These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#701 - 2013-11-10 18:09:34 UTC
40 second reloads are unmitigated ****.

The more I think about it the more I dislike the idea and I'm not even a missile user. (Blame drakes)
Otto Schultzky
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#702 - 2013-11-10 18:11:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Otto Schultzky
As everyone stated that 40 sec reload time is a bit ridiculous.

Might as well give players the option of "FIRE ALL THE MISSILES" that are loaded in that launcher, so they basically act like a bomb launcher against a single target.

No wait that is a terrible idea.

P.S.

It may be more justifiable to reduce reload time to 20 sec. on RLMLs and increase the missile capacity to 20 on T2 RLMLs.

For HRMLs the realod could be decreased 30 sec. and missile capacity increases to 30 on T2 HRLMs. This way it takes 1 sec / 1 missile to reload

May be add a skill called "Rapid Reload" that reduces reload time by %5 per Level.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#703 - 2013-11-10 18:15:04 UTC
With Rubicon now less than 9 days from release, and assuming the changes will need to be frozen a few days prior - we're only talking a few days at most to get these live and tested. I don't think that bodes well for such a substantial change, regardless of which side you fall on.

What I'm fairly displeased with is the fact that the RHLM thread was open for the better part of a month with ZERO dev feedback. I mean, nothing. If there were issues with the proposed RHLMs during live testing it was completely oblivious to those of us following. Interaction doesn't mean you have to respond to each and every thread, but I don't think an update every few days (even if the answer is "nothing's changed, still on-track with the last iteration") is entirely out of the question.

I would almost suggest that RHMLs and the proposed changes to RLMLs be shelved for the next quarterly update, and with that update missiles should be a top priority (torpedoes, HMLs, RLMLs and RHMLs).

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
#704 - 2013-11-10 18:17:20 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
With Rubicon now less than 9 days from release, and assuming the changes will need to be frozen a few days prior - we're only talking a few days at most to get these live and tested. I don't think that bodes well for such a substantial change, regardless of which side you fall on.

What I'm fairly displeased with is the fact that the RHLM thread was open for the better part of a month with ZERO dev feedback. I mean, nothing. If there were issues with the proposed RHLMs during live testing it was completely oblivious to those of us following. Interaction doesn't mean you have to respond to each and every thread, but I don't think an update every few days (even if the answer is "nothing's changed, still on-track with the last iteration") is entirely out of the question.

I would almost suggest that RHMLs and the proposed changes to RLMLs be shelved for the next quarterly update, and with that update missiles should be a top priority (torpedoes, HMLs, RLMLs and RHMLs).



I couldn't agree more
wellofsorrow
An-Us
#705 - 2013-11-10 18:24:29 UTC
Oh dear another NOT SO BRIGHT IDEA. I do hope reason comes to the office of ccp . I f your gonna do this atleast Give the ships in question a better tanking ability to servive the ludicrus reload time. You really have taken your fist and shoved it up the hole where the sun don't shineShocked
Ion Blacknight
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#706 - 2013-11-10 18:31:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Ion Blacknight
Mhari Dson wrote:
Obviously CCP Rise got a bad evaluation on something in the last week (I wonder......) and he's gone into OMFG SAVE MY JOB mode without thinking it through....


I work in a large organisation where this kind of terrible solution looking for a problem happens all the time. I'm sure it happens pretty much everywhere except at the most progressive and enlightened companies where you don't need to be constantly fixing things that are not broken to keep your job. And, moreover, where you have the support and the culture to be able to admit you were wrong and say yeah, that was a bad idea, we'll forget about that one.

War reports: Blacknight active
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#707 - 2013-11-10 18:51:28 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
THe last time I saw a dev idea so relentlesly bashed as HORRIBLE , was back at zulupark time, when we got ideas like limiting carriers to only fighters


I liked that idea though.
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
#708 - 2013-11-10 18:59:28 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
THe last time I saw a dev idea so relentlesly bashed as HORRIBLE , was back at zulupark time, when we got ideas like limiting carriers to only fighters


I liked that idea though.



I'd probably be better disposed to liking the idea if it weren't intended to replace an exsisting weapons system that already functions well and just needs a minor tweak.
Madbuster73
State War Academy
Caldari State
#709 - 2013-11-10 19:16:35 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hi!

