please bear in mind these missiles already do far less potential DPS than their gun counterparts - yes - even at range.

I repeat - please give us the choice over the original RLML and the new burst ones - then you could truly see if anyone really wants to play with burst modules - or prefers to have more than 18 missiles in their launcher.

And fix the Heavy Precision missiles... which are a terrible, laughable joke.



Sorry but this logic is Wrong. No ship in game has a way to ensure it will hit for 100% of its potential damage against a ship of a smaller class.

Missile users want something compeltely unfair there. A rupture also cannot hit a frigate with AB to the majority of its damage, even if they use 5 tack computers and track enhancers.

Dmage mitigation HSOULD exist. Missiel users must get this into their head, turrets in some situatiosn suffer less, but in other sistuations they suffer way more.

The value might need adjustment, but is lack of reasonable thinking to expect any missile to hit for 100% of damage on an AB frigate!


Please go back and read many of my posts on the subject in this thread. A heavy Missile Precision will not even hit a Cruiser for 100% damage... I'm not talking about a weapon that does 100% damage to anything that would be insane right? But that is basically where the Light Precision are at right now.

I am not asking for something that is unfair. If you read what I've wrote before - i've suggested that the Light Missile Precisions be mildly nerfed as they hit AB Frigates to easily. I've suggested that TD be nerfed as they are to powerful against guns. I've suggested that the tengu with its missiles be nerfed IF Heavy Missiles are fixed to stop it being OP.

What I'm asking for here - are two things - choice - and balance. Heavy Missiles are broken. A 40 second reload with burst mode, should be a choice not enforced on us.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#2882 - 2013-12-09 15:00:43 UTC
For the record, if memory serves, a Heavy Precision will hit a Frigate for around 30-40 DPS. So its laughable you think that is fine.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#2883 - 2013-12-09 15:14:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Moonaura
CCP Rise wrote:
I'm going to add some more words to this fairly bizarre thread!

Something that a few of you are at least partially talking about is the difference between power and fun and the relationship between them in this balance pass. I'm extremely interested in this as well and it can be very difficult to figure out how each are impacted during a given change.

The goals for this change, just to be clear, were to lower the overall power level of rapid lights somewhat as we felt they left too little room for the other medium launchers despite their intended application which is very specialized. So in less words: overall nerf, with the exception that they still need to be very good at their specialty of killing frigates.

Attached to that was the goal of keeping them as fun or more fun to use than the were before. This was motivated by the knowledge that if we simply lowered their damage output to achieve the first goal, they would be left feeling very unexciting even though they would still have value against small support.

So we have two things we can discuss now, but they should definitely be kept separate. One is power level, the other is fun.

Metrics like the one Fozzie mentions could represent a range of things, but it's very likely that power level is still more than satisfactory OR that they are so much fun to use that people are still fielding them despite being under-powered, or a combination of the two. Usage is of course also affected by momentum related to skill points and familiarity but the relative stability of use can not be explained completely by that.

edit: Oh, and in case it helps to say it at all, like Fozzie said we are watching these closely and I want to iterate on them. It's too early to know what that iteration might be but they won't get abandoned.


The solution is very simple CCP Rise.

If you look at Light Missiles, they are overall fine - but the Precisions will hit practically everything at 100% damage. Even an AB fit Frigate. Precisions need to have their explosion velocity nerfed a small amount.

The reason the RLML was soooo popular was because Heavy Missiles are basically pointless. They are not effective. End of.
Heavy Precision Missiles 'should' be able to hit a fast cruiser. Remember they get a big DPS drop loading them - yet they only hit a Stabber with a MWD for 50% of their DPS. Frigates, - ha - waste of time.

So everyone used the RLML because it offered similar DPS and worked. Technically, you could hit a Stabber for more DPS with the RLML than you could with the Heavy Precisions loaded. That is the issue - pure and simple.

If you feel the RLML is overpowered (again - I would look very hard at their DPS in relation to gunnery) then nerf the ROF on them.

Personally, I would reduce their ROF, tweak Light Precision Missiles Explosion Velocity, and take a good long hard look at the Heavy Missiles - while considering you might need to nerf the Tengu to stop it becoming the new Drake if Heavy Missiles are 'too' good.

