These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sylvous
Bigger than Jesus
#1501 - 2013-11-15 05:18:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Sylvous
Perhaps a new skill would be in order?
Call it: Ordnance Auto-Loader Operation
(reduce reload time of weapon modules by 3% per level)

Obviously not a fix, but could help with the long delay issue?
(Would apply only to high slot modules (turrets and launchers) so as not to make the ASB needlessly more powerful)

Just a idea that I put no time researching the far reaching effects and how this would make anything imbalanced (so flame away if need be).

edit: 3% per level was just a suggestion, could be anything
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1502 - 2013-11-15 05:40:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Is all this griping cathartic?


Is white-knighting the work of an inept douchebag satisfying?

Sylvous wrote:
Perhaps a new skill would be in order?
Call it: Ordnance Auto-Loader Operation
(reduce reload time of weapon modules by 3% per level)

Obviously not a fix, but could help with the long delay issue?
(Would apply only to high slot modules (turrets and launchers) so as not to make the ASB needlessly more powerful)

Just a idea that I put no time researching the far reaching effects and how this would make anything imbalanced (so flame away if need be).

edit: 3% per level was just a suggestion, could be anything


Could that "anything" possibly consist of not making this stupid change in the first place?
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1503 - 2013-11-15 07:03:18 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Is white-knighting the work of an inept douchebag satisfying?

I'm not "white-knighting" anything. Scroll back to some of the first posts in this thread and you'll see that my take on this is "interesting". In terms of timing, my suggestion was to defer the proposed changes until players had a chance to test them. However, in their infinite wisdom TPTB have decided to forge ahead. Since it's abundantly clear that no amount of rational or logic arguments are going to persuade otherwise, griping is an even further waste of time.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#1504 - 2013-11-15 08:05:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Major Killz
Ganthrithor wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
I'm thinking more and more that what should happen is that the rapid launchers should go back to the more conventional design, and this theme of high RoF, long reload time should be introduced in a complete new range of launchers (concept name: "salvo launchers"?) covering all missile types from rockets to cruise missiles (maybe even citadels!).


Or maybe there should be no such thing as a weapon that turns you into an essentially tracking-free, ultra-high DPS weapon for any period of time, because EVE doesn't need even lower TTKs or even-harder-to-mitigate damage application. What was the point of nerfing tracking enhancers and fiddling with medium gun tracking values etc if they're then going to come in and add a missile launcher that hits to over 60km and does ~400 to ~600 DPS to frigates on the hulls that are bonused for their use?

Rise keeps comparing his RLMLs to artillery because "both do front-loaded damage," while conveniently forgetting that alpha is not the same as sustained DPS over almost a minute of combat and that the guns that do that high alpha come with massive tracking drawbacks and the inability to apply any damage at all to small targets except for rare cases (high pilot skill, pilot error on the receiving end, bad luck, etc).

Saying these RLMLs are like artillery assumes that artillery has the tracking and signature size of a small autocannon combined with the range and damage of 1400mm... and somehow the "long reload" is supposed to make this OK by "adding suspense."

tl;dr:

- Such damage!

- Most application!

- So scare!

- Wow!



Glad you finally get it.

The changed module is VERY STRANGE. Using it for blob warfare is just bad and using it for solo is just difficult. What you want is the magical in-between where IT IS OVERPOWERED.

Blob (40 seconds won’t be popular here)
Small Scale (just right and nasty starting at 3 pilots and up to the point where using a Rapier makes sense and then heavy missiles makes more sense because of long range webs v0v)

Solo (difficult but can be mitigated threw module management, drones and or split weapon systems).

So where it shines and is OP is in small-scale fleets or small gangs if you will.

The whole thing still smacks of bad game design and the 40 seconds is horrible but you must adapt and move on. However, light missiles did need a NERF. Unfortunately we spent pages reading terrible and singularly focused facts and stats to support NO CHANGE INSTEAD OF SUGGESTING a slightly less lame module.

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Tinkerrbell
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1505 - 2013-11-15 08:08:47 UTC
I do not support this idea at all. Ether keep the current weapon system or make this a new one.
This needs to be tested by your paying customers before this goes ahead. I don't like the idea of a weapon system becoming useless once it was working "OK" beforehand.
Would this make me use it more?
Don't know it needs to be tested. The "40 second" Reload timer is a major killer for refilling or swapping ammo.
Vorll Minaaran
Centre Of Attention
#1506 - 2013-11-15 08:20:01 UTC
I dont like these changes, but if you CCP want so much long reload, at least give the players tools to mitigate some portion of it:
light missile skill affecting reload time, new reload rig, new reload skill, or something.
With those players could be reduce reload time by 10-15 sec. Then you get your high reload time, we get chance to lower it to an acceptable level.

I know Rubicon coming very soon, but letting this change go out and fixing later dont sound good.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1507 - 2013-11-15 08:39:22 UTC
Raven… RHML… 1200+ DPS...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1508 - 2013-11-15 08:44:47 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
Is white-knighting the work of an inept douchebag satisfying?

I'm not "white-knighting" anything. Scroll back to some of the first posts in this thread and you'll see that my take on this is "interesting". In terms of timing, my suggestion was to defer the proposed changes until players had a chance to test them. However, in their infinite wisdom TPTB have decided to forge ahead. Since it's abundantly clear that no amount of rational or logic arguments are going to persuade otherwise, griping is an even further waste of time.


Fair enough. I didn't read the first pages of this thread (I found out about this moronic idea just a few days ago, unfortunately), but saying that "it's too late" and that we might as well not gripe is sort of defeatist. TBH I'm hoping someone else at CCP will read this stuff, realize how dumb this idea is, and take the matter out of Rise's hands.
Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1509 - 2013-11-15 09:04:25 UTC
Was nice of CCP Rise on the video today.. saying he wants feedback, when he's virtually ignored everyone and everything said.

