Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Id rather the test server get used for testing changes, and then released tested and proven changes to the actual server, instead of pushing changes out over 200 pages of posts arguing against it, and then going :oops:

@CCP Rise

By now you should have a little bit of extended data over launchers, and i can predict the following to have occored, right after rubicon, a great deal of people will have tested out the RHML and then switched back to Cruise missile launchers. If at this point your still trying to figure out why this is, is that the damage application of a Precision Cruise Missile launcher, outperforms any and all Heavy Missile.

RHML were intended to be a viable solution against smaller targets, yet Heavy missiles are currently ballanced to only work against Larger targets. Your RHML are forced to compete against Torpedo launchers.

And while torpedo's don't work as intended except on maybe stealth bombers, the Heavy Missile, even in a RHML is still a worse choice.

You've also seen in this topic that INSTEAD of discussing the RHML all attention diverted to the RLML, if again you don't realise why this is, this is because the RLML was the only working missile system until you -Fixed- it.

Are you worried about a small frigate community thinking that RLML are overpowered? Do they actually complain about the RLML or the Light missile? As far as i can tell they don't complain about the Light missile but only to the fact that each and every cruiser sized missile boat, or cruiser sized ship that supplements its missile hardpoints with launchers chooses RLML launchers. This should tell you that instead of RLML beeing overpowered, there is something wrong with the other systems.

In order to -FIX- Rapid launchers you don't actually go to the rapid launchers, but focus on the underlying problem.

HEAVY MISSILES and HEAVY ASSAULT MISSILES

With Heavy Missiles unable to properly apply damage to cruisers, let alone something smaller, RHML will never be the the go to system for that. Cruise Missiles outperform Heavy's in such way, that in every thinkable scenario against smaller targets, there still the better option

With Heavy missiles unable to properly apply damage to cruisers, let alone something smaller, RLML will always be the go to system. Because face it, even with lower DPS then heavy missiles, and now the Absurd reload time given to them people STILL pick RLML over Heavy Missile launchers, because you can actually overcome the passive shield recharge of a armor tanked cruiser or smaller with it.

So CCP could you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop thinkering with the Rapid missile systems and fix that what truelly needs to be fixed ?

*gives them the Heavy Missile and the Heavy Assault Missile launcher*

I believe that one of the primary issues in this entire debate is a basic misunderstanding regarding missile weapon systems, which is emphasized by missiles' faulty progression. In any particular comparisons I make, I will stick to basic, standard, T1 equipment, partly because much of the faction/T2 equipment is specifically designed to address some of the shortcomings inherent in these systems, and also because I haven't trained for any T2 weapons short of Scout Drones, and as such have little practical experience from which to speak. I don't think anyone could honestly raise an objection with using T1 as a baseline for discussion.

---

Turret weapon systems glean the vast majority of their combat values from the turrets themselves, which are only slightly modified by the ammunition loaded into them. Missile weapon systems, on the other hand, glean the vast majority of their combat values from the missiles loaded, which are only slightly modified by the launchers from which they are fired.

Turret systems have a relatively clear progression from one size class to the next, and have at least two different options for each size and range class. Hence, when selecting a medium size, long range turret, if I feel I would benefit from a turret with slightly less range but better tracking, that option is afforded me. Missile systems do not inherently include this functionality; there is only one medium size, long range missile, and I can not make minor tweaks to it by selecting a different launcher.

Furthermore, moving from one size class to the next follows a relatively clear linear progression for turrets. Turrets of a specific size class vary somewhat in their damage modifier values, but the ammunition they load gives a very standardized baseline: Antimatter XL has twice the potential damage value of Antimatter L, which has twice the potential damage value of Antimatter M, which has twice the potential damage value of Antimatter S. Missiles, however, follow no such clear progression, and the launchers have absolutely no influence on the amount of damage a given missile can inflict. Citadel Cruise Missiles have four times the potential damage value of Cruise Missiles, which have 2.7 times the potential damage value of Heavy Missiles, which have 1.6 times the potential damage value of Light Missiles...and those values don't even begin to bring into play actual damage application, which, again, is inherent in the missile for Missile Weapon Systems, versus the turret for Turret Weapon Systems.

Long story short: saying that Rapid Launchers are too powerful is basically like saying that Fusion rounds are too powerful.

I've not followed this thread zealously, but I have tried to keep up, and I'd be surprised to learn I'd skimmed over more than 10% of the nearly 200 pages here. There have been some very good points raised, and many attempts at keeping the discussion at "debate" levels, rather than "brawl". Arthur, Moonaura, I specifically would like to thank you two for your concerted efforts to keep discussion both civil and informative; you certainly weren't alone in this, but I do feel you put in more effort for longer periods of time than most anyone else involved.

As I said last time I posted here, I'm primarily a PvE pilot, and as such I realize that many of the concerns here don't really apply to my chosen play style, but even I had found value in using RLMLs and was eagerly anticipating the introduction of RHMLs. If it seemed RLMLs were too widely preferred, the faults were not with the launchers, but with the missiles themselves. In their current iteration, I feel these launchers are useless to me; the burst DPS is a false reading due to the reload delay and near-guarantee of wasted volleys due to missile travel time.

I think that the best solution to the situation would be to rehash the entire missile damage application progression to be more intuitive and useful. Once this is accomplished, return the RLML to at least near its pre-Rubicon statistics, and reintroduce the RHML to be in line with the RLML, but keep the "rapid" functionality accessible via the overheating mechanism, thus allowing the systems to be viable as reliable primary weapon systems, but introducing all those "exciting and meaningful choices" that are apparently so in vogue at the moment.

