These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#4061 - 2014-01-17 17:54:06 UTC
Vinyl 41 wrote:
i was allways asking meself too why couldnt rapid heavys benefit from 50% missle velocity hull bonus i remember those profiting form the rate of fire one but not the velocity - but yeah i think there are more urgent problems those launchers have right now

I'd love the +50% missile velocity bonus on my Raven for RHMLs...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Vinyl 41
AdVictis
#4062 - 2014-01-17 18:01:21 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Captain Hoax wrote:
If it were up to me, I would increase rapid launcher capacity by 50%…

And that's a good place to stop… Rate of fire is ideal at the moment for both launchers. They're just lacking with ammunition capacity, so the exact number is a 1.5555% increase (28 for T2 RLML, 36 for T2 RHML).

and here we get a problem if we consider that heavys might get buffed in some time keeping that absurd rate of fire will require tweaking or even once again remaking those launchers to not create a burst dps monster system
Vinyl 41
AdVictis
#4063 - 2014-01-17 18:02:51 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Vinyl 41 wrote:
i was allways asking meself too why couldnt rapid heavys benefit from 50% missle velocity hull bonus i remember those profiting form the rate of fire one but not the velocity - but yeah i think there are more urgent problems those launchers have right now

I'd love the +50% missile velocity bonus on my Raven for RHMLs...

so were allready 2 i would even exchange that rate of fire bonus to the velocity one - RHML raven Bear
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#4064 - 2014-01-17 18:07:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Vinyl 41 wrote:
so were allready 2 i would even exchange that rate of fire bonus to the velocity one - RHML raven Bear

Hey, let's not get crazy now… Leggo my rate of fire bonus. Have you seen that puppy with Battleship-V and 5 ballistic controllers? Twisted

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Vinyl 41
AdVictis
#4065 - 2014-01-17 18:24:14 UTC
yup yup 1k+ paper dps now lets buff the heavys stats and we get a problem
Kesthely
Mestana
#4066 - 2014-01-17 20:34:14 UTC
Acutually in the 1.1 itteration where is the buff compared to guns? i mean with the TP changes now only giving the bonuses to overheat, the fact that due to low cycle time, and the generally less usefull situation where overheating truelly matters, the 15% bonus to tracking computers that guns have potentially outscales the missile buff.

Vinyl 41
AdVictis
#4067 - 2014-01-17 20:46:36 UTC
well they remain the same as on rubi 1.0 but you still can get that 20% bonus from OH - i thinkt thats a pretty good starting point to the future changes that should get paired with the webs nerf/change/rework
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#4068 - 2014-01-17 23:24:40 UTC
CCP Rise, any update on what we might expect for Rubicon 1.1 with RLMLs and RHMLs? It would be have a bit of head's up so we can get you some feedback before it goes live at the end of January. A 55% bump in ammunition capacity would be preferable, but I'm not opposed to a 20-second reload (or some combination thereof). Thanks.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

I am disposable
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#4069 - 2014-01-17 23:31:33 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
CCP Rise, any update on what we might expect for Rubicon 1.1 with RLMLs and RHMLs? It would be have a bit of head's up so we can get you some feedback before it goes live at the end of January. A 55% bump in ammunition capacity would be preferable, but I'm not opposed to a 20-second reload (or some combination thereof). Thanks.


I know they said they would make changes in 1.1, but I'll believe it when I see it. Also you are way too optimistic in terms of what changes they might make.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#4070 - 2014-01-17 23:33:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
I am disposable wrote:
I know they said they would make changes in 1.1, but I'll believe it when I see it. Also you are way too optimistic in terms of what changes they might make.

You keep saying that... but I've yet to see your proposal(s) put forward. Come up with a better idea and I'll gladly get behind it. Right now I've suggested three:

1. Buff ammunition capacity to RLML and RHMLs by 55.5%.
2. Reduce the reload time to 20-seconds (or some combination with #1).
3. Return RLMLs and RHMLs to their Odyssey/pre-Rubicon iterations, and adjust ammunition capacity to the same as proposed in #1 (RLML = 28/T2, RHML = 36/T2).

I've highlighted which is the general player preference, even though this is probably the least realistic out of the three suggestions. My personal preference is #1, because more ammunition capacity negates a longer reload time and is preferable to a 10 or 20-second reload reduction.

At this point I'll take anything...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

I am disposable
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#4071 - 2014-01-17 23:49:25 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
I am disposable wrote:
I know they said they would make changes in 1.1, but I'll believe it when I see it. Also you are way too optimistic in terms of what changes they might make.

You keep saying that... but I've yet to see your proposal(s) put forward. Come up with a better idea and I'll gladly get behind it. Right now I've suggested three:

1. Buff ammunition capacity to RLML and RHMLs by 55.5%.
2. Reduce the reload time to 20-seconds (or some combination with #1).
3. Return RLMLs and RHMLs to their Odyssey/pre-Rubicon iterations, and adjust ammunition capacity to the same as proposed in #1 (RLML = 28/T2, RHML = 36/T2).