I suppose my quality was set too low to see the *only if it reinforces the direction we've chosen to take.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1510 - 2013-11-15 09:12:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Ganthrithor wrote:
Fair enough. I didn't read the first pages of this thread (I found out about this moronic idea just a few days ago, unfortunately), but saying that "it's too late" and that we might as well not gripe is sort of defeatist. TBH I'm hoping someone else at CCP will read this stuff, realize how dumb this idea is, and take the matter out of Rise's hands.

You won't get any argument from me. We tried for over a month to get some dialog on the original RHML iteration and this was the net result (I think it's fair to say it caught everyone completely by surprise, because RLMLs weren't on anyone's radar).

Sentinel Smith wrote:
Was nice of CCP Rise on the video today.. saying he wants feedback, when he's virtually ignored everyone and everything said. I suppose my quality was set too low to see the *only if it reinforces the direction we've chosen to take.

Nope, you didn't miss anything. In fact, RHMLs on Ravens pretty much dominated the subject (RLMLs were really only a footnote, gee - wonder why…) Roll

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1511 - 2013-11-15 09:23:47 UTC
Tinkerrbell wrote:
I do not support this idea at all. Ether keep the current weapon system or make this a new one.
This needs to be tested by your paying customers before this goes ahead. I don't like the idea of a weapon system becoming useless once it was working "OK" beforehand.
Would this make me use it more?
Don't know it needs to be tested. The "40 second" Reload timer is a major killer for refilling or swapping ammo.


Completelly agree with this.

Leaving aside meta variants there are only 3 launchers to choose from at the moment for mediums.
This compares with 6 for most medium guns iirc.

Given that burst launchers are going to be niche weapons at best reducing the number of general purpose launchers to 1 short range and 1 long range for general purpose is very bad form.

Make this abomination as a new launcher type is a much safer idea, that way when it turns out to be trash at least missile users still have choices when it comes to fitting.
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1512 - 2013-11-15 10:03:08 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
TBH I'm hoping someone else at CCP will read this stuff, realize how dumb this idea is, and take the matter out of Rise's hands.
Kujun Nashja
Godless Horizon.
OnlyFleets.
#1513 - 2013-11-15 10:04:45 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Raven… RHML… 1200+ DPS...


Extensively tested on internal testserver...yeah i was laughing my ass off as well.
the jury
SPANK THE MONKEY
#1514 - 2013-11-15 10:16:56 UTC
because 90% of the csm is null sec operators ccp just give them a battleship weapon system that can kill tech 3 and smaller sig fleet's to balance out null sec combat. most battleship fleets in null only stay on grid for a while b4 pinging off for better position so they can reload while pinging . looks like everyone else got dumped on by messing with RLML's only way to show ccp that the new RLML's is a bad idea nobody use them. Lol
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1515 - 2013-11-15 10:33:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
the jury wrote:
because 90% of the csm is null sec operators ccp just give them a battleship weapon system that can kill tech 3 and smaller sig fleet's to balance out null sec combat. most battleship fleets in null only stay on grid for a while b4 pinging off for better position so they can reload while pinging . looks like everyone else got dumped on by messing with RLML's only way to show ccp that the new RLML's is a bad idea nobody use them. Lol


Really battleship fleets in nullsec mostly get dunked on by bombers, which is a big part of why people prefer to use tanky cruiser hulls instead of BS ships when they can afford to, but you're right: big fleets will be able to exploit the hell out of these things (though I see RLMLs being even easier to exploit this way, since they're much more manueverable / difficult to catch and their RLMLs will instagib any light tackle within 60km of them. Have fun trying to bubble a fleet of those for a bomb run!

In b4 100mn, interdiction-nullified RLML Tengus become fleet meta of the month!
Kane Fenris
NWP
#1516 - 2013-11-15 10:34:04 UTC
the jury wrote:
...... only way to show ccp that the new RLML's is a bad idea nobody use them. Lol



that wont work because of:
a.) people adapt really slow to new meta most will jus keep on doing what they used to even if those launchers would suddenly be shooting yourself....

b.) even if everybody would stop using them ccps reaction wuld be like this:
CCP.: "you just haven't figured out how awesome those modules are wee not changing them they are awesome you all suck"
the jury
SPANK THE MONKEY
#1517 - 2013-11-15 10:52:20 UTC  |  Edited by: the jury
Ganthrithor brings up a good point they buff the dictors but make it a lot quicker to kill with RLML's sounds like dictors are back to square 1 . all the big null sec bro's use battleships cfc with mega's + domi's n3 + nc. mealstroms pl + Russians raven's . will that change after patch might do but raven fleets with RHML's just might be a real pain in the ass for sig tank fleets .?
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1518 - 2013-11-15 12:26:31 UTC
Incredble how a balance thread over a module no one complained about before managed to create a new rift on costumers and CCP confidence and an overal PR hickup.


Just wait and see when it HITS the game, because most players have not seen this thread yet. THe rage on general discussion forums will be epic.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Druthlen
The Carlisle Group
#1519 - 2013-11-15 13:05:38 UTC
Cruise missiles out range Heavy missiles. So its ok if a rapid slightly outdamages its longer range counterpart. 40 sec reload time is garbage. Noone will use these.
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1520 - 2013-11-15 13:11:35 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:

Just wait and see when it HITS the game, because most players have not seen this thread yet. THe rage on general discussion forums will be epic.

Could be interesting to see how many of those missioning in RLML Caracals will be enraged enough to (come here and) protest.