These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 1.1] Rapid Missile Update

First post First post
Author
Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#701 - 2014-05-21 15:51:43 UTC
Did these things every get the usage stats review we were promised ?
Arthur Aihaken
Kenshin Academia.
Kenshin Shogunate.
#702 - 2014-05-21 16:15:56 UTC
Dav Varan wrote:
Did these things every get the usage stats review we were promised ?

There was a graph at FanFest that showed a drastic drop in rapid launcher usage after Rubicon, a recovery and then apparently a subsequent increase. There wasn't a breakdown of rapid light launchers vs. rapid heavy launchers or a comparison with other missile systems (which I think is relevant).

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

Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#703 - 2014-05-21 20:50:18 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
I was talking about a cycle time such that the clip is emptied in 20 seconds. Reload time is 60 seconds. "moments of tension" and all that. We're talking about 1 missile per second for a total of 20-30k damage delivered in 20 seconds.

If you change the reload time to 60 seconds you might as well write these weapon systems off.

It would be one of the only weapon systems to push 30k damage raw down your throat at 50-100km in under 30s. People are fixating on the reload time but the devil here is the total amount of damage downfield peaks absolutely at ~30k. No amount of overheating will ever affect that.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#704 - 2014-05-22 01:04:10 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
I was talking about a cycle time such that the clip is emptied in 20 seconds. Reload time is 60 seconds. "moments of tension" and all that. We're talking about 1 missile per second for a total of 20-30k damage delivered in 20 seconds.

If you change the reload time to 60 seconds you might as well write these weapon systems off.

It would be one of the only weapon systems to push 30k damage raw down your throat at 50-100km in under 30s. People are fixating on the reload time but the devil here is the total amount of damage downfield peaks absolutely at ~30k. No amount of overheating will ever affect that.

Ok 30k damage in 20 seconds, 60 secs to reload (lol) I'll presume your talking RHML?
They can do that now by overheating and have a reload of 35 seconds, you want to increase the reload to 60 seconds and remove overheating?

It would be the least used weapon system next to - - - Oh sorry the least used weapon system is Rapids Launchers due to overly long reload and poor damage application.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Arthur Aihaken
Kenshin Academia.
Kenshin Shogunate.
#705 - 2014-05-22 01:14:36 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
People are fixating on the reload time...

Yes, it's because long reloads SUCK.

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

Joe Boirele
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#706 - 2014-05-22 01:35:15 UTC
I feel like I should add my voice to the thread (for all the good it'll do...)

Yes, I fly RLML caracals sometimes.
Is that because I like RLML? No, it's not. It's because there aren't any other viable choices in medium missile launchers. And let me tell you, going up against a harpy with all inferno missiles loaded in your RLMLs is a good way to get a quick lossmail.

Enemies are just friends who stab you in the front.

"We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight!"

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#707 - 2014-05-22 01:49:24 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
People are fixating on the reload time...

Yes, it's because long reloads SUCK.

Long reload times do not add "interesting choices to game play" and are far from "Fun".

A high of 25 mil HP destroyed in a week, compared to the Trillions of HP destroyed per week in TQ. I think that alone is the answer to all the questions relating to whether Rapid launchers are seen as a viable weapon system or not.

Team FozRis - got it wrong.
Maybe by the time my Grandchildren are old enough to take my place in New Eden, we will have decent missile systems. Right now, with the odd exception, Missiles are fail.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

CW Itovuo
The Executioners
#708 - 2014-05-22 02:24:58 UTC
Flew with some rapid lights the other day, I really only ever use them on a celestis or caracal; neither ship sees much action with me.

Rapid Lights are as bad as I thought they'd be.

Piloting error on my part to be sure, but a number of salvos missed their mark due range limitations. (Attempting to chase down a frigate, while maintaining some sort of distance from the enemy furball.)

Anyhoo.... running out of ammo on the Sluggish-Light module is like signing up to be Falcon jammed TWICE, just without the falcon.


Not Fun.

Not Exciting.



Serious CCP derp.
Arthur Aihaken
Kenshin Academia.
Kenshin Shogunate.
#709 - 2014-05-22 02:44:13 UTC
CW Itovuo wrote:
Anyhoo.... running out of ammo on the Sluggish-Light module is like signing up to be Falcon jammed TWICE, just without the falcon.

Now imagine it with a 60-second reload/swap time...

