Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 138 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Justin Cody
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
51
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 01:37:00 -
[361] - Quote
Colman Dietmar wrote:From what I've seen, rapid caracal is already pretty much impossible to deal with using T1 frigs AND can be a threat to cruiser-sized kiting ships. Why buff it more? If anything, I would like to see a nerf to rapid launchers, not a buff to their gankiness.
And yes, I did not miss the reload time, it's just that in 50 seconds you can kill some cruisers with that 400dps, not to speak of smaller targets. If the launcher did not have enough active time to kill a cruiser, then it would be better, although it would still make caracal pretty much immune to frigs.
This is a bad idea for all of the reasons you haven't mentioned. wagh my tristan can't tackle a cerb! jeeze look the reason this is bad is the... 40 SECOND RELOAD TIMER! Who the hell wants to wait 40 seconds to reload their primary offensive weapons system?!?!
Well I guess there's no idea like a bad idea. :(((((((( sad face |
Justin Cody
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
51
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 01:39:00 -
[362] - Quote
*summons CCP Fozzie to fix this* |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Origin. Black Legion.
297
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 02:06:00 -
[363] - Quote
Bringing solo back (against the wall to shoot it in the face with terrible balancing) |
Theon Severasse
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
37
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 02:07:00 -
[364] - Quote
It could work with double the charges and half the reload time, but even then 20 seconds feels like a long time to be twiddling your thumbs. |
Liquid'Courage
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION
6
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 02:30:00 -
[365] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Gypsio III wrote:
Any change that makes a weapon system simultaneously hated by both sides in an engagement probably isn't the right one.
This man speaks the truth. |
Rammix
TheMurk
108
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 02:33:00 -
[366] - Quote
I downvote this OP. You should decrease the reload time to 20 seconds (50%) and the dps to ~35% (i.e. minus 35%). |
X'ret
Shirak SkunkWorks
14
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 02:49:00 -
[367] - Quote
Rammix wrote:I downvote this OP. You should decrease the reload time to 20 seconds (50%) and the dps to ~35% (i.e. minus 35%).
Please dont give him ideas like this, 20sec is also horrible. Just dont f****** touch the weapons reload/outgoing dps mechanics, this conception called "ancillary" good for tanking, end of story..! For the love of god, i imagine the moment i fit Ancillary Medium Hybrid Turret or similar to my ship (bcoz this new RLML more likely Ancillary LML than anything else..)
If you got the command from above like "nerf that sh**" than do it at the good old ways, reduce rof, dmg or ship bonuses, anything but not this way. jeeez |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 03:34:00 -
[368] - Quote
If you are hell bent on introducing this fail RHML can you please just leave RLML alone? Why ruin a perfectly good existing system just to introduce something new you can't balance. |
darmwand
Repo.
165
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 03:54:00 -
[369] - Quote
This actually sounds like fun. It would allow for hit-and-run strategies which could be very valuable for small gangs against larger enemy fleets.
The issue with switching damage types could be avoided by making the reload time depend on the number of missiles left in the launcher, i.e. when the launcher is full, you get the normal 10 seconds, when it's half-empty you get 30 seconds and when it's empty you get the full 50 seconds etc. |
Chessur
Strontless Mistakes Fatal Ascension
212
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 04:02:00 -
[370] - Quote
Still waiting for a response from rize.
This is a huge nerf to a number of hulls, that are working great for solo / small gang. Yet has little effect when used in large blob warfare.
Explain why you thought this particular change was needed? What is so glaringly wrong with the current RLML system?
We all no RHML's are complete ****, because they are still shooting the same old HML's which have been nerfed into the ground. Why you still refuse to place in the application / projection bonuses into the launchers is beyond me. Maybe then, they *MIGHT* be usable.
However barring that, RLML's and Cruise missiles are the only missile based weapon systems worth using. If you take our RLMLS, then you are effective throwing:
Caracal Cerb Scythe Fleet
All into PvP obscurity. The Caracal in particular represented a really great option for new players to become really effective in solo / fleet / small gang very early in their eve career. I don't understand why you are so desperate to strip that from them? |
|
Stitch Kaneland
Soldiers of Farscape The East India Co.
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 04:29:00 -
[371] - Quote
At first i thought this was going to be horrible. But the more i thought about it and adapted, the more i realize you can almost consider this a buff if you know how to use it.
