Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Rubicon] Rapid Missile Launchers - v2

First post First post First post
Author
#401 - 2013-11-09 12:20:32 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
This thread reming me about HML nerf...

People are really attached to their OP stuff.

Right now, RLML are almost always better than HML on cruisers, and they almost obsolete destroyers : they are OP.

HML might have been slitghly overnerfed (people cryed for it though ; I mean those who used them...), but LM have been overbuffed I think. But then the problem is light missiles, not RLML in themselves.

As for this new mechanic, I find it excellent. And people are completely ignorant about what these 40s means. In this version, a Caracal will be able to kill 2 or 3 frigates before reloading 50seconds later. In fact, this is a huge buff for FW situations where they already obliterate frigates because they will now do it faster before warping out anyway. It's simple : if the fight last less than 2 minutes, you'll be better served than before ; and if it last longer, dps will slightly fall, but you might have taken the advantage anyway.

As for those crying about the anti cruiser capabilities of RLML, this is exactly the proof of their OPness : they should not replace HAM or HML...

Missiles... *sigh*



Oh really, go through my killboards and see how many missile ships are in there.

RMLS are only even an option because heavies are trash.
Shadow Cartel
#402 - 2013-11-09 12:22:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Garviel Tarrant
Ok i have an opinion.

While i agree that this does put RLMLs into more of a specialist role (which is good) than they previously were i think this generally is a buff to them because of the skirmishing style you tend to use them in.

I've very rarely had fights where i actually need to reload.

Being able to warp on a frigate blob and kill 2-3 of them faster than ever..


Also HML's weren't overnerfed.

They were nerfed and everything else buffed so i would agree that they are in a bad spot right now.

It however is hard to balance them without making HAMs garbage.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Amarr Empire
#403 - 2013-11-09 12:29:12 UTC
Peeps supporting this horrible idea are either clueless or the one's having 8k SP in missiles.
C C P Alliance
#404 - 2013-11-09 12:30:19 UTC
Alright, so far I feel like I'm seeing 3 major areas of complaint, alongside a lot of people who think this will be a good change. Those areas are:

  • 40s reload is boring and will be miserable to use please don't do it
  • Switching ammo types (other damage types or to FOF(does anyone actually use fof?)) will be very difficult which is key for missile users
  • This is a nerf to RLML and I love them so please don't do it

  • I'm not convinced at all by the first complaint. As I've said before, this delay creates new kimds of decision making, it creates spikes of tension in fights rather than a flat amount of damage moving around and beyond those things it can be completely mitigated if you want. As others have pointed out, simply splitting your launchers into two groups and alternating them means you are never stuck in reload. It also means you lose the advantage of having your damage front-loaded into a very high DPS number. Still, if you can completely bypass this 'downside' I don't see how you can argue that this mechanic alone ruins the system.

    I commented earlier on the missile switching - I think it is a valid complaint and I'd like to find a work-around for it as an iteration but I don't think it's a show-stopper. Several of the ships using these systems are kinetic bonused which means you don't switch that often. You still have time to switch on the way to a fight based on what damage type might be best. You still have the option to switch as you run out of charges and would be reloading anyway. But again, this is a legit complaint and I want to look into it.

    Most of the complaints about it being a straight up nerf make me feel like going ahead with the old plan and leaving RLML in their current state would have been a mistake. I think most of you feeling this way are just disappointed with the idea of losing a slightly over-powered weapon system, which is understandable. Please keep in mind that this change represents a 15-20% damage drop over long fights but offers a new advantage in trade. I suspect that ships like FW Caracals with RLML will remain very strong. Also, if they don't, it's very easy to tune the reload time down slightly or the rate of fire up slightly to bring them into balance and we would absolutely watch that and make necessary adjustments. I would be extremely unhappy if the numbers were bad and rapid launchers disappeared from Caracals and Fleet Scythes completely.

    Broader complaints about missiles vs turrets or training time often have merit, but they represent much bigger projects that we fully intend to take on, just not during this rebalance. We hear you though and hopefully we can start working on major module balance projects in the coming releases as we are closing in on finishing our first lap of all the ships in the game.

    Hope this answers some of your concerns

    @ccp_rise

    Minmatar Republic
    #405 - 2013-11-09 12:34:07 UTC
    Bouh Revetoile wrote:
    This thread reming me about HML nerf...

