These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Adwokat Diabla
Loving my Nyx
#1201 - 2013-11-12 23:16:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Adwokat Diabla
This does not make sense. Nobody in nullsec uses rapid lights except for small gangs. When PL tried it we quickly realized drones were much better, so I don't even understand what you are trying to accomplish. Everybody has switched over to rail tengus. Nobody really uses missiles, rapid light fleets just aren't a thing anymore.
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery
#1202 - 2013-11-12 23:16:46 UTC
@bouh: My example was more specifically geared towards if I were to engage another cruiser and it calls its friends, or perhaps I am doing a fw plax and am having to shoot rats. If I were just using the caracal to shoot lightly tanked or untanked tackle and warp out the new rlms would be far too good at this, giving the opponents much less response time. This again turns it into a 1 trick pony where in the majority of situation the omen or thorax will be flat out better.

Even a powergrid increase for rlm that would force the caracal to reduce its tank to a similar level of the omen or thorax would be much better because then it will be able to deal with a changing situation and adapt via being able to swap ammo easily.

As far as the thorax and omen having tracking issues, standard drop fixes this issue very easily for the omen. You need standard drop and a defensive web for a rail thorax to deal with tackle well if it lands on you. Both of these ships can easily handle tackle at range and unlike the new rlms, they are gaurenteed to atleast be able to shoot at it (barring the enemy gang using various ewar) every single time.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#1203 - 2013-11-12 23:17:00 UTC
June Ting wrote:
Replace 5% RLML ROF bonus on Caracal and Bellicose with 7.5% RLML reload time bonus? It's really odd that the reload time dominates the performance of the RLML module, but that there is no set of skills that will mitigate the impact of the reload.


This is another issue with these changes that has not been emphasized enough. There is no way to mitigate the stupidly slow reload times like there is with the slow firing rates of artillery. On top of that, RoF bonuses will be much, much less desirable with these things than straight damage bonuses.
Chessur
Fweddit
Free Range Chikuns
#1204 - 2013-11-12 23:17:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Chessur
Taoist Dragon wrote:
LOL I'm am truely surprised by how many people are so butthurt that they will no longer be able WTFBBPWN frig gangs with a single RLML cruiser....


Aw go cry a river somewhere else. Name another frig killing cruiser that uses turrets that are as effective as RLML ones? There aren't simple as that. Medium sized turrets have majore drawback when attacking small ship classes. The new RLML will still have good damage application to smaller ship but now you will have to think tactically rather than just pushing keep at range and F1.

Adapt or die!

Actually no don't adapt and die lots more Twisted


Yah.... How about, you are wrong.

Nomen, Zealot, Rail diemos, Rail thorax, Rail Exq Navy, Oracle, Cynabal, Omen, Ishtar, Navy Vexor
All of those ships destroy light tackle.
Bob Niac
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1205 - 2013-11-12 23:18:45 UTC
Heck with it.. Imma play on SiSi and figure out wtf is going on. Devs deserve that much. It's really weird concept, tbh. I always saw guided missiles as better sustained dmg, and rockets, torps and the like as busty err bursty.

Next time, can y'all at least consider HAMs for this? Shocked

[u]I <3 Logistics:[/u] Pilot of all  T2 logi and my shiny Archon [deceased.] Also a Chimera which may or may not be horrid. I don't make games, I play them. I get that ppl are passionate about change. I post here to plant seeds. You see your idea as is? Holy **** you win! So let's post, and see what the DEVs and our peers use.

Skoaler
Sicarius.
#1206 - 2013-11-12 23:18:53 UTC
Wouldn't keeping the the rapid light missile launchers capacity and reload time the same but a flat 10-20% nerf in ROF coupled with an in increase of say 25-35% or so overheated rate of fire balance out better. As well as a tweaked structure hitpoint and heat damage per a cycle to give the desired 50 second burst feature work out better? This would eliminate the downtime from reloading but give the desired burst damage without substantially changing the rapid light missile system. I'm sure my %'s aren't spot on but could be adjusted to better suit the idea.
Any comments on the idea?
Kaeda Maxwell
Screaming Hayabusa
Neo-Bushido Movement
#1207 - 2013-11-12 23:19:08 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
And let's extend this conversation to RHMLs, since they are getting mostly ignored in this debate. What is the point of these things at this point? They have all the well-documented weaknesses of HMs, don't benefit from range or explosion bonuses, and suffer from all the inflexibility issues mentioned above.