As you guys know, we're introducing Rapid Heavy Missile Launchers in Rubicon for battleships that will echo the Rapid Light Launchers in design. Well, now that the current design has been out and available for discussion for awhile, we've taken on a lot of feedback and we don't feel completely satisfied with them.

The problem we're facing is that it's very hard to create a good balance between rapid launchers and their on-size counterparts(torpedo launchers, cruise launchers, heavy missile launchers and heavy assault missile launchers). Currently I feel we have the numbers high enough that they are almost always the right choice, but if we tune them down at all they will almost never be the right choice. We would much rather that the decision to use rapid launchers depended heavily on context and that you would choose them not because they were generally better than their competition but because your specific situation called for them.

Here's the plan to improve the situation:

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). Some specifics:

Rapid Light Missile Launcher rate of fire set to:
Rapid Light Missile Launcher I ------------------------- 7.8s
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II ------------------------- 6.24s
Prototype 'Arbalest' Rapid Light Missile Launcher --- 6.24s
Other meta types not shown

Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher rate of fire set to:
Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher I ------------------------ 6.48s
Rapid Heavy Missile launcher II ------------------------- 5.185s
'Arbalest' Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher I ------------ 5.185s
Other meta types not shown

Reload time for both groups set to 40 seconds.

T2 Rapid Light Launchers can carry roughly 18 charges
T2 Rapid Heavy Launchers can carry roughly 23 charges

This translates to a Raven with 3x BCU, T2 Rapid Heavy Launchers and Scourge Fury missiles doing 926 dps
This translates to a Caracal with 3x BCU, T2 Rapid Light Launchers and Scourge Fury missiles doing 409 dps

Both ships would have around 50 seconds of up time followed by 40 seconds of reload meaning that over extended engagements their true dps would be a bit more than half of the dps number above.

This would provide new strategic gameplay for Rapid Missile users as well as their opponents. It would make these systems stronger against ships that can be killed inside the active window(smaller ships) but worse over longer fights, which would usually mean fights against ships in the same class or larger. It would generally be more interesting but would also leave more space for the main missile systems to thrive as well.

Let me know what you think and keep in mind that numbers may be adjusted slightly as we continue to test.
Thanks



This is the worst idea ever imo.....

This encourages missile ship blobs.......
And it nerfs Solo....

We dont want Caracal or Typoon blobs, they are already OP as it is
KDUBDA1ST
Order of Celestial Knights
#710 - 2013-11-10 19:27:49 UTC
no no no no no

if they can do this to rlml's, then they can do it to blasters, ac's, etc

...or mayb they'll do it to all weapons systems for t3's, you know, to carry on with that O/H bonus 'tradition'


all of you that are talking like you think this is a GREAT IDEA, probably feel that way bc this isn't happening to your fav weapons system, which you probably also DONT think is broken.

cCp, before making such a major change to a weapon systems functionality, plz first justify why such a mod requires the adjustment. If it is not broken, do not attempt to fix. Add a new weapons system instead. you did so with the ancillary defense mods. so should it b for offensive systems.

Personally, id prefer they find something other than 'ancillary' this or that, to fix balance issues, but if they insist on going on with the ancillary madness, at least keep it to mods that are not capable of using various load charges. the most obvious tweak to asb's or aar's at this point would be only a single charge size for each corresponding mod size....but I guess that's a different thread. the obvious point still stands, having to wait and extended period of time in order to adjust to changing combat situations is not 'fun, exciting, new, or tense' it just sux. If you cannot adjust quickly in combat, then you are useless.

Angelus Ryan
One Ronin
#711 - 2013-11-10 19:58:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Angelus Ryan
Oh boy, that is just wrong.

Markku Laaksonen wrote:

FOFs - No one uses FOFs because they're terrible and restrictively over-situational. (Auto-Targeting Missiles, technically.)


Plenty of people I know use FoFs. Especially when flying outnumbered against gangs who often bring damp kite tackle. A papertanked Maulus/Condor doesn't like FoFs because it drives them off.

Markku Laaksonen wrote:

Kinetic Bonus - This is an interesting point about ships with kinetic bonuses. You don't switch that often. The bonus takes away from decision making. The decision is 'to shoot kinetic or not to shoot kinetic.' With a kinetic bonus that can net you +25% damage, the decision is always to shoot kinetic.


The Caracal, Bellicose and Scythe Fleet Issue are not kinetic bonused. You switch ALL THE TIME.