PS. Its good that you are finally here again. *hugs*.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#2884 - 2013-12-09 15:19:05 UTC
Moonaura wrote:
If you look at Light Missiles, they are overall fine


lol
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery
RAZOR Alliance
#2885 - 2013-12-09 15:30:03 UTC
On the subject of metrics, I do remember at one point while the ferox was being discussed that a dev said something to the extent of 'rail feroxs are being used, it is mostly meta 4 rails and it's mostly for pve but it is being used'. I may be misremembering that and feel free to correct me with the exact quote if I am wrong. At any rate my point is that you need to know why the metrics re the way they are and not just look at the numbers to decide wether something is good or bad.

In the case of the rail ferox being 'fine' because it was used in pve by people who likely had no other option when training for rokhs, you have to question wether it really is 'fine' or is just being used because there really isn't any other effective option. In the case of cruisers and hmls, they aren't very effective in solo or very small gang because even percisions don't apply their damage to other cruisers well. Rlm still not only effectively apply damage to cruisers but frigates as well and they happen to be very ppolarized now.

If you see something you can kill you know you can kill it and it's not going to take long at all, alternatively you know that if you have to swap ammo you need to leave because in the majority of situations when you are in a fight, taking 40 seconds just to respond to a change in the fight is not exactly fun and will probably get you killed. Furthermore there are still many newer players who have trained into rlm because they used to be the fastest train to something that could work well in a solo or small gang pvp situation and are now stuck using them because they have nothing else skilled.

I find it slightly disheartening that we finally get dev responses but they have nothing to do with any of the extensive math or discussion in the thread. Was hoping for there to be more than just 'we are still reading the thread and watching metrics'.
Texty
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2886 - 2013-12-09 15:34:17 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
So your saying people should not be able to post in a thread they have interest in more than -, - How many times is considered too many?


Posting a lot doesn't necessarily mean the poster is contributing, especially in a thread where only a handful of people are repeatedly posting the same thing over and over again.

A few posts are usually enough. If you find yourself posting like 30, you are either being trolled, or unintentionally becoming a troll yourself.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#2887 - 2013-12-09 15:48:39 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

Metrics like the one Fozzie mentions could represent a range of things, but it's very likely that power level is still more than satisfactory OR that they are so much fun to use that people are still fielding them despite being under-powered, or a combination of the two. Usage is of course also affected by momentum related to skill points and familiarity but the relative stability of use can not be explained completely by that.


Wrong.

People are still fielding them because heavy missiles are crap.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#2888 - 2013-12-09 15:50:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
CCP Fozzie wrote:
As a quick tidbit of metrics for you: Over the last week the number of characters using RLMLs each day was 6.5% lower than the pre-Rubicon average. We were actually expecting the decrease to be a bit more significant at this point, and this easily falls within acceptable ranges.

Called it.

CCP Rise wrote:
Attached to that was the goal of keeping them as fun or more fun to use than the were before. This was motivated by the knowledge that if we simply lowered their damage output to achieve the first goal, they would be left feeling very unexciting even though they would still have value against small support.

So we have two things we can discuss now, but they should definitely be kept separate. One is power level, the other is fun.

Let's be absolutely crystal clear here.
1. The change has resulted in an overall 23% DPS nerf.
2. They're not fun.

How many posts and missile threads is it going to take before you guys acknowledge that there's a problem with missile damage application, and that we need a passive low-slot Ballistics Enhancer to address this?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2889 - 2013-12-09 16:08:21 UTC
Moonaura wrote:

If you look at Light Missiles, they are overall fine - but the Precisions will hit practically everything at 100% damage. Even an AB fit Frigate.

You keep repeating this but it is not true. So no, they won't hit an AB frigate at 100% damage.
Marcus Walkuris
Aww yeahhh
#2890 - 2013-12-09 16:19:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Walkuris
CCP Rise wrote:
I'm going to add some more words to this fairly bizarre thread!


First, glad you are responding. Second, the fact you call this a fairly bizarre thread while completely ignoring the main issues raised is troubling.

The main argument at this point has not been wether RLML were OP or UP, but A: They were being used to veer around the glaring issues of the other medium sized launchers, meaning the most versatile hull class has been destroyed when it comes to missiles. And B: Have been complained about not being fun to unplayable from a tactical perspective/to as far as being the one niche to rule them all.
And the list of issues doesn't end there, it is fitting, lack of modules etc. etc.

I really wish I was around to understand what these "metrics" consist of. For now it just sounds like you are talking about a hand of cards you're holding with a lot of mystery. I know I have HML techII and they "feel" pathetic. I won't dare get into HAM's with the recent changes. If your cruiser sized weapon-systems don't function, then the majority of your progression/hulls are broken. And that is the outlook of the missile community at large. The amount of "missile users" that say missiles are fine in this thread are non existent.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#2891 - 2013-12-09 16:41:58 UTC
Marcus Walkuris wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
I'm going to add some more words to this fairly bizarre thread!