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

Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#710 - 2014-05-22 03:56:24 UTC
You guys should seriously watch that video I have posted some time. The mechanic has existed for decades and only recieves complaints from people with no idea what they're doing. On sisi I kill vagabonds and cerbs with rlml quite easily. These are hacs with 50% more ehp than you standard cruiser getting smushed by what you call the weakest weapon system in the game.

When I can I'll make a video for you to watch. .. or alternatively go look up some mwll vulture vids.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#711 - 2014-05-22 10:32:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Caleb Seremshur
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
People are fixating on the reload time...

Yes, it's because long reloads SUCK.

Long reload times do not add "interesting choices to game play" and are far from "Fun".

A high of 25 mil HP destroyed in a week, compared to the Trillions of HP destroyed per week in TQ. I think that alone is the answer to all the questions relating to whether Rapid launchers are seen as a viable weapon system or not.

Team FozRis - got it wrong.
Maybe by the time my Grandchildren are old enough to take my place in New Eden, we will have decent missile systems. Right now, with the odd exception, Missiles are fail.



Are you for real? Heavy missiles are bad, yes it's a given. HAMs are workable but need niche scenarios to push their full dps downstream.

As for trillions of HP destroyed I don't think you can seriously expect to have a point there given supers push 25k dps and there are so many of them that it's been officially recognised as a problem. Titans aren't a pushover either. What about dreads? 10-15k dps a piece there too. Trillions of HP as a metric is just as meaningless without context considering we don't know the sample size, the time or the place or even what ships were used.

Fozzie and Co got it wrong I'm not contesting that, but while you want more homogenisation between missiles and turrets I have consistently pushed for the change to go FURTHER towards being front loaded dps with longer reload times. If you see a problem on d-scan at 14au maybe by the time they actually land on grid you're ready to fight them. Not to mention all the millions of other minute details that can dramatically change how the outcome of a conflict goes.

It really is far, far too easy and convenient to just default to "you lost before you undocked" lines of thinking when things like carrying a mobile depot to allow hot-swapping ammo and other general terms of preparation can solve so many problems.

another great video here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgmayoBfyRw

that is a vulture heavy mech with 4x Clan LRM25s against a an assualt timberwolf mk2. It would be like taking a caracal against a megathron for comparison, except the caracal can deal 20k damage in a few seconds before having to retreat (a tactic called skirmishing btw) while the much slower mk2 you see took off half the vultures front armour from a single gun. The vulture will most probably lose this fight unless he can manipulate terrain and target painters (which missiles automatically home in on over and around terrain) to lever his considerable damage against the more burly assault class.

For a comparison to rockets and HAMs there are SRM10s and MRM20s which again dump their whole 'clip' in to a target before reloading but their missiles are very short range and track targets very poorly. They're slightly more damaging but unless you can maneuvre properly its much better to engage at a choke point or at the missiles maximum range so that your hit chances go up. FWIW all missiles are tracked in real time, there's no dice rolling. Strategy and tactics are really important when using a mech with only missiles and this is rewarded through either solid teamwork or being more clever than your target.

My favourite mech was a the bushwhacker, a mech with 4 different weapons systems and I favoured it because in addition to an MRM10 it also had an AC10 and two medium lasers. This gave that particular configuration a very strong mid-range engagement profile and a devestating close range damage potential against light mechs and hovercraft. Against tanks and heavy/assault mechs though the bushwhacker was lackluster and mostly just provided disruptive backup power while being able to withstand an unusually high amount of damage due to the bushwhacker having very thick armour in exchange for lower than normal size/number of weapons. To put this in EVE terms it would be like fitting 2 medium armour reps and a 1600 plate on a thorax but being forced to run 3x small electrons and 2x heavy electrons because of fitting issues. It has a time and a place and that place is normally when running with friends who can compensate the lack of dps/mobility.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waC4DXncwxs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1azBuiFIymc
for a tutorial on those missile systems and their varieties, strengths and weaknesses.
Ransu Asanari
Perkone
Caldari State
#712 - 2014-05-27 18:16:42 UTC
So on SiSi we have the new reload timer icons around the weapons which track "backwards" to show how long you have left on the reload. It's quite nice.