Markku Laaksonen wrote:

Switching - Again, you admit that most ships using missiles are kinetic bonused. You don't switch that often. The only time I would go into a fight with not-kinetic missiles on a kinetic bonused ship is if I knew the resist profile of the target. The only sure fire way to figure this out in a fight is to shoot one of each missile and see which hits harder. And then wait 40s to reload everything to that damage type? No one does that now with a 10s reload. Anything else is assumption.


Actually, it isn't terribly hard to know a good approximation of the resist profile of your target based on: Native resist profile (Especially T2 ships), prior fits by the same pilot, related doctrines by the corp/alliance in question, etc. While it is an assumption, it is an educated one, and it beats the "shoot kinetic!" approach you seem to be advocating in a vast majority of the time. And also, again: Among typical RLML using vessels, pretty much only the Cerberus is kinetic-bonused. Not switching is dumb.
Onslaughtor
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#712 - 2013-11-10 20:02:15 UTC
Why not go half half? Give it a 20 sec reload and balance the damage to compensate. I think this would be better not only because its usable, but its also tamer. And if you are able to rapidly change it like you say, why not start with something less drastic and start small then work up as required?

So yeah

20 sec reload and balance the damage to compensate.
Marcus Walkuris
Aww yeahhh
#713 - 2013-11-10 20:12:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Walkuris
Angelus Ryan wrote:
Markku Laaksonen wrote:


Kinetic Bonus - This is an interesting point about ships with kinetic bonuses. You don't switch that often. The bonus takes away from decision making. The decision is 'to shoot kinetic or not to shoot kinetic.' With a kinetic bonus that can net you +25% damage, the decision is always to shoot kinetic.




The Caracal, Bellicose and Scythe Fleet Issue are not kinetic bonused. You switch ALL THE TIME.


You aren't really proving the point.
He is specifically referring to ships "with" kinetic bonuses.
That said the ships without kinetic specific bonuses is tragically low as you illustrated.
Ghost Phius
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#714 - 2013-11-10 20:28:51 UTC
CCP is searching hard for a new gimmick lol. Keep trying this one sucks warm donkey balls.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#715 - 2013-11-10 21:06:40 UTC
Marcus Walkuris wrote:
Angelus Ryan wrote:
Markku Laaksonen wrote:


Kinetic Bonus - This is an interesting point about ships with kinetic bonuses. You don't switch that often. The bonus takes away from decision making. The decision is 'to shoot kinetic or not to shoot kinetic.' With a kinetic bonus that can net you +25% damage, the decision is always to shoot kinetic.




The Caracal, Bellicose and Scythe Fleet Issue are not kinetic bonused. You switch ALL THE TIME.


You aren't really proving the point.
He is specifically referring to ships "with" kinetic bonuses.
That said the ships without kinetic specific bonuses is tragically low as you illustrated.


There are two RLM ships with kinetic bonuses, and yes, even in those, you very often swap from kinetic.
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery
RAZOR Alliance
#716 - 2013-11-10 21:09:34 UTC
Even if you have a kinetic bonus you still have to switch to mjolnir or nova if you encounter a caldari or gallente t2/t3. Otherwise you end up doing next to no damage because of their resist profiles. Additionally these ships that you have to switch ammo for are quite common in pvp, so you can't get away with saying 'edge case scenario'. You can still say 'it's not a deal breaker' but you can use that as a generic response to anything without explaining why.

There are so many more important things you could be doing instead of putting the resources into changing rlms. These things include drone assist, completely revamping the terrible mechanic that is ecm, and so much more. Instead you are going to change a system that is currently just as viable as lasers, rails, arty, etc at what it does. Sure the hulls that use them have the fitting room for extra tank so requiring extra powergrid to fit rlms might be a good idea so things like the triple lse caracal or the lse+xl asb cerb are toned down a bit. Currently this proposal is a kick in the teeth to solo and small gang while not really even changing large fleet play because they have enough ships dedicated to providing application bonuses in the form of tps and webs that they can use hmls and hams to do more damage anyway.

As I have said before the rlm metrics are likely because they are so easy to train into for new players to be effectively on par and viable as anti tackle in a small gang while still being able to solo, all without having to put nearly as much sp into t2 turrets for the same effect. Rlm is also hardly used in larger fleet pvp to my knowledge mostly because in larger fleets they have dedicated application bonuses in the form of bonus web and painters. You dont normally have the ability to include that in small gangs and especially not solo which is why rlms are so popular.