First, glad you are responding. Second, the fact you call this a fairly bizarre thread while completely ignoring the main issues raised is troubling.

The main argument at this point has not been wether RLML were OP or UP, but A: They were being used to veer around the glaring issues of the other medium sized launchers, meaning the most versatile hull class has been destroyed when it comes to missiles. And B: Have been complained about not being fun to unplayable from a tactical perspective/to as far as being the one niche to rule them all.
And the list of issues doesn't end there, it is fitting, lack of modules etc. etc.

I really wish I was around to understand what these "metrics" consist of. For now it just sounds like you are talking about a hand of cards you're holding with a lot of mystery. I know I have HML techII and they "feel" pathetic. I won't dare get into HAM's with the recent changes. If your cruiser sized weapon-systems don't function, then the majority of your progression/hulls are broken. And that is the outlook of the missile community at large. The amount of "missile users" that say missiles are fine in this thread are non existent.

I think this can probably summarize the thoughts of most of the posters in here with a bit of accuracy. We're happy to see some attention paid in here again, but the attention doesn't seem to be addressing any issues.
The vibe that CCP is giving off is that you have washed your hands of your changes to missiles and we're stuck with them because you're already on something else.
The current RLML might even be a viable option if the underlying problem with all missiles was addressed. If HM's and HAM's functioned like they were supposed to, then a cruiser sized front-loaded module might make a lot of sense and fill some voids. Until missile mechanics are renovated to make missiles a viable category of weapon though, RLML's are as broken as missiles in general. This isn't something you can trust to metrics either, I still use missiles when I do PvE because I'm slow to change to guns even though they perform better in a lot of cases. My use of missiles does not mean I am happy with them though which is what your metrics will tell you.
I encourage you to actually get on the level of your player base, explore a character that wanted to use missiles and Caldari because they liked how it sounded and have started to realize their SP are being wasted. Instead of dismissing our words by calling upon your all-mighty metrics to vanquish us, take a page out of the Mythbusters play book and attempt to duplicate the results before you call falsies.
All name calling aside, we really would like to see some kind of plan to address missiles in general. Many good points have been raised in this thread without comment and it only serves to reinforce the feeling amongst missile pilots that we are teh red-headed step-children of Eve.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#2892 - 2013-12-09 16:53:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Many good points have been raised in this thread without comment and it only serves to reinforce the feeling amongst missile pilots that we are the red-headed step-children of Eve.

More like children of the corn…

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#2893 - 2013-12-09 17:02:11 UTC
I understand that missile mechanics are not something that can be fixed overnight, and that there are a lot of projects in-work right now. I get that. But some kind of time table, some sort of organized plan, would be nice to see.
We're not asking for missiles to be amazing, or to act like turrets. We simply want them to work the way they should.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#2894 - 2013-12-09 17:23:34 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
I understand that missile mechanics are not something that can be fixed overnight, and that there are a lot of projects in-work right now. I get that. But some kind of time table, some sort of organized plan, would be nice to see.
We're not asking for missiles to be amazing, or to act like turrets. We simply want them to work the way they should.

It's been a steady descent for the last year, with no end in sight. It's long overdue that this trend was reversed.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#2895 - 2013-12-09 17:32:41 UTC
How about instead of nerfing the launchers or missiles, a module is released to help reduce application? That way its more pilot choice and creativity/logic that wins fights rather than f1 and orbit. Please give HM some minor buffing and then release a module that counteracts said buff, bringing missile dps to where it is now.

The proposed chaff launcher i mentioned earlier.

Reduces missile explo radius and velocity
Has charges ranging from 10-20 charges and then a reload of a to be determined time
Fits in high slot, allowing choice of neut, nos or missile defense
Charges that could be fit is scrap metal as its already available and cheap
Cycle time is about that of a smartbomb, that way missiles can still occasionally get good hits, just like td. This also makes missile users learn the cycle time and fire at more appropriate times, similar skill that turret users use for transversal.
This does not damage missiles, but just causes loss of application.

Finally add a missile guidance computer to help offset the effects of said chaff launcher so missile pilots can't be completely neutered.

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

Make the Muninn great again!
Dr Sraggles
The Covenant of Blood
#2896 - 2013-12-09 17:34:12 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Moonaura wrote:
If you look at Light Missiles, they are overall fine


lol


I believe he was talking about the characteristics of the missile itself, not the old Rapid launchers, not the precision version, just the missiles (flight time, explosion velocity, explosion radius, flight speed etc).