As a related note, going back to this post from CCP Rise, has there been anything further on the discussion of decoupling the reload time from the ammo swap?
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#713 - 2014-05-27 18:56:10 UTC
i would suggest removing the 10% damage buff LM's got .... then increase ROF on LML's for the frigs

then you can increase the ammo clip on RLML's .. this then makes the long reload time make a little more sense
also reducing the ammo clips of HAMS and Heavy missile launchers might make them look less ridicilous..

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#714 - 2014-05-29 15:20:37 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
i would suggest removing the 10% damage buff LM's got .... then increase ROF on LML's for the frigs

then you can increase the ammo clip on RLML's .. this then makes the long reload time make a little more sense
also reducing the ammo clips of HAMS and Heavy missile launchers might make them look less ridicilous..


Light missiles should get less rof and more damage. They're not a dps weapon they're a missile alternative to projectile artillery. Rlml have very high dps.as it is but if you look at how the complaint centralises around their ineffectiveness at engaging more than one target not due to dps but because their damage gets mostly expended on the first target there leaving only a small portion of potential damage available for the next target. If you increase the damage of the missile and drop the rof on regular lml to have the same dps over all you can pack more overall damage in to your load.

Extrapolate to ship bonuses and rlml. Currently a tengu can spit out enough damage to kill an average cruiser. But it can't fight two cruisers. A good many cruisers also fit enough tank to take more than one load of kinetic as well. Some of this comes from missiles having explosion velocities that are far too low. Really a missile explosion should be nearly impossible to outrun yet a battleship can speed tank light missiles. Just to put things in perspective.

In a perfect world a caracal can yes kill one or two frigates with its rlml but remember for an equivalent number of guns it does 30% less damage than a cerb.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#715 - 2014-05-29 16:02:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Caleb Seremshur wrote:

Are you for real? Heavy missiles are bad, yes it's a given. HAMs are workable but need niche scenarios to push their full dps downstream.

As for trillions of HP destroyed I don't think you can seriously expect to have a point there given supers push 25k dps and there are so many of them that it's been officially recognised as a problem. Titans aren't a pushover either. What about dreads? 10-15k dps a piece there too. Trillions of HP as a metric is just as meaningless without context considering we don't know the sample size, the time or the place or even what ships were used.

Fozzie and Co got it wrong I'm not contesting that, but while you want more homogenisation between missiles and turrets I have consistently pushed for the change to go FURTHER towards being front loaded dps with longer reload times. If you see a problem on d-scan at 14au maybe by the time they actually land on grid you're ready to fight them. Not to mention all the millions of other minute details that can dramatically change how the outcome of a conflict goes.

It really is far, far too easy and convenient to just default to "you lost before you undocked" lines of thinking when things like carrying a mobile depot to allow hot-swapping ammo and other general terms of preparation can solve so many problems.

another great video here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgmayoBfyRw

that is a vulture heavy mech with 4x Clan LRM25s against a an assualt timberwolf mk2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1azBuiFIymc
for a tutorial on those missile systems and their varieties, strengths and weaknesses.

So by your words, 2 of 3 medium missiles are either niche or bad and RLML are not right.. Hmm, sorry, I don't see your argument here.

If you actually bothered to check - the 4.5+ trillion isk destroyed during the Gecko give away week, had very few capital fights and no serious one that could have altered the outcome by more than a couple of hundred billion. I was using a statistic provided by CCP, not some random that just picked high influence battles.
If you care to take the time and look, you can see exactly what ships contributed to a particular period of time. Zkill is an excellent source, containing pages and pages of readily available information.

EVE is not Mech warrior and there in lies the problem - trying to use a mechanic that works well in a game designed for it is ok. Bring that same mechanic to another game (Eve in this case) it won't work because Eve PVP has to be balanced and as long as it "has to be balanced" front loading, rapid launchers or whatever else you choose to call them will not work.
To give the type of damage application to rapid launchers as is used in mech warrior - 4 or 5 RLML Caracals would be easily able to take out a Super.

Mech warrior is a totally different game to Eve Online and should stay that way.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#716 - 2014-05-29 17:10:27 UTC
Let me debunk that comparison.