I've highlighted which is the general player preference, even though this is probably the least realistic out of the three suggestions.


It isn't about your ideas or my ideas. I'm simply saying that the buffs you are asking for are not going to happen. They are going to increase magazine size by 10% (some other minor buff) and call it a day. Just watch.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#4072 - 2014-01-17 23:51:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
I am disposable wrote:
It isn't about your ideas or my ideas. I'm simply saying that the buffs you are asking for are not going to happen. They are going to increase magazine size by 10% (some other minor buff) and call it a day. Just watch.

The numbers and charts I posted show that a 55.5% ammunition bump is still less overall DPS than the original RLMLs and RHMLs, so why isn't it realistic? All three scenarios address the one current stumbling block with RLMLs and RHMLs: implementation of faster ammunition swaps.

I can't believe that CCP Rise would add insult to injury with the scenario you propose... CCP Rise, any comment?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

I am disposable
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#4073 - 2014-01-18 00:00:05 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
I am disposable wrote:
It isn't about your ideas or my ideas. I'm simply saying that the buffs you are asking for are not going to happen. They are going to increase magazine size by 10% (some other minor buff) and call it a day. Just watch.

The numbers and charts I posted show that a 55.5% ammunition bump is still less overall DPS than the original RLMLs and RHMLs, so why isn't it realistic? All three scenarios address the one current stumbling block with RLMLs and RHMLs: implementation of faster ammunition swaps.

I can't believe that CCP Rise would add insult to injury with the scenario you propose... CCP Rise, any comment?


I guess we will see. Their design decisions of late do not make me optimistic on the matter.
Kesthely
Mestana
#4074 - 2014-01-18 00:21:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Kesthely
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
I am disposable wrote:
I know they said they would make changes in 1.1, but I'll believe it when I see it. Also you are way too optimistic in terms of what changes they might make.

You keep saying that... but I've yet to see your proposal(s) put forward. Come up with a better idea and I'll gladly get behind it. Right now I've suggested three:

1. Buff ammunition capacity to RLML and RHMLs by 55.5%.
2. Reduce the reload time to 20-seconds (or some combination with #1).
3. Return RLMLs and RHMLs to their Odyssey/pre-Rubicon iterations, and adjust ammunition capacity to the same as proposed in #1 (RLML = 28/T2, RHML = 36/T2).

I've highlighted which is the general player preference, even though this is probably the least realistic out of the three suggestions. My personal preference is #1, because more ammunition capacity negates a longer reload time and is preferable to a 10 or 20-second reload reduction.


Next to these ideas a few options for the future adresses rapid missile launchers as a unique weapons system

1) Additional skill that reduces the reload time of Rapid launchers

A 5 or 10% reduction in reload time for rapid launchers skill, increasing the rapid launchers effectiveness on a skillpoint scaleable level, wich not only benefit current players but also future players

2) Additional stats on the Rapid Launchers, Meta level flexibility to reload time, and or ammo load

This allows meta and TII variants of rapid launchers affect varius stats. Eg a Meta 0 starts with the current 40 second reload time, a Meta 4 has a 36 second reload time This would also allow tweaking its performance, not only by rate of fire (Burst dps) but also reload time (Sustained dps) makeing some meta / faction or officer variants excell in either burst, or sustained, or both.
Certain Meta levels haveing higher or lower ammo capacity can also severly benefit and the weapon selection.

Eg Should i choose the Meta level with 50% increased capacity, allowing more total damage to be applied, and thus able to kill larger targets before i have to reload, or should i choose the meta with a 20 second reload time but a verry limited amount of ammo, allowing me to relatively quickly change ammo type, and kill single frigates, but lose dps against cruisers?

3) Modules that alter the reload time of Rapid launchers

Eg if you have a Rig that has an absolute (eg -2 second reload time) or percentile (eg 10%) reduction in reload time.

4) New (Rapid) missile types

Missile excluseively designed for Rapid missiles, allows to better tweak damage application, damage projection, and damage types for rapid launchers. These missiles can then be used instead of, or in conjunction with standard missiles for its type.

Still problems with the damage projection/application of Rapid Light missile system, make the new generic rapid missile wich is a mix between the heavy and the light missile, allowing for more tweaking again.

Also you can "solve" a reload problem by makeing a generic all round damage type (25% of each damage type) missile that people choose to bypass choices they have to make on wich damage type to bring. On single damage bonus hulls like the Cerberus this would mean that only that part of the damage gets buffed. But more importantly this is probably a faster and less invasive way to by pass current reload issues for damage type selection. You can even make race flavored versions that have a selection of damage types EG Caldari, Primary damage type Kin (70% Kin), secondary damage type Therm (30% Therm) or even a multitude there off; EG Minmater, Primary Damage type Expl (55% Expl) with Secondary damage types EM and Kin (30% kin 15% Em)
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#4075 - 2014-01-18 00:31:44 UTC
Kesthely wrote:
1) Additional skill that reduces the reload time of Rapid launchers

2) Additional stats on the Rapid Launchers, Meta level flexibility to reload time, and or ammo load