    People are really attached to their OP stuff.

    Right now, RLML are almost always better than HML on cruisers, and they almost obsolete destroyers : they are OP.

    HML might have been slitghly overnerfed (people cryed for it though ; I mean those who used them...), but LM have been overbuffed I think. But then the problem is light missiles, not RLML in themselves.

    As for this new mechanic, I find it excellent. And people are completely ignorant about what these 40s means. In this version, a Caracal will be able to kill 2 or 3 frigates before reloading 50seconds later. In fact, this is a huge buff for FW situations where they already obliterate frigates because they will now do it faster before warping out anyway. It's simple : if the fight last less than 2 minutes, you'll be better served than before ; and if it last longer, dps will slightly fall, but you might have taken the advantage anyway.

    As for those crying about the anti cruiser capabilities of RLML, this is exactly the proof of their OPness : they should not replace HAM or HML...

    Missiles... *sigh*


    Dude stop spewing #!@#!@. A caracal CANNOT kill 3 frigates before its ammo finishes!!!

    The MAX damage a caracal can dish usign faction ammo (since you will nto use scourge against frigas) isroughly 14 K damage.

    That means it cannot reliably kill 2 PUnishers (considering that it will not apply full 100% of its dps).


    An assault frigate will jsut ignore the caracal as if it wa snot there!!!

    "If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

    #406 - 2013-11-09 12:36:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Kane Fenris
    CCP Rise wrote:

    I'm not convinced at all by the first complaint. As I've said before, this delay creates new kimds of decision making, it creates spikes of tension in fights rather than a flat amount of damage moving around and beyond those things it can be completely mitigated if you want. As others have pointed out, simply splitting your launchers into two groups and alternating them means you are never stuck in reload. It also means you lose the advantage of having your damage front-loaded into a very high DPS number. Still, if you can completely bypass this 'downside' I don't see how you can argue that this mechanic alone ruins the system.


    you do realize that this makes me also loose #launchers/2*dps * 25s** in dps to begin with and fighting the rest of the fight in case of a cara with ~100dps less than before ?
    i say thats not a valid solution, its a make belive argument

    ** from the launchers not fireing till the 2nd grp is half empty
    Minmatar Republic
    #407 - 2013-11-09 12:38:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagura Nikon
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Alright, so far I feel like I'm seeing 3 major areas of complaint, alongside a lot of people who think this will be a good change. Those areas are:

  • 40s reload is boring and will be miserable to use please don't do it
  • Switching ammo types (other damage types or to FOF(does anyone actually use fof?)) will be very difficult which is key for missile users
  • This is a nerf to RLML and I love them so please don't do it

  • I'm not convinced at all by the first complaint. As I've said before, this delay creates new kimds of decision making, it creates spikes of tension in fights rather than a flat amount of damage moving around and beyond those things it can be completely mitigated if you want. As others have pointed out, simply splitting your launchers into two groups and alternating them means you are never stuck in reload. It also means you lose the advantage of having your damage front-loaded into a very high DPS number. Still, if you can completely bypass this 'downside' I don't see how you can argue that this mechanic alone ruins the system.

    I commented earlier on the missile switching - I think it is a valid complaint and I'd like to find a work-around for it as an iteration but I don't think it's a show-stopper. Several of the ships using these systems are kinetic bonused which means you don't switch that often. You still have time to switch on the way to a fight based on what damage type might be best. You still have the option to switch as you run out of charges and would be reloading anyway. But again, this is a legit complaint and I want to look into it.

    Most of the complaints about it being a straight up nerf make me feel like going ahead with the old plan and leaving RLML in their current state would have been a mistake. I think most of you feeling this way are just disappointed with the idea of losing a slightly over-powered weapon system, which is understandable. Please keep in mind that this change represents a 15-20% damage drop over long fights but offers a new advantage in trade. I suspect that ships like FW Caracals with RLML will remain very strong. Also, if they don't, it's very easy to tune the reload time down slightly or the rate of fire up slightly to bring them into balance and we would absolutely watch that and make necessary adjustments. I would be extremely unhappy if the numbers were bad and rapid launchers disappeared from Caracals and Fleet Scythes completely.

    Broader complaints about missiles vs turrets or training time often have merit, but they represent much bigger projects that we fully intend to take on, just not during this rebalance. We hear you though and hopefully we can start working on major module balance projects in the coming releases as we are closing in on finishing our first lap of all the ships in the game.