RHMLs are going to totally rock on Ravens for L4s. As for PvP, battleships are basically dead post-Rubicon anyway - so I don't think it matters what benefit or detriment RHMLs have there.


I see no reason not to fly battleships in PvP post rubicon, not everybody flies in environments with bubbles and even there I see plenty of opportunities for battleships to still be fun and useful.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#1208 - 2013-11-12 23:19:48 UTC
Viceorvirtue wrote:
@bouh: My example was more specifically geared towards if I were to engage another cruiser and it calls its friends


Of course you will never want to engage another cruiser with these things which is the entire point of these changes. Never mind that turret cruisers aren't forced to make a definitive choice like that, and are more than capable of being fitted for fighting cruisers and frigates at the same time.
Adwokat Diabla
Loving my Nyx
#1209 - 2013-11-12 23:22:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Adwokat Diabla
Taoist Dragon wrote:
LOL I'm am truely surprised by how many people are so butthurt that they will no longer be able WTFBBPWN frig gangs with a single RLML cruiser....


Aw go cry a river somewhere else. Name another frig killing cruiser that uses turrets that are as effective as RLML ones? There aren't simple as that. Medium sized turrets have majore drawback when attacking small ship classes. The new RLML will still have good damage application to smaller ship but now you will have to think tactically rather than just pushing keep at range and F1.

Adapt or die!

Actually no don't adapt and die lots more Twisted


People will adapt like we did by not flying ****** ships. lol

Incidentally this will throw the cerb into not being used by having a 20% decrease to rapid dps.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1210 - 2013-11-12 23:24:12 UTC
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:
I see no reason not to fly battleships in PvP post rubicon, not everybody flies in environments with bubbles and even there I see plenty of opportunities for battleships to still be fun and useful.

Blobs, sure. But solo - they're finished with the new warp speed mechanics.

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

Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#1211 - 2013-11-12 23:24:27 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
And let's extend this conversation to RHMLs, since they are getting mostly ignored in this debate. What is the point of these things at this point? They have all the well-documented weaknesses of HMs, don't benefit from range or explosion bonuses, and suffer from all the inflexibility issues mentioned above.

RHMLs are going to totally rock on Ravens for L4s. As for PvP, battleships are basically dead post-Rubicon anyway - so I don't think it matters what benefit or detriment RHMLs have there.


Ravens only get one bonus for RHMLs, and the range of many fights in L4 missions is going to really make you miss the other one. Besides, Ravens already have no issues with L4 missions. I would really hope there are more uses than that for RHMLs, though I'm pretty sure there won't be.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#1212 - 2013-11-12 23:26:58 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:
I see no reason not to fly battleships in PvP post rubicon, not everybody flies in environments with bubbles and even there I see plenty of opportunities for battleships to still be fun and useful.

Blobs, sure. But solo - they're finished with the new warp speed mechanics.


Seems CCP only wants blobs to be honest.
Adwokat Diabla
Loving my Nyx
#1213 - 2013-11-12 23:30:13 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:
I see no reason not to fly battleships in PvP post rubicon, not everybody flies in environments with bubbles and even there I see plenty of opportunities for battleships to still be fun and useful.

Blobs, sure. But solo - they're finished with the new warp speed mechanics.


Solo BS lol

As if that was ever a thing
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1214 - 2013-11-12 23:31:16 UTC
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
Ravens only get one bonus for RHMLs, and the range of many fights in L4 missions is going to really make you miss the other one. Besides, Ravens already have no issues with L4 missions. I would really hope there are more uses than that for RHMLs, though I'm pretty sure there won't be.

True, but that's at least one that counts - and it's still better than zero bonuses on the Navy Raven. Yes, Ravens are already rock L4s - I meant they're going to be even better now. Same effective DPS as cruise with more explosion velocity and less than half the explosion radius of cruise missiles. Three hydraulic rigs will push these to almost 100km, which is more than enough for any L4. Officer RHML versions should have a nice ammunition supply (something not available to RLMLs).