3) Modules that alter the reload time of Rapid launchers

4) New (Rapid) missile types


1. I'm generally opposed to another SP skill sink.
2. I like the idea of extending this to reload times. as ammunition capacity already varies based on Meta.
3. I'd rather see a passive low-slot ballistic enhancer for general damage application improvements. I don't think rapid launchers necessitate their own module (I'd rather just see them improved so it's not needed).
4. Light and heavy missiles already have options with Precision and Fury ammunition types, so I'm not sure what additional types are needed. We have standard, FoF, Faction, Precision and Fury in all 4 flavours.
Lol

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Kesthely
Mestana
#4076 - 2014-01-18 01:04:41 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:


4. Light and heavy missiles already have options with Precision and Fury ammunition types, so I'm not sure what additional types are needed. We have standard, FoF, Faction, Precision and Fury in all 4 flavours.
Lol


Im talking about specific ammunition for Rapid missiles, I don't know what CCP has exactly planned, but i am getting a sense that they aren't content with the fact they just shoot one tier down missiles. Yes they like the idea of a missile system designed for hitting smaller targets, but they don't want them to be "ultimate" smaller target killers.

Designing a missile specificly to be used for Rapid missile systems would solve a lot of problems. The'll have there own speed, flight time, explosion velocity, explosion radius and damage, wich allows them to get the stats to what they envision as optimum for this kind of weapon, without haveing to revisit every ship, make weird adjustments to the current missiles or launchers just to make them perform adequatly.

They would have a system that differentiate in roles from eg a Light missile Corax between a Rapid missile Caracal. (in this example the corax beeing designed to take out frigates, and the Rapid missile to take out the smalles size cruisers and / or destroyers, while haveing a slightly harder time to take out frigates then said Corax.

For the purpose of High burst, long reload, a new missile is also beneficial, since you can opt to make missiles that have multiflavored damage types, wich coincides with the gun type patterns. A big concern with longer reload times, is the fact that you can't switch damage types if needed. With a dual Triple or Omni damage type missile that concern is lessened.

Additionally This would allow ships to benefit all of their bonuses to include the Rapid missile launcher. With a new Rapid missile ammunition, the Typhoon can transfer its awesome Explosion velocity bonus to this new Missile, wich with proper tweaking then behaves exactly as the current heavy missile, but on the Raven it would convey its Equally (awesome) Velocity bonus Allowing longer range, but slightly less damage application. In essence that would make the ship feel like a typhoon, or raven, or (insert other favorite ship) with all missile options, instead of a full fledged typhoon for Cruise and Torps, and a halfbaked one with rapid heavy
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#4077 - 2014-01-18 01:10:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Kesthely wrote:
Im talking about specific ammunition for Rapid missiles, I don't know what CCP has exactly planned, but i am getting a sense that they aren't content with the fact they just shoot one tier down missiles. Yes they like the idea of a missile system designed for hitting smaller targets, but they don't want them to be "ultimate" smaller target killers.

Designing a missile specificly to be used for Rapid missile systems would solve a lot of problems. The'll have there own speed, flight time, explosion velocity, explosion radius and damage, wich allows them to get the stats to what they envision as optimum for this kind of weapon, without haveing to revisit every ship, make weird adjustments to the current missiles or launchers just to make them perform adequatly.

They would have a system that differentiate in roles from eg a Light missile Corax between a Rapid missile Caracal. (in this example the corax beeing designed to take out frigates, and the Rapid missile to take out the smalles size cruisers and / or destroyers, while haveing a slightly harder time to take out frigates then said Corax.

For the purpose of High burst, long reload, a new missile is also beneficial, since you can opt to make missiles that have multiflavored damage types, wich coincides with the gun type patterns. A big concern with longer reload times, is the fact that you can't switch damage types if needed. With a dual Triple or Omni damage type missile that concern is lessened.

Additionally This would allow ships to benefit all of their bonuses to include the Rapid missile launcher. With a new Rapid missile ammunition, the Typhoon can transfer its awesome Explosion velocity bonus to this new Missile, wich with proper tweaking then behaves exactly as the current heavy missile, but on the Raven it would convey its Equally (awesome) Velocity bonus Allowing longer range, but slightly less damage application. In essence that would make the ship feel like a typhoon, or raven, or (insert other favorite ship) with all missile options, instead of a full fledged typhoon for Cruise and Torps, and a halfbaked one with rapid heavy

Yes, I do realize this. If you buff light missiles any more they will actually start outperforming both HMs and HAMs. In fact, one could already argue that Fury light missiles are fairly close to T1 heavy missiles in terms of damage application. Run the numbers... it's not a pretty picture.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#4078 - 2014-01-18 02:42:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
As we all anxiously await an update…

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

interesangt
Perkone
Caldari State
#4079 - 2014-01-18 08:58:35 UTC
missiles already has 2 skilles tied into rate of fire, a 3`d would be overkill
Vinyl 41
AdVictis
#4080 - 2014-01-18 13:34:22 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
As we all anxiously await an update…

yup its about time to hear smt Cry