    Hope this answers some of your concerns



    It snot a SLIGHT nerf. Itsa HUGE nerf!!!

    The reason why Rpaids are used most of time is because they are the only ones that can be FIT within reasonable fittigns for the ships, not because they are overpowered.


    The concept of brst damage module is ok, but you made it too extreme. No need to match HAM damage. Make it about 15-20% less than HAMS but with a less pronounced limitation on applied DPS.


    There is Zero chance that this weapon system wil continue to be used in solo cruiser if this goes trough.

    I dont care so much for the reload time as for the charges not beign enough to kill a n assault frigate!

    Also, sorry, but you need glasses if you see LOTS of people that liek it. Clearly they are the vast minority here! Everyone I talked to in my corp just reacted wiht" why they making such stupid thing?"

    BAsically anyoen that liked did not do the math. They are claimign the ship will kill several frigates and leave, and didnt do that math to realize they cannot kill several frigates!!!

    Those are peopel that only EFT warrior and cannot understand that DPS is not everything.

    "If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

    The Tuskers Co.
    #408 - 2013-11-09 12:39:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Morwennon
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Most of the complaints about it being a straight up nerf make me feel like going ahead with the old plan and leaving RLML in their current state would have been a mistake. I think most of you feeling this way are just disappointed with the idea of losing a slightly over-powered weapon system, which is understandable. Please keep in mind that this change represents a 15-20% damage drop over long fights but offers a new advantage in trade.

    Rise, I don't want to be a jerk here, but it's completely absurd to argue that if players react badly to a proposed nerf, the target of that nerf must be OP. After all, players would have similarly negative reactions to a nerf of a weapon system that is perceived to be well-balanced. If you proposed to reduce the sustained dps of medium blasters (to pick a random example of a medium weapon system that is regarded as being reasonably good but not OP) by 20% in return for a 40 second reload and a gimmick burst fire mode, people would get pretty mad not because blasters are OP and they want them to stay that way but because you're grabbing a viable weapon system and smacking it around for no readily apparent reason.
    Tactical-Retreat
    #409 - 2013-11-09 12:41:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Stuff


    An interesting answer, especially the last part about turret vs missiles (I still very pessimist about this change though), but you didn't mention RHMLs. What about the fact that this change does not allow RHMLs to finally fill the role of short-range vs non-BS targets that missiles lacked ?

    Is it absolutely necessary to have the same long-reload mechanic for both RLMLs and RHMLs ?

    I'd also be curious to know what are the metrics in the matter in PvP currently. Are BS missiles ships being used at all ? If yes, what launchers are they using ?

    Signature Tanking Best Tanking

    [Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

    Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

    Minmatar Republic
    #410 - 2013-11-09 12:42:31 UTC
    Morwennon wrote:
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Most of the complaints about it being a straight up nerf make me feel like going ahead with the old plan and leaving RLML in their current state would have been a mistake. I think most of you feeling this way are just disappointed with the idea of losing a slightly over-powered weapon system, which is understandable. Please keep in mind that this change represents a 15-20% damage drop over long fights but offers a new advantage in trade.

    Rise, I don't want to be a jerk here, but it's completely absurd to argue that if players react badly to a proposed nerf, the target of that nerf must be OP. After all, players would have similarly negative reactions to a nerf of a weapon system that is perceived to be well-balanced; if you proposed to reduce the sustained dps of medium blasters (to pick a random example of a medium weapon system that is regarded as being reasonably good but not OP) by 20% in return for a 40 second reload and a gimmick burst fire mode, people would get pretty mad not because blasters are OP and they want them to stay that way but because you're grabbing a viable weapon system and smacking it around for no readily apparent reason.



    That. Clear sign of not being capable of interepretign the community (regardless of his skilla s a player giving him a personal vision of the subject and knowledge of the game).


    RIse need to read the answers and see who is commenting after THINKING, making calculations, and givign proper examples, intead of "COOOOL this wil be super leet and I will kill thousand of noobs". Peopel taht react liek that are not reactiosn that shoud be taken into account in an annalysis.

    "If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

    Minmatar Republic
    #411 - 2013-11-09 12:44:37 UTC
    Wuote from Rise response "

    Still, if you can completely bypass this 'downside' I don't see how you can argue that this mechanic alone ruins the system.
    "


    The problem is that you CANNOT!! The effective DPS drop is not 20% , its 33% on the time that previously took for the old Rapid launchers to get empty!!