Forcing rlms to require application bonuses and such will only mean that they will hardly be used at all since small gangs can't take advantage of them easily and larger fleets are already able to use higher damage missile systems. Pigeon holing rlms like this proposal suggests is also a terrible idea because it just hurts the people currently using them and they would be forced into laser/rails etc, effectively limiting their choices when at present rlms are no more powerful than other systems. Best idea would be to add more pg cost to rlms instead to lower the effective tank on the ships using them without just killing rlms as an option compared to other systems.
BBQ FTW
The Hatchery
RAZOR Alliance
#717 - 2013-11-10 21:09:38 UTC  |  Edited by: BBQ FTW
this discussion would be so much better if only people with 3 digit battleclinic rank were allowed to post)))))

then you don't have people that fit HMLs to ravens wasting valuable space in thread

Quote:
There are two RLM ships with kinetic bonuses, and yes, even in those, you very often swap from kinetic.

nah brah shoot scourge at enyo erry day

Quote:
if they can do this to rlml's, then they can do it to blasters, ac's, etc

this would be amazing
Baron' Soontir Fel
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#718 - 2013-11-10 21:11:13 UTC
Major Killz wrote:

So what I propose to do with light missiles is this. Increase signature resolution by 100%, Increase explosion velocity by 50% and reduce missile flight time so that an absolutely skilled missile users light missiles would have a 36,000m-flight time to a static target. I think that would be enough to put them back in line with most long-range weapon systems.


This would be fine with the RLML was buffed in terms of DPS to project the same DPS quantities as other long range weapon systems. IE 300-400 damage. (400 dmg Rail-Moa/Thorax) And somehow you didn't make them as gay as HMLs unable to hit anything smaller than a BS.


You fail to see the strength of missiles is their range. The frigate short-range missile system is the rocket and those hit out to 15km while blasters hit out to 2k. Frigate rails can hit long or short range depending on your 10 ammo choices. Frigate LML hit out to 42 (unbonused) RLML usually only can hit out to 42km when they're unbonused. So basically the same as what you have.



And what you also don't realize is flight time is drastically inflated when comparing to Optimal. A 36k flight time will be not be enough to catch a 5k m/s ship orbiting you at 20. So once again, a frigate is non-killable by a anti-frigate cruiser.
Angelus Ryan
One Ronin
#719 - 2013-11-10 21:15:06 UTC
Marcus Walkuris wrote:
Angelus Ryan wrote:
Markku Laaksonen wrote:


Kinetic Bonus - This is an interesting point about ships with kinetic bonuses. You don't switch that often. The bonus takes away from decision making. The decision is 'to shoot kinetic or not to shoot kinetic.' With a kinetic bonus that can net you +25% damage, the decision is always to shoot kinetic.




The Caracal, Bellicose and Scythe Fleet Issue are not kinetic bonused. You switch ALL THE TIME.


You aren't really proving the point.
He is specifically referring to ships "with" kinetic bonuses.
That said the ships without kinetic specific bonuses is tragically low as you illustrated.


Yeah, sorry. I wasn't really clear. I wanted to say that the most accessible RLML platforms are not kinetic bonused, and due to that not switching often is false. Also, once you start talking Caldari T2 resist profiles, the 25% damage increase might as well be a nerf gun when compared to switching to EM/Exp.

I wasn't clear, been a long day.
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#720 - 2013-11-10 21:27:06 UTC
Not a good idea Rise. And have the real bad feeling you are just gonna push this thru anyway. It's basically gonna be "loot bukkake" all over again. Tossed up on the forums a couple weeks before release. Player base tells you it's a horrible idea. Gets pushed thru anyway. Becomes a horrible game mechanic that players avoid. All this has happened, and will happen again.

This is not a difficult module to implement. You just make it do 15% less sustained dps in comparison to the long-range missile system. HML Caracal does ~250dps, RLML Caracal does ~215dps. Trade damage, for better fitting and application against smaller targets. So BS-sized you'd see ~700dps Cruise, and ~600dps RHML. Does it massacre smaller ships? Yes. that's the whole point. Does it get it's ass handed to it by same-size ships with standard fitting? Yes. Which is the balance. Done. Why is this hard?