These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#41 - 2013-11-08 12:14:38 UTC
I'll simply summarise my thoughts on the matter like so...

You know how everyone loves ECM where you basically can't do anything for 20 seconds? Especially when you get jammed by some pathetic little EC-300s?

Do you know how much everyone really really loves it when it happens twice in a row?

You've just suggested building that same frustration directly into a weapons system.

Watching an icon flash for 40 seconds while your ammo reloads is NOT enjoyable gameplay by any stretch of the imagination. Sure, you can deploy e-war, but at the end of the day if you're fitting RHMLs you're a DPS ship so you're pretty much useless on the battlefield half the time you're on it.
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
#42 - 2013-11-08 12:15:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Daneel Trevize
Shinah Myst wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Rapid Launchers (both Light and Heavy) will be changed to have a much higher damage per second number, roughly on par with Heavy Assault Launchers and Torpedo Launchers respectively, but their ammo capacity will be reduced and their reload time will be increased increased (think Ancilliary Shield Boosters).

No. ASB-like reload time is a hack, not a solution. If you can't balance them, don't introduce them.
I believe that's the crux of the matter, that all Rapid missile systems break the fundamental Eve balancing traits of fragility of plaform vs effectiveness of applying dps. Destroyers get 8 guns, but are relatively fat & slow. BCs get more turrets than cruisers, but again are less mobile and take more damage. Even tier3/A BC are fragile on paper for their potential dps.
"rapid" weapons are obviously about packing 8 or more effective, bonused smaller weapon systems onto a more durable ship. If they can't just remove rapid lights outright, then rapid heavies (and dare I say rapid cruises for capital ships) will need such a serious change to be balanced, to be a fair tradeoff consideration.

All those crying about their precious 'solo' RLML Cerbs & Tengus aren't kidding anyone. It's like the HM drakes & tengus before, they will usually be in a small gang, built to use multiple links, and harvest t1 noob frigate killmails (and then cherry-picking the remaining defanged gang), all the while claiming ~elite smallgang pvp~ and never having to think about diminishing their own damage application via transversal.
Edit: page1 replies have already nailed it, that these weapons systems aren't for a fleet's main dps, they're support. Compose your fleets at least, you crybabies.

The reload timer mechanic itself cleary isn't a problem for acceptance, people lapped up the ASB and its timer when it was OP, and now it still has tradeoffs that are very reasonable. Likewise I'm sure people will work out to do 2 or more sets of rapid launchers and manage them should these changes happen.

I thus quite like the idea of the burst & reload dps, letting these 'support' fits do that just as effectively as ever(if not far more so), but then facing a real tradeoff when tankier BCs, BSs, or 1 or 2 smart logi can simply deaggro from them if on a gate/station/POS, or force them off through greater sustained combat effectiveness. If you wanted to burn through cruiser, BCs and larger targets, you should have to bring medium & large weapon systems to get the job done with comparable numbers.

The only real point I still want to raise is light missiles in general, and on the Talwar specifically. They're everywhere, minimal-cost-meta fitted, and have a disgusting range & volley for their isk & SP cost. I like new players having something they get basic fleet experience in, but this mindless anchoring & missile spam just reeks of drakes of old. Maybe their fitting, or light missile's range/volley needs a look at? They are a frigate-scale weapon after all.
Volstruis
Mise en Abyme
#43 - 2013-11-08 12:16:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Volstruis
They were too good for solo and gudfites. They really really were. Now no solo pilot in his right mind will fit them.

It really is all or nothing at the moment with CCP. Including those sisters cruisers that went from all to nothing in the space of one heavy/sentry being removed.
Kaeda Maxwell
Screaming Hayabusa
Neo-Bushido Movement
#44 - 2013-11-08 12:20:38 UTC
Kane Fenris wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Kane Fenris wrote:
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:
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.


you do realize higher dps while firing will break tanks easier

and dmg goes down over time gradually if 1x reload suffice you still have 292 dps over 140s in case of fozzies RLML Cara example thats about what it does now.



A single 1600 plate in a cruiser will make a rapid missile user.. laughable.


i did not say the rlml will be as good as before just that it needs to have a closer look before everybody screams it is s****

there are clearly bad things like all valid solo ships vanishing one after another
i just tried to pint out that there might be something positive to the change.

this is a "second" first iteration maybe dmg gets tuned down a bit so that reload timer can goe to 20-30 s?
which keeps characteristics but eases the situation.
who knows we need to have testing and a critical discussion not a witch hunt.

i like the thought behind the change (while i still sad to loose the current rlml cara...)