Especially for what i fly, the Scythe FI will be even more beastly now. Split launchers, even with just 2 launchers and drones, i'll still be around 200dps, enough to easily maintain consistent pressure without any significant dips. And, if it looks as though things are going to go south, go balls out and overload both racks and blast your way out. Know what i get dps wise out of my scythe now? ~250 dps. I should easily be able to overload into 300+ dps with these changes. And so far, no actual missile dynamic's are changing, so i'll have missiles that fire faster and hit just as hard. With just 2 launchers i'll get sustained ~200 dps with the bonus of WTF overheat dps for if you need to power through. And for those complaining about bigger targets, i don't use RLML to knowingly fight BC's/BS/HACS, i'd use scram/web HAM's if i even decided to do it. With RLML, If you can't kill what YOU"VE decided to engage within 15-20 missiles, then you've picked the wrong launcher. That may be the point they're trying to make here. This will still be viable for cruiser killing, just at a slightly slower pace if you know what you're doing. This is good for the active/speed tank crowd, as normally our booster's/sig will last longer than their buffer, so the slight decline in dps isn't nearly as significant.
I think that RLML have always been a niche` module, and that now they've become the primary launcher for most people. Which isn't what its for. Granted, the judgement to change the dynamics of RLML and not rebuff HML is alittle counterproductive. But, RLML aren't meant to be the "best" launcher. Yes, HML needs a big buff, but if the launchers were already fixed, how would you feel about this update then? What if this is easier to modify the code now, and rebuff in the next patch/update?
Some suggestions perhaps? Could you offer a rig that gives maybe +2 to charges? Calibration equivalent to DPS bonus rigs, that way it would limit i believe to +4, maybe 6 on some ships? Or a skill book that adds +1 capacity per skill, limiting to 5 total. Either of these would help give people maybe a smidge more flexability when selecting targets.
maybe a skill that reduces reload time by 2-4%?
Again with those bonus' you'd have to sacrifice either time or fitting on the ship, which helps to add more flexability for pilots but doesn't break the goal/dynamic you're trying to achieve. |
Texty
State War Academy Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 04:51:00 -
[372] - Quote
If we are going this ASB direction, I'd like to see the restrictions on ship's damage application and projection bonuses taken away. |
Baron' Soontir Fel
Justified Chaos
62
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 05:17:00 -
[373] - Quote
I am a small gang/solo pilot in FW. I have been a pure missile user for 6months since I started this game and this idea is terrible.
Reasons:
1) Missiles don't apply instant damage. Missiles have to fly to their target, and with a faster ROF you will have more volleys in the air when the target dies. Meaning you have even LESS overall damage and DPS if you happen to be shooting at more than one target.
2) Less overall DPS. Who cares about burst damage if you can't kill the target? RLML will have 20-30% less dps than they have now.
3) Selectable damage types. I can't emphasize this enough. Switching to Faction missiles against Frigates, then switching to T2 Fury missiles against that Arty Thrasher, then switching to FoFs when the enemy uncloaks a Falcon to still apply DPS anscare off the tackler. There would be no reason to carry more than one missile type. Even if you start switching damage type as soon as you see them on long-scan, they'll be shooting at you before you finish reloading
4) Take a watch and count out 40 seconds. It's long. Now try playing Eve, and try to stay within long point range on a target for 40 seconds while he knows you're out of ammo. It takes forever.
5) No other viable cruiser missile system. Links ruin HAM and HML damage application, and while Links are still part of Eve, these weapon systems will be useless.
I really can't believe I'm hearing this after putting almost all my SP so far in missiles. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
2165
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 05:20:00 -
[374] - Quote
i like the idea of balancing dps with burst dps/clip size/reload time. Adds more dimensions to it and allows to give a weapon more burst dps without giving it more overall dps or making it a alpha weapon.
but we need those UI updates for all the cooldown timers, repair timers, reload timers, spool up timers, you name it. |
Galphii
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
187
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 05:55:00 -
[375] - Quote
Interesting approach to balance here. I like it, it's a burst weapon that's useful in short engagements without breaking the long-term dps output of those ships. Thumbs up! |
Varukka Sault
Tactical Munitions Sev3rance
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 05:56:00 -
[376] - Quote
:Wonders how many of the people claiming to like this idea don't actually use the weapon system or the ships effected*..