    And no matter how you play with the launchers, the total load of missiles is same.

    "If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

    The Tuskers Co.
    #412 - 2013-11-09 12:47:26 UTC
    Yeah, people do use FOFs. Tis rather amusing killing a Sabre with FOFs while jammed by his Falcon buddy.
    The Gurlstas Associates
    #413 - 2013-11-09 12:50:25 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Alright, so far I feel like I'm seeing 3 major areas of complaint, alongside a lot of people who think this will be a good change. Those areas are:

  • 40s reload is boring and will be miserable to use please don't do it
  • Switching ammo types (other damage types or to FOF(does anyone actually use fof?)) will be very difficult which is key for missile users
  • This is a nerf to RLML and I love them so please don't do it

  • 1)I'm not convinced at all by the first complaint. As I've said before, this delay creates new kimds of decision making, it creates spikes of tension in fights rather than a flat amount of damage moving around and beyond those things it can be completely mitigated if you want. As others have pointed out, simply splitting your launchers into two groups and alternating them means you are never stuck in reload. It also means you lose the advantage of having your damage front-loaded into a very high DPS number. Still, if you can completely bypass this 'downside' I don't see how you can argue that this mechanic alone ruins the system.

    2)I commented earlier on the missile switching - I think it is a valid complaint and I'd like to find a work-around for it as an iteration but I don't think it's a show-stopper. Several of the ships using these systems are kinetic bonused which means you don't switch that often. You still have time to switch on the way to a fight based on what damage type might be best. You still have the option to switch as you run out of charges and would be reloading anyway. But again, this is a legit complaint and I want to look into it.

    3)Most of the complaints about it being a straight up nerf make me feel like going ahead with the old plan and leaving RLML in their current state would have been a mistake. I think most of you feeling this way are just disappointed with the idea of losing a slightly over-powered weapon system, which is understandable. Please keep in mind that this change represents a 15-20% damage drop over long fights but offers a new advantage in trade. I suspect that ships like FW Caracals with RLML will remain very strong. Also, if they don't, it's very easy to tune the reload time down slightly or the rate of fire up slightly to bring them into balance and we would absolutely watch that and make necessary adjustments. I would be extremely unhappy if the numbers were bad and rapid launchers disappeared from Caracals and Fleet Scythes completely.

    Broader complaints about missiles vs turrets or training time often have merit, but they represent much bigger projects that we fully intend to take on, just not during this rebalance. We hear you though and hopefully we can start working on major module balance projects in the coming releases as we are closing in on finishing our first lap of all the ships in the game.

    Hope this answers some of your concerns


    1) They have all the disadvantages of arty, (lots of down time) without skills being able to mitigate it in anyway, in fact the better you skills, the more DT you have. They also lack the alpha, instant damage application and range of arty.

    2)fair enough

    3) RLML are the only medium missile module that actually works with anything like a tank, on most missile boats, ok DPS, against most targets, but easy to fit, like the smallest of the medium guns, and fulfilling the same role. This completely removes that role, and in exchange you get what? The reduced bay size and huge amount of DT means that most tanked fits (especially AFs) will be back to full armour/shield and cap by the time you have reloaded, they can tank you forever..gg. It gets even worse if you are using then to fill launcher slots on the stabber for instance.


    If you are going to do this make medium ships missile bonuses apply to light missile launchers, because they will be the new weapon system, until and unless HMs and HAMS stop sucking so badly.
    #414 - 2013-11-09 12:50:57 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Alright, so far I feel like I'm seeing 3 major areas of complaint, alongside a lot of people who think this will be a good change. Those areas are:

  • 40s reload is boring and will be miserable to use please don't do it

  • Correct , I can assure with that change I would never bother mounting a RLML ever again, even on the ONE alt I have that can actually use them at T2

    CCP Rise wrote:

  • Switching ammo types (other damage types or to FOF(does anyone actually use fof?)) will be very difficult which is key for missile users

  • ......yes, ten seconds is bad enough, 40 is a deal breaker

    CCP Rise wrote:

  • This is a nerf to RLML and I love them so please don't do it
  • Chop the launcher multipliers or ROF, but I really don't like this idea.
    CCP Rise wrote:


    Most of the complaints about it being a straight up nerf make me feel like going ahead with the old plan and leaving RLML in their current state would have been a mistake. I think most of you feeling this way are just disappointed with the idea of losing a slightly over-powered weapon system, which is understandable. Please keep in mind that this change represents a 15-20% damage drop over long fights but offers a new advantage in trade. I suspect that ships like FW Caracals with RLML will remain very strong. Also, if they don't, it's very easy to tune the reload time down slightly or the rate of fire up slightly to bring them into balance and we would absolutely watch that and make necessary adjustments. I would be extremely unhappy if the numbers were b


    Exactly this does nothing to change the areas that they are already strong, it just makes the downsides insane.


    I'm not that thrilled with the extended reloads on AARs and (soon) probes, I can understand the need to make choices but waiting on cooldowns isn't a fun mechanic, and they seem to be multiplying.
    Dark - Alliance
    #415 - 2013-11-09 12:52:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Jarano Styles
    [quote=CCP Rise]Alright, so far I feel like I'm seeing 3 major areas of complaint, alongside a lot of people who think this will be a good change. Those areas are:

  • 40s reload is boring and will be miserable to use please don't do it
  • Switching ammo types (other damage types or to FOF(does anyone actually use fof?)) will be very difficult which is key for missile users
  • This is a nerf to RLML and I love them so please don't do it


  • to have a comment on this :

    Please Shocked

    1st 40seconds are very bad leave it at 10seconds

    2nd I Use FOF they are really usefull against E-War, thats the only defence, in PvE (espacialy againt guristas) and PvP , because if i
    got my sensors jammed and my warpdrive is disrupted, its the only way to protect myself with FoF missiles

    3rd you are so damn right

    cheers buddy
    Neo-Bushido Movement
    #416 - 2013-11-09 12:57:42 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Alright, so far I feel like I'm seeing 3 major areas of complaint, alongside a lot of people who think this will be a good change. Those areas are:

  • 40s reload is boring and will be miserable to use please don't do it
  • Switching ammo types (other damage types or to FOF(does anyone actually use fof?)) will be very difficult which is key for missile users
  • This is a nerf to RLML and I love them so please don't do it

  • I'm not convinced at all by the first complaint. As I've said before, this delay creates new kimds of decision making, it creates spikes of tension in fights rather than a flat amount of damage moving around and beyond those things it can be completely mitigated if you want. As others have pointed out, simply splitting your launchers into two groups and alternating them means you are never stuck in reload. It also means you lose the advantage of having your damage front-loaded into a very high DPS number. Still, if you can completely bypass this 'downside' I don't see how you can argue that this mechanic alone ruins the system.


    So then why change them at all? You're essentially saying that if I just split my launchers it does the same it does now, except I lose the ability to flexibly and quickly swap ammo type and damage type. And yes I use FoF's. As a (former) solo pilot yourself you must be aware that on the fly damage type selection can make a big difference in the outcome of the fight.
    It basically feels like you're changing the launchers just to change them, while many people using the are happy with them as they are.

    CCP Rise wrote:
    I commented earlier on the missile switching - I think it is a valid complaint and I'd like to find a work-around for it as an iteration but I don't think it's a show-stopper. Several of the ships using these systems are kinetic bonused which means you don't switch that often. You still have time to switch on the way to a fight based on what damage type might be best. You still have the option to switch as you run out of charges and would be reloading anyway. But again, this is a legit complaint and I want to look into it.


    The current solo/small gang meta is very heavy on ships with high kinetic resistances I use EM/Explosive damage a LOT atm.

    CCP Rise wrote:
    Most of the complaints about it being a straight up nerf make me feel like going ahead with the old plan and leaving RLML in their current state would have been a mistake. I think most of you feeling this way are just disappointed with the idea of losing a slightly over-powered weapon system, which is understandable. Please keep in mind that this change represents a 15-20% damage drop over long fights but offers a new advantage in trade. I suspect that ships like FW Caracals with RLML will remain very strong. Also, if they don't, it's very easy to tune the reload time down slightly or the rate of fire up slightly to bring them into balance and we would absolutely watch that and make necessary adjustments. I would be extremely unhappy if the numbers were bad and rapid launchers disappeared from Caracals and Fleet Scythes completely.