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

Kaeda Maxwell
Screaming Hayabusa
Neo-Bushido Movement
#1215 - 2013-11-12 23:32:35 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:
I see no reason not to fly battleships in PvP post rubicon, not everybody flies in environments with bubbles and even there I see plenty of opportunities for battleships to still be fun and useful.

Blobs, sure. But solo - they're finished with the new warp speed mechanics.


Pretty sure I can still use gate aggression mechanics in lowsec post rubicon, also quite sure I can still look an 'innocent carebear just running his DED plex (that you conveniently can't cyno into and allows me to get setup in a cleared room :P) post rubicon.

I get that people are concerned about the warp speed changes affecting battleships, but I'm not ready to buy into this 'the end of solo battleships' gospel quite yet. But lets not go so horribly off-topic Big smile
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#1216 - 2013-11-12 23:32:56 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

I also assure you that I am not ignoring negative feedback. There are absolutely a lot of people giving that in this thread. In the past when I've gotten negative feedback which is backed with well articulated arguments I don't hesitate to make changes (see industrial rebalance, electronic attack frig rebalance, battleship rebalance), but in this thread the majority of complaint is very disorganized and unhelpful, that's why I'm instead going with the positive feedback coming from the CSM, from our testing and from some posters here.

"I'm not just ignoring negative feedback but I'm ignoring negative feedback because it's not presented how *I* want it to be."

This is silly and just wordplay on your part. You're intelligent enough to understand why this is a terrible argument.

We all know that you've got your pride wrapped into your project- it's fair enough to do so, but not at the cost of you choosing to ignore the negative feedback in such a juvenile manner.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1217 - 2013-11-12 23:33:31 UTC
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:
I get that people are concerned about the warp speed changes affecting battleships, but I'm not ready to buy into this 'the end of solo battleships' gospel quite yet. But lets not go so horribly off-topic Big smile

Time will tell. We'll have to see how it plays out with the new warp speed implants.

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

Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#1218 - 2013-11-12 23:34:45 UTC
Kat Ayclism wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:

I also assure you that I am not ignoring negative feedback. There are absolutely a lot of people giving that in this thread. In the past when I've gotten negative feedback which is backed with well articulated arguments I don't hesitate to make changes (see industrial rebalance, electronic attack frig rebalance, battleship rebalance), but in this thread the majority of complaint is very disorganized and unhelpful, that's why I'm instead going with the positive feedback coming from the CSM, from our testing and from some posters here.

"I'm not just ignoring negative feedback but I'm ignoring negative feedback because it's not presented how *I* want it to be."

This is silly and just wordplay on your part. You're intelligent enough to understand why this is a terrible argument.

We all know that you've got your pride wrapped into your project- it's fair enough to do so, but not at the cost of you choosing to ignore the negative feedback in such a juvenile manner.


Based on his purely dismissive responses in this thread I think it's rather obvious you are wasting your time with the whole "you are better than that" approach.
Utopa Kashuken
Eos Tribe
#1219 - 2013-11-12 23:36:21 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:


I also assure you that I am not ignoring negative feedback. There are absolutely a lot of people giving that in this thread. In the past when I've gotten negative feedback which is backed with well articulated arguments I don't hesitate to make changes (see industrial rebalance, electronic attack frig rebalance, battleship rebalance), but in this thread the majority of complaint is very disorganized and unhelpful, that's why I'm instead going with the positive feedback coming from the CSM, from our testing and from some posters here.



Plz dont forget - Scourge missiles are many. T1, T2 fury, T2 precision, and Factions...

If you still think kinetic bonus makes no need change ammo, well...

How about shoot frigate by using T2 fury? Big smile
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#1220 - 2013-11-12 23:42:47 UTC
Utopa Kashuken wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:


I also assure you that I am not ignoring negative feedback. There are absolutely a lot of people giving that in this thread. In the past when I've gotten negative feedback which is backed with well articulated arguments I don't hesitate to make changes (see industrial rebalance, electronic attack frig rebalance, battleship rebalance), but in this thread the majority of complaint is very disorganized and unhelpful, that's why I'm instead going with the positive feedback coming from the CSM, from our testing and from some posters here.



Plz dont forget - Scourge missiles are many. T1, T2 fury, T2 precision, and Factions...

If you still think kinetic bonus makes no need change ammo, well...

How about shoot frigate by using T2 fury? Big smile


And fofs.