I'm not skilled in lasers, and rarely fly armor ships. I think we should nerf scorch and the new AAR... |
Major Killz
Deep Core Mining Inc.
273
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 06:19:00 -
[377] - Quote
I like how this has become a sh!t avalanche. ROFL.
However there's some exaggeration on how "bad" these changes are and what a Cerberus or Caracal will be capable of destroying before having to reload.
Again, a caracal and certainly a Cerberus will be capable of destroying certain shield-attack battlecruisers, shield cruisers and ALL destroyers and frigates before having to reload with THESE CHANGES. Including exploding setups like a single AAR-Omen Navy issue and sh!t.
With that said. Rapid light missiles are fine as they are now so I'm not sure why this "change" was needed. Was this just about the new rapid heavy missile laucher or something else? Anyway, heavy missile and heavy assault missile are still viable and have thier place. Maybe the rapid heavy launcher would screw cruise and siege missiles v0v but meh!
Anyway, if you do this "change" then reduce the reload time to around 20 - 30 seconds and reduce the rate of fire respectively or keep rate of fire as is v0v
Oh! Yeah, maybe rapid light missile lauchers range should take a hit. |
Hrett
Justified Chaos
237
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 06:22:00 -
[378] - Quote
Clearly I havent read the whole thread. My two cents:
RLML are extremely strong right now. Cerbs and Caracals fit them over everything else. In small gang - at least in FW - the long reload is going to be a very small drawback.
If this change is going to go into effect, perhaps reduce their range a bit. Or some other small penalty. Just seems like this will be murderous in small gang. 10mn ab cerbs and carcals wont need to shoot for very long anyway.
I do like that the team is doing so many iterations though on just about everything to address balance issues. Kudos to that. |
JEFFRAIDER
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
281
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 07:29:00 -
[379] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:JEFFRAIDER wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Colman Dietmar wrote:From what I've seen, rapid caracal is already pretty much impossible to deal with using T1 frigs AND can be a threat to cruiser-sized kiting ships. Why buff it more? If anything, I would like to see a nerf to rapid launchers, not a buff to their gankiness.
And yes, I did not miss the reload time, it's just that in 50 seconds you can kill some cruisers with that 400dps, not to speak of smaller targets. If the launcher did not have enough active time to kill a cruiser, then it would be better, although it would still make caracal pretty much immune to frigs. Let me be celar again for the 7th time. NO You cannot kill a cruiser. Even if the DPS was DOUBLE that! You cannot dish enough dps to kill a SHIELD tanked rupture before you run out of ammo on a CERBERUS. ON a caracal you will not even reach its armour. That sounds right to me. 400dps is not enough to kill a 25k ehp cruiser in 40 seconds That basically measn the ship is DEAD for solo PVP. I mean the cerberus. THe caracal cannot do even 15K EHP damage. A wellt anked cruiser acn tank on 3 caracals and laugh while they need to reload.
No
goddamn
So 1st point CCP Rise if I were u i'd be losing my mind wanting to scream r-tard all day
Anyways whatever good if a caracal can't dunk another cruiser if it fits frig-killing weapons
If the RLML stuff was like 21 charges and 30 second reload i think it'd be a very attractive solo/small gang option to pwn tackle/frig gangs
do it |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
12309
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 08:01:00 -
[380] - Quote
Saturn Asanari wrote:Clean up the missile system first, THEN clean up the items.
I can't even tell which skills affect which launcher types because of the templating you guys use in your skill descriptions...
Do skills that affect Missile Launchers affect Rocket, Torpedo, or Cruise Launchers? Do skills that affect Rocket Launchers affect Missiles?
****.
The answer to both questions is yes. |
|
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 08:12:00 -
[381] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:XvXTeacherVxV wrote:CCP Rise wrote: Both ships would have around 50 seconds of up time followed by 40 seconds of reload meaning that over extended engagements their true dps would be a bit more than half of the dps number above.