    So find another way to balance them. Increasing the PG requirements seems like a much better and simpler approach and significantly reduces the survivability of the ships they're fitted on. Also again it's not the weapon system that is over powered, talwars are super popular in fleets and they have normal light launchers, it's light missiles themselves that are slightly overpowered not their delivery system.

    CCP Rise wrote:
    Broader complaints about missiles vs turrets or training time often have merit, but they represent much bigger projects that we fully intend to take on, just not during this rebalance. We hear you though and hopefully we can start working on major module balance projects in the coming releases as we are closing in on finishing our first lap of all the ships in the game.

    Hope this answers some of your concerns


    From your earlier comment about looking at the reloads in .1 and the ones you just made one might get the impression this is going to be in Rubicon release regardless of what we put forward in this thread.

    Is that concern justified?

    Thank you for somewhat addressing our concerns at least.
    Thermodynamics
    #417 - 2013-11-09 13:05:42 UTC
    After much pondering over this thread, I'm going to have to go with... No

    I wear my goggles at night.

    Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone

    #418 - 2013-11-09 13:23:43 UTC
    Already did point out the negative side of this proposed change in my previous post - time for some constructive posting:
    - some people compare the proposed RLML/RHML 40 sec reload time to the 20 sec(ish) cycle time of large(1400mm) arty;
    that comparison/similarity would only be valid for the exact missiles equivalent of large arties - the RHML, cause in that case a BS has the EHP to survive the reload, but similar to medium/small arties having much lower cycle time than large ones, the RLML has no chance in hell to be viable if the reload/cycle time does not scale down proportionally, around a value of 20/45 s; i am not saying that the frontloaded dps idea should be acted upon, i am just saying that if we really have to accept it, at least scale the reload cycle so that the waiting time between shooting sessions is appropriate to the weapon system size
    (large arties have that huge cycle time compared to medium/smalls cause their alpha scales proportionaly - not scaling similarly the reload time on rapid launchers would heavily gimp their utility - in paralel to small/medium/large arties you have to think that each weapon size is best for some distinct types of engagementsif you take into consideration the number of people involved and the duration - for smaller guns/fewer people/shorter engagements faster cycles with smaller waiting times(reload) are better, while for bigger guns/more people/longer engagements slower cycls with bigger waiting times(reload) are acceptable)

    TL;DR Please scale the cycle/reload time of RHML/RLML according to their weapon class size, in a similar way used for cycle times of all other types of weapons - what you're proposing now is similar to what would happen if suddenly you would change medium artillery guns cycle time to be similar to that of large arties, which would kill any non-niche use of them

    -some people compare the proposed functionality of the proposed RLML/RHML to the ASB's - comparison is valid but not totally accurate - asb's are great, i admit, but they do use only one charge type at a time - they do not need charge type changes in middle of battle to tank different damage types better, launchers do - is one of the redeeming points of using missiles(low dps, no modules to tune the application of it etc.) - if you have to force a large reload time, at least allow for faster ammo type change - maybe having an ammo swap time of 5-10 s after which you will have in your launcher a different type of missiles than before, but same number(so this would make ammo type swap viable without allowing a faster general reload - if you have half of launcher full with inferno missiles, after the ammo swap you will have half launcher of scourge for example - so this would not be OP, while keeping the flavor offered by damage selection)

    -another point in the asb comparison would be that while they are nice mods, a good thing about their creation was that in the day they appeared other shield boosters did no dissapear - so make maybe a separate mod, that would offer missile users extra options for fitting alongside the perfectly good ones they have now - this way we would get to keep both the current uses of rlml and we get the interesting posibilities offered by the current changes - even better than that, make the new rlml/rhml more similar to the AAR - a module much more balanced and reasonable than the asb's - this way you would have a launcher that has the OMGPWN factor on its side when loaded with some sort of auxiliary charge(some sort of lubricant) - equivalent to the current frontload proposed and after the charges get consumed a crippled dps - maybe 1/3 compared to a normal RLML/RHML, forcing you to go for the long recharge if you want another burst of missiles - a modul like this released alongside the normal one would broaden the missile users options, allow for new strategies, instead of forcing the current module to a niche.