This is also separate from ship bonuses etc.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#2897 - 2013-12-09 17:36:42 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
How about instead of nerfing the launchers or missiles, a module is released to help reduce application?

How about not, since the current damage application for missiles suck. Why would we want to make it worse?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#2898 - 2013-12-09 17:56:12 UTC
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:
Moonaura wrote:

If you look at Light Missiles, they are overall fine - but the Precisions will hit practically everything at 100% damage. Even an AB fit Frigate.

You keep repeating this but it is not true. So no, they won't hit an AB frigate at 100% damage.


Thus my use of the word 'practically', i.e. most things or close to it. They will not hit an AB frigate for full damage, but still very close to it it, at worst, 80%-90% of their full damage before any sort of e-war is added. That is high, albeit not 100%. Anything with a MWD or without, a precision will hit 100% - 100% of the time, without any sort of e-war bonuses.

That is impressive, and arguably OP, which is just one of the reasons why RLML were so attractive before.

If you add in a target painter or webber, then everything - even with an AB is shiny as far as light precision missiles are concerned and you can expect to hit your targets perfectly 100% of the time.

Whether that is right or wrong is up for debate, because it is always worth remembering that missiles overall, do far less damage. They just can apply lower damage more consistently over a good range.

However, the same cannot be said for Heavy Missiles, either Faction or Precisions. Not only do they have lower DPS than guns, as expected, but can't even hit another cruiser for close to 100% of their damage - even with several target painters and webs.

The old Heavy Missile pre-Drake nerf, would still effectively be able to counter frigates if precisions were loaded. Now that can only do 25-35% of their already lowered DPS against a frigate. Things are also not dramatically improved with e-war either.

Result: Heavy Missile fit Cruisers cannot kill a normally tanked Frigate and certainly cannot deal enough damage individually to kill any other cruiser, kiting or otherwise, before they pop.

The bottom line is this: If you are taking a gang out, you will not want anyone in the gang to have missiles, whether they be Heavy or RLML, when you can take out a gun boat instead and do practically everything better and do typically twice as much DPS when any sort of e-war bonuses are involved on your targets, i.e. webs, TP etc.

The only Missiles that work for cruisers are HAM's - and those will only get close to their potential DPS if you bring a dedicated TP ship, like a Bellicose - a damn effective missile boat in its own right. A good FC will know this, and the Bellicose will be the primary boat, thus reducing a missile gangs DPS by at least a third.

I don't need to explain this anymore. The killboard clearly shows the bias towards gunnery, indeed it shows exactly what everyone knows - that Rails and Blasters are without question the best weapons in the game right now. And the only missiles reaching the top 20 on occasion, are the HAM's - and even then, you have to wonder if that is because some Minmitar ships have spare missile slots.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
#2899 - 2013-12-09 17:56:17 UTC
The problem with heavy missiles is the limited number of targets you could confidently engage with them fitted on a Caracal. If you look at the targets you most commonly come up against in low sec most of them can either kill the caracal or at least burn out of disruptor range before you can kill them, some active tank t1 frigs could solo you, let alone small gangs. There are very few instances where you could hope to get a kill with HML on, but the turret union come in here and try to say they have the same problems with their medium weapons... I think not, or nobody would ever lose a ship.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#2900 - 2013-12-09 17:56:43 UTC  |  Edited by: scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
How about instead of nerfing the launchers or missiles, a module is released to help reduce application? That way its more pilot choice and creativity/logic that wins fights rather than f1 and orbit. Please give HM some minor buffing and then release a module that counteracts said buff, bringing missile dps to where it is now.

The proposed chaff launcher i mentioned earlier.

Reduces missile explo radius and velocity
Has charges ranging from 10-20 charges and then a reload of a to be determined time
Fits in high slot, allowing choice of neut, nos or missile defense
Charges that could be fit is scrap metal as its already available and cheap
Cycle time is about that of a smartbomb, that way missiles can still occasionally get good hits, just like td. This also makes missile users learn the cycle time and fire at more appropriate times, similar skill that turret users use for transversal.
This does not damage missiles, but just causes loss of application.

Finally add a missile guidance computer to help offset the effects of said chaff launcher so missile pilots can't be completely neutered.

If missiles in general could apply there damage in a sensible way, then I could accept this as adding a layer to gameplay. IF missiles reliably applied damaged. I'm looking at torps and HM's with that statement, and to a lesser degree every other missile.
However, why not wait until missiles are moving in a positive direction before we start muddying the waters with more mods?