Less up time, less reload time would be better. Cut both by 50-75%. Then you'd have small clips that you could burn through in less than 20 seconds and you'd avoid the no fun zone that is long reload times since it'd be about 10-15 seconds. Advantages - Reload time is still long enough to be a disadvantage but not so long it's unbearable. - You could even take the opportunity to switch damage types which adds more room for good players to maximize their damage. - Overall DPS would be about the same and the frontloaded DPS wouldn't be so extreme. Win/Win/WIn. For this to be appropriately balanced, the "high dps window" needs to be long enough to bring down a typical target. Then the reload window needs to be long enough to make it un-ideal when sustained dps is important. I think your 20s attack, 10-15s reload is too short on both accounts, and the 50s attack, 40s relaod is just about ideal.
40s attack time and 20s reload time is about as far as I can see it going without these weapons being avoided like the plague by nearly everyone. And even then only if sustained dps numbers are brought more in line with what they are now. Though honestly I think the idea is fundamentally flawed and should not be pursued at all.
And it should really be noted that without the range and explosion bonuses on most battleship hulls applying to RHMLs these things were already going to be incredibly niche. Now they are going to be more useless than niche to be honest. |
Ransu Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
29
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 08:19:00 -
[382] - Quote
Not a fan of this idea. A few people said it, but if one of the advantages of missiles is the flexibility of the selectable damage type, and ability to switch to FoF missiles, then putting a huge delay on the reload removes that advantage. And I call it an advantage despite so many of the missile hulls having a fixed damage bonus (kinetic), making it less true that pilots are switching missiles during an engagement.
I would rather see you guys shelve this module altogether for now, and focus on coming up with a full plan for fixing the full missile weapon class to be viable and different compared to gunnery.
The upcoming Gunnery Tiercide which removes the requirement for the previous size weapon to be trained up before training the next size removes one of the key differences between missiles and gunnery. This allowed missile users to specialize in one weapon system faster, at the cost of more SP per system in a size - for example Rockets + Light missiles vs Small Hybrid Turrets (Rails + Blasters). This post goes over how the SP values for training missiles need to be rebalanced, consdering the investment, and the support skills only applying to one weapon class (Missiles) versus 2 of 3 in Gunnery classes (Hybrids, Energy Turrets, Projectiles).
For a missile tiercide, you need to fix FoF missiles, Defender missiles, and countermeasures or just admit that some are useless and replace them. We also need modules for letting us adjust the missile speed, velocity, and explosion radius outside of rigs. This was said to be coming for a while, and I'd rather see energy put into this than shoehorning another module into the middle of a weapon size.
I'd also like to see a proper progression for missile ships, because they are all over the place right now, and really feel like the ugly stepchild.
- Caldari have a lineup of missile ships but are stuck with mostly kinetic damage bonuses. You could call if half a progression since it's split with Hybrids. The progression does have T1, T2, and T3 ships.
- Minmatar don't really have a progression for missiles, and I pity the new pilot who tries it. For T1 ships - Breacher, Bellicose, Cyclone, Typhoon. But once you get to T2, you only have the Hound and the Claymore, which are very specialized roles. I was hoping the Claw in the Interceptors rebalance would be switched to missiles, and there are no HACs or AFs which use missiles in the lineup either. I am happy we got rid of the split weapon system requiring an effective pilot to train both missiles and projectiles, but it should have been replaced by something.
- Amarr have the Khanid lineup and the Legion, but no T1 missile ships, so no real progression for a new player - you're effectively forced into training Energy Turrets first. I am looking forward to the new Malediction and Heretic in Rubicon.
- Gallente had Roden ships (again only T2), but now that it's being changed to be hybrids in Rubicon, that's another option removed for missile ships (No Ares, Lachesis, Eris). I was hoping to see a full missile lineup in Roden with bonuses for either Hybrids or Missiles to give people the option to choose the weapon system, but that didn't happen.
- All races having stealth bombers using different torpedo damage types, even when there's no progression to get to them.
So to be able to use missile ships, you have to train all races, which is an expensive proposition, and needing multiple races is usually only needed for pirate faction ship bonuses. Speaking of which, I'm hoping when the pirate ship rebalance happens, the Worm and will be as useful as a Daredevil or Dramiel. Since Blood Raiders, Sansha, and now Sisters of EVE ships are bonused to Energy Turrets, and Guristas are mostly used as drone boats, there might be some opportunity here as well.
Hopefully this was more constructive and less of a rant. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade Space Wolves Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 08:39:00 -
[383] - Quote
Very well said Ransu. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
145
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 09:12:00 -
[384] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: Rapid Launchers (both Light and Heavy) will be changed to have a much higher