    Some say this topic is similar to the one about the HM nerf - they called the missile users crybabies that do not want to give up their OP HM's; well guess what - after the "totaly reasonable" overnerf, when the dust settled the hm's went to the garbage bin, and they were left there even after the rest of the medium long range weapons were buffed over them(not being in line was one of the overnerf excuses", excuse not longer valid after the mentioned buff). Let's not repeat that mistake CCP - worst case scenario - if you really wanna go for it at least not in the initial proposed form - those half assed initial stats need to get to a reasonable form before release.
    #419 - 2013-11-09 13:41:53 UTC
    another good point about the proposed changes is that the current proposal, if not changed, would overpower the RLML/RHML users against smaller ships and make them underpowered in front of similar size ships - basically a caracal with rlml will be uncontested king of the hill against frigs and die horribly to any cruiser not shitfit - in current TQ form RLML are balanced on both ends - good against frigs without being overpowered and giving you a chance of survival against cruisers without guaranteing it

    any module that is going to be a PITA for both its users and its victims is clearly not a balanced one
    - and by the way - how are the intended targets of these modules supposed to counter them - we know from all the eve history and from out of eve examples of good game design that a module/weapon that does not give the victim any way to counter it is in no way balanced; now frigs can try to use a combo of speed/active tank/sig to survive to the rlml reload - with these changes a targeted frig will be for sure a dead frig
    - now on the other end of the unbalance - the survivability agains same size ships - other allegedly balanced weapon systems like hams/hm's work on an acceptable level outside their main engagement envelope - they are made to kill cruisers but with proper piloting and tank you can engage frigs too with a chance of survival - if the changes get to TQ the new RLML will work great against intended targets(frigs) but will help you against cruisers as well as would some wet noodles launchers
    Gallente Federation
    #420 - 2013-11-09 13:42:22 UTC  |  Edited by: X'ret
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Alright, so far I feel like I'm seeing 3 major areas of complaint, alongside a lot of people who think this will be a good change. Those areas are:

  • 40s reload is boring and will be miserable to use please don't do it
  • Switching ammo types (other damage types or to FOF(does anyone actually use fof?)) will be very difficult which is key for missile users
  • This is a nerf to RLML and I love them so please don't do it

  • I'm not convinced at all by the first complaint. As I've said before, this delay creates new kimds of decision making, it creates spikes of tension in fights rather than a flat amount of damage moving around and beyond those things it can be completely mitigated if you want. As others have pointed out, simply splitting your launchers into two groups and alternating them means you are never stuck in reload. It also means you lose the advantage of having your damage front-loaded into a very high DPS number. Still, if you can completely bypass this 'downside' I don't see how you can argue that this mechanic alone ruins the system.

    I commented earlier on the missile switching - I think it is a valid complaint and I'd like to find a work-around for it as an iteration but I don't think it's a show-stopper. Several of the ships using these systems are kinetic bonused which means you don't switch that often. You still have time to switch on the way to a fight based on what damage type might be best. You still have the option to switch as you run out of charges and would be reloading anyway. But again, this is a legit complaint and I want to look into it.

    Most of the complaints about it being a straight up nerf make me feel like going ahead with the old plan and leaving RLML in their current state would have been a mistake. I think most of you feeling this way are just disappointed with the idea of losing a slightly over-powered weapon system, which is understandable. Please keep in mind that this change represents a 15-20% damage drop over long fights but offers a new advantage in trade. I suspect that ships like FW Caracals with RLML will remain very strong. Also, if they don't, it's very easy to tune the reload time down slightly or the rate of fire up slightly to bring them into balance and we would absolutely watch that and make necessary adjustments. I would be extremely unhappy if the numbers were bad and rapid launchers disappeared from Caracals and Fleet Scythes completely.

    Broader complaints about missiles vs turrets or training time often have merit, but they represent much bigger projects that we fully intend to take on, just not during this rebalance. We hear you though and hopefully we can start working on major module balance projects in the coming releases as we are closing in on finishing our first lap of all the ships in the game.

    Hope this answers some of your concerns


    Alright do it Rise..! Its boring, i feel myself like someone who tryin help to understand what sunrise is to another who blind from his born.

    Have fun! Wont check this thread again, it just makes me mad, very mad.

    Cant wait to see another great EVE Trailer where the commentator tells 80% of the fleet left the field bcoz they reloading their weapon systems, advanced spaceship technology! Pirate

    Wait, its a prank right, right?? There must be a camera somewhere, fun to see people RAGE!?

    Unbelievable..
    Forum Jump