Sadly no, because what good is my increased dps when I have to fight say a T2 Gallente or Caldari hull and I find myself with Kinetic missiles loaded? Normally you'd cringe a little and waste 10 seconds swapping to EM or Explosive, with proposed changes you're well boned basically.
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
Parasitic Legion.
#45 - 2013-11-08 12:24:52 UTC
This is an interesting and bold move I am curious as to how things will turn out.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
Parasitic Legion.
#46 - 2013-11-08 12:28:25 UTC
Could you have a look at dual turrets now? It would be nice if they acted more like 2x of there smaller counterparts including the tracking and signature resolution, but use 2x of the smaller sized charge.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Hild Skidbladnir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#47 - 2013-11-08 12:28:45 UTC
2013.11.08 11:22
R.I.P. Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher.
You could've been the T3 smacker,
but you will die a stillborn death.
Why did I bother training.
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
#48 - 2013-11-08 12:30:01 UTC
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
i think it should be designed so if your charges reach 0 it takes 40 seconds to reload but to switch charge types (albeit without going back to a full reload) it would take the normal amount of time. (or no time, i dunno, that could be another bonus of using them)
This is a very valid point.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#49 - 2013-11-08 12:31:08 UTC
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:

Sadly no, because what good is my increased dps when I have to fight say a T2 Gallente or Caldari hull and I find myself with Kinetic missiles loaded? Normally you'd cringe a little and waste 10 seconds swapping to EM or Explosive, with proposed changes you're well boned basically.


thats a good point , havn't thought of that right away.

Kane Fenris
NWP
#50 - 2013-11-08 12:33:08 UTC
Daneel Trevize wrote:
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
i think it should be designed so if your charges reach 0 it takes 40 seconds to reload but to switch charge types (albeit without going back to a full reload) it would take the normal amount of time. (or no time, i dunno, that could be another bonus of using them)
This is a very valid point.



makeing reload time dependent on number of missiles missing would be a good thing
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#51 - 2013-11-08 12:38:27 UTC
Go home Rise.

You're still drunk.










I don't have an actual opinion on this yet.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Morwennon
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#52 - 2013-11-08 12:45:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Morwennon
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.
BadAssMcKill
Aliastra
#53 - 2013-11-08 12:46:28 UTC  |  Edited by: BadAssMcKill
Can we stop with ASB style reload mechanics?

Also buff HMLs tia
Denuo Secus
#54 - 2013-11-08 12:46:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Denuo Secus
I think HMLs should be more attractive again then. Compared with other medium long range turrets - which got a boost recently - they feel quite subpar. If RLMLs get a more specific role, I'd like to use HMLs more (on a Caracal for instance). But they are just plain bad. Especially in terms of damage application.
Natalia Sidorovich
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#55 - 2013-11-08 12:49:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Natalia Sidorovich
For what I use RLMLs for, this will be a significant buff.

I enjoy flying Caracals into frigate gangs and shredding them quickly. This change will significantly increase the speed at which I can do that, and provided I am not bad and get tackled, kiting around during the reload, or bailing after the charges are done won't be terrible.

For those saying this is change bad because it means RLML ships cant deal enough damage to same size ships, isn't this kind of the idea? It's a frigate sized charge.
Lunkwill Khashour
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#56 - 2013-11-08 12:58:59 UTC
Since sig radius is a radius but the ships size from a weapons pov is a surface, would't squaring the sig in the tracking and missile dps formulae increase the gap between the different weapon sizes? This, in conjunction with some dps balancing would fix the 'rapids', capital blapping and the huge competion between cruisers, bc's, abc's, bs'es and more.

I like the lateral thinking in going on between here but IMO, a 'real' small weapons platform, using small ammo and not very useful for equal size ships would be much nicer.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#57 - 2013-11-08 13:05:23 UTC
Fires for 50s, reloads for 40.

I surely can't be the first person to think two weapon groups allowing for either constant, sustained damage yet with the option of massive spike application.
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#58 - 2013-11-08 13:07:22 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
You simply destroyed my best ship (cerberus with rapid launchers). With that long reload time I cannot kill anythign meaningful (and i need rapid launchers because hamds do not fit with an useful fit). Mehh 1 billion isp spent on a ship that will be thrown in garbage can now.

Also that cahnge makes ROF bonus on launchrs a VERY SAD feature :/


Think about those numbers.. make a few more charges. So that you can kill acruiser with it.

OThewrwise you jus tmade the weapon useles for SOLO and small gang work. Surprise.. as if this was not a trend in game.


RLMs NEED a nerf. They're so good that all missile systems larger than them are not worth using.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#59 - 2013-11-08 13:11:21 UTC
And what's the word on hull bonuses? Anything different?

I can only imagine the comedy of a CNR with torpedo DPS at HML application and ranges Smile
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#60 - 2013-11-08 13:12:54 UTC
I find this whole idea so utterly ridiculous that I simply don't know what to say or where to begin. I'll echo others though in saying that this "ancillary module" fetish you guys seem to have needs to go. Quickly. It was an acceptable mechanic on the tanking modules because they only used one kind of charge and you could fit them alongside standard non-fueled modules to cover the reload gap.

I'm almost completely sure this change wasn't thought through quite as much as you think it was. Much better to not introduce RHMLs than to do this. Or cut the damage increase in half and give them a 20-sec reload time.

By the way, Rise, I saw that little trick you did there using Fury-type T2 kinetic missiles on kinetic-bonused hulls to artificially inflate the DPS numbers. How about some numbers with T1 thermal missiles?