Mechwarrior and eve use a similar way of outfitting your chosen war machine. They're not really that different in my eyes and what I see is a particular style of weapon that is clearly not working out for most people in its current state and that the answer has already existed for a long time. A rhml ship in this theoretical configuration would wipe out any dessie or frig in one volley.. and then be at the mercy of any new attackers for a time. Not to mention that missiles themselves I never said would be changed so all their application issues still exist its just a matter of the time period the potential damage is levied in. I can expand on this more later but to me aside from some obvious differences the two games share a lot of similarities and certain mechanics being borrowed at least for testing would go a long way. While Rise might not be reading this thread any more it wouldn't hurt to be able to have a server with maybe 2 solar systems where we can prototype things quickly. The changes to the module I propose are just xml values and as for server load issues should the idea take off smartbomb nets become a thing again as a counter.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#717 - 2014-05-30 05:54:04 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Let me debunk that comparison.

Mechwarrior and eve use a similar way of outfitting your chosen war machine. They're not really that different in my eyes and what I see is a particular style of weapon that is clearly not working out for most people in its current state and that the answer has already existed for a long time. A rhml ship in this theoretical configuration would wipe out any dessie or frig in one volley.. and then be at the mercy of any new attackers for a time. Not to mention that missiles themselves I never said would be changed so all their application issues still exist its just a matter of the time period the potential damage is levied in. I can expand on this more later but to me aside from some obvious differences the two games share a lot of similarities and certain mechanics being borrowed at least for testing would go a long way. While Rise might not be reading this thread any more it wouldn't hurt to be able to have a server with maybe 2 solar systems where we can prototype things quickly. The changes to the module I propose are just xml values and as for server load issues should the idea take off smartbomb nets become a thing again as a counter.

But that is the whole problem - If 1 volley = 1 clip
A cruiser class ship that is restricted to shooting only 1 ship (in a class below itself) per clip is just way under powered.
Your talking about a launcher system that will kill a frigate or destroyer in 1 volley (1 clip), so around 5k to 8k damage in a few seconds, then a long reload time.

Too buff rapid launchers enough to make them true "front loaders" would make them totally OP.

I fully support a mechanic that can deliver massive Dps in a very short time. The only problem is 'balance', for a burst mechanic to work successfully it needs to be able to deliver its maximum DPS in a very short period of time. What we have right now is a 'rapid' launcher system that is not at all rapid in the true sense. (50 seconds to deliver 20 volleys is not rapid)

Devs need to bite the bullet and roll back reload times on the current iterations so they have balanced DPM.
Or make Rapid Launchers - Rapid Fire.

RLML - Reduce Flight Time by 50%, reduce base rof to that of RHML
RHML - Reduce Flight Time by 25%, reduce base rof by the same amount as RLML

Rebalance Heavy Missile Explosion Velocity (increase it)

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#718 - 2014-06-10 08:47:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Caleb Seremshur
It just occured to me each module has a "charges per cycle" value. Up it to 2 or 3 per cycle. Triple the ROF without changing anything. Now you increase missile count to 21 (or 24, or whatever multiple you want) and you get an uptime of 15-20 seconds and keep the 35 second reload time. Or increase reload time.

Still waiting on SISI to get back up so I can make a couple of vids, been waiting a long time now. Tried to gank a gila in a tengu with RLML today. Messed up the warp and he micro'd away. Crucially I am finding the dps is still so very low on RLML. I'd far prefer to have much greater volley and reload more often than to have my 'unique' weapon system be out-dps'd by something that doesn't even use ammo.

For the record, gila with 3x DDA II and hammerheads 630dps sustained, My tengu about 370dps sustained. The only strength of this weapon system is pushing damage downfield faster than it can be repped against but even OH'd my fit still doesn't come close to this. This is a pimp-fit tengu in a specialist configuration being outclassed by a t2 fit pirate ship. I really have to say I'm gobsmacked. FWIW if my scram had gone off in time I would have eventually killed him but that's only because of T3 tank.

I'd like to go back here and look at some things.
Quote:

#691 Posted: 2014.05.19 06:47 | Report
Well the thing is about it you'll notice a peak dps on your average fit can hit nearly 1k dps. But sustained dps sits between 300 and 350.

For reference a :
ScFI does 370dps before reloads with RLML. with 3x BCS II
Nopsrey: 370dps with kinetic.. 3x BCS II
T1 Caracal: 410 with kinetic and 3x BCS II
Navy Caracal: 490 with 3x BCS II
Cerberus: 678
max dps tengu: 820


So the DPS stats are very nice, but what about over-all damage delivered and uptime?
ScFI, Nosprey both have 4 launchers and deliver a max damage of 1209 volley for 20 volleys giving 24180 damage.
Caracal: 5 launchers give 1008 damage per volley and ROF gives the extra dps. 20160 max damage
Navy Caracal: 6 launchers, 1209 volley.. extra ROF give the dps here. 24180 damage
Cerberus: 1587 per volley, 31894 damage max.
Tengu: 6 launchers, 1598 volley. Total damage is 31960.