Thanks for your time.

Increasing the ammunition capacity isn't a band-aid; it was probably cut too drastically in the first release. As for the ammunition swap, this is a feature that's been requested (and we have acknowledgement they're working on) - but I don't see a way of preventing abuse unless we limit it to replenishing only 25% with a 10-second reload. Otherwise you could abuse this to go from T2 Scourge Fury to Faction Scourge and back again.

Giving the launchers more ammo without touching reload time does not solve the problem at all. In fact it only assures that you will continue to mulch frigates potentially regardless of having to switch ammo types, which only serves to remove more potential decision making in combat. The problem is the 40 second reload, rise has essentially said that they cant decouple ammo swapping from actual reloading which would be the main way to actually start balancing these things out.

More ammo will only make the situation worse for frigates while not in any way improving the situation for the rlm pilot because when he needs to reload (and he will need to reload eventually) he will likely reconsider the value of using the ship. Too much ammo or too little reload time with the current rof means you are either amazing or useless depending on the numbers. There is no real balance in that since high dps with a long reload time is not fun and borderline overpowered because you have to atleast be able to kill something before reload time hits or you have no reason to use the system at all.

The system does not need tweaking, it needs an entire balance overhaul and until you can successfully do that (which rise has stated isn't happening anytime soon) reverting to the prenerf rlms while keeping the pg increase and lowering the rof by about 10% would be a much better balance decision because it gives you time to work on your launcher idea from the ground up for extensive balancing and while you do this the playerbase isn't left with something that feels incomplete and unfun.

Additionally hmls aren't seeing more use in small gang since as stated many many times before they have so much trouble actually applying damage, even to other cruisers. This left rlm as the best choice since you do more applied damage than hml, and even though it was still pretty low damage you generally had enough tank and projection that by kiting at longpoint range you could take down other cruisers eventually. Why the idea was that they should be even better vs frigates while being worse against cruisers I don't know, although the intent as CCP Rise stated was to lower the use of rlms, so mission complete.

Honestly, and this is a serious question, if rlm use was still lowered into acceptable ranges, why are you even bothering with changing the weapon system again at all then? Nothing has been said about looking into the missile damage application formula so it can't be that you are trying to actually rebalance missiles, but only launcher use. I find it very confusing and would appreciate that cleared up.

I think this is a very complex method to achieve what is already in game. Heat...make the module have lower base dps, give it excellent overheat capability and then tweak the amount of missiles it can hold to your hearts desire and your done. No new coding....at all...and you got your burst weapon!

As an extra you could make the weapons more quicker repairable at the expense of more nanite paste consumption. This might require a little bit of coding but not very much and there you have your consumables and player determined 'out of commission time' that ties into combat tactics.

I took the day to consider the feedback and suggestions, and I think I've come up with a solid proposal for RLMLs. It's something that should address the majority of concerns and could be implemented very easily for Rubicon 1.1. While there were a lot of great ideas, I opted for KISS (keep-it-simple-stupid)

RLML Proposal
The above chart shows the RLMLs from Odyssey, Rubicon and the proposed fix. I've included overheated values just for comparison even though there were no changes to heat mechanics. In short, we put RLMLs back to the Odyssey stats, retain the increased grid and CPU fittings from Rubicon and slash the ammunition to 28 for T2 launchers (everything else adjusted accordingly).

This allows gameplay to essentially return to normal for RLMLs, with the caveat that players will be reloading approximately 3 times as often. And it solves the ammunition swap dilemma. This works out to an approximate 7% damage nerf for RLMLs, but does not affect light missiles or light missile launchers for frigates and destroyers - something I felt was important. The same premise should be applied to RHMLs as well (return them to the 1st pre-Rubicon iteration, slash the ammunition capacity and reduce the reload time to 10-seconds).
…..

HAMLs and HMLs still need to have their damage application addressed, and this proposal is not intended to (nor can it) address any of those shortcomings. Comments and feedback welcome, thanks.

That is the simplest and by far best option, for missile users BUT CCP has made it clear we are getting a burst weapon as "it is fun" and "This would provide new strategic gameplay for Rapid Missile users as well as their opponents". Now I don't believe this for 1 second and my minimum use of RLMLS since Rubicon has not proven to me they can be at all "fun" to use.

Arthur, would you mind looking at my suggestion and comment. I'm not good with math but after playing around with EFT found, increasing firing rate (before skills) from 6.24 to 6.63 reduces DPS by around 8%. This is a fairly substantial drop in Dps but as light missiles have pretty good damage application, combined with my previous suggestion I think it would work well.

As for Haml and Hml, all we can do is hope Ccp buff them to a usable state (Hml especially)

My numbers seem to indicate it works out to a DPS hit of between 6-9% depending on ammunition capacity. To avoid inadvertently causing grief for frigate and destroyer fits that may use light missile launchers, the solution needs to remain with the rapid light missiles themselves (and not the ammunition). Ultimately, I think we need to improve the damage application of HAMLs and HMLs such that players have a choice of different weapons based on their play style.

a cool comaprison on the hulls but its somehow creating a false belief that HML/ HAMs are "good"
could you post the base stats of the tengu HML/HAMs as the base value for comparison especialy when you are using % values