Tengu expels its charges fastest. The NOsprey and ScFi the slowest.

So now lets look at sustained dps
Caracal: 215
NCaracal: 258
NOsprey: 220
ScFi: 220
Cerb: 348
Tengu: 383.


Let's add the new Orthrus to that mix since I have a functional (and quite workable) fit for it.

Orthrus: with merely TWO (2) t2 BCS gets 577 DPS and 384 sustained dps, with 2016 volley. With 3x BCS II it gets 631 peak, 430 sustained and 2077 volley. Across 20 volleys total damage downfield is 40320.

The Orthrus with only 2x BCS II has 21.8% more total damage in volley than a Tengu or Cerberus. I have a distinct problem with this. The only ship I can see being universally powerful with RLML and not some fringe-case wannabe is the Orthrus and that's only because it's total damage per clip is high enough to kill many buffer-fit T1s. Fully selectable damage type.

Now I am NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT advocating through this a nerf for the Orthrus. The RLML is still the common denominator for all these ships and it is only the orthrus's retartedly high damage bonus that makes the weapon system a solid choice. RLML has been shown repeatedly throughout this thread to be a sub-par performer and even now internally doesn't work when mounted on chassis' which otherwise *should* be considering this module. RLML does not perform properly for PVE because it doesn't have the raw ammo count to be productive against the grind. It doesn't work in PVP because it fires too slowly and outright doesn't deliver enough damage on most hulls. To make this comparison completely fair though I'm now going to re-do that list and include a generic triple BCSII fit on ALL hulls that can use missiles not excluding RLML. Any ship with a bonus to RLML will be given a fitting and its stats posted.

Let's begin. I will post 2x tengu configurations because it comes in 5 and 6 launcher setups most typically. The 6 launcher set up is most likely PVE and not PVP. All other fits posted include scrams/kiting and other gear, none of these fits are vacuum wrapped.

Sustained/Peak/Overheated/gross damage

Huginn: 144/245/289/12100
Loki: 212/393/460/16160
Bellicose: 191/327/385/16160
Sacrilege: 239/409/481/20160
Legion: 240/368/433/20160
Caracal: 215/410/481/20160
NCaracal: 258/491/578/24180
NOsprey: 220/370/433/24180
ScFi: 220/370/433/24180
Gila: 240/368/433/24180
onyx: 250/384/451/25200
Tengu 5 launcher OH sub: 331/614/722/25200
Cerb: 348/678/722/31894
Tengu 6 launcher: 383/736/866/31960
Orthrus: 412/631/742/40320

This is not an exhaustive list, these are not max dps fits, this is for research purposes only. Orthrus gets 8360 more gross damage per clip than the next best performer which is a T3 ship with an extra launcher and about 200mil in subsystems. There's lots that's wrong with this equation. More than ever is the case for RLML dispensing their charges at a much higher ROF been stronger.

in my next look at this I'm going to compare them to some turret using ships/fits and see what falls out. 782/5000 characters remaining. My fingers hurt, I need a coffee.

I also wanted to add that the Tengus and cerbs all lose about 24% of their damage when using NOT kinetic, putting them at ~24180 gross for the 6 launcher tengu and cerb and 20160 for the 5 launcher tengu. Gila when shooting EM or explosive loses 30% over kinetic and gets 16060 damage per clip. 452/5000.
CW Itovuo
The Executioners
#719 - 2014-06-10 15:13:14 UTC
MechWarrior has no place in EVE.
Elusive Panda
Public Enemies CO
The Initiative.
#720 - 2014-06-10 16:53:22 UTC
The RLML would be a good skirmishing platform if the ship that uses it the most had their RoF swapped for a Damage bonus instead.

Half the "dps" bonus on the Caracal, Bellicose and the Cerb is useless with RLML, which are probably the best platforms for it.
Right now it's still used because Heavy Missile are garbage and HAMs are not flexible enough for solo/micro gang engagement.

The 50km range and good application are it's saving grace, but it could really shine with tweaking the stats of those 3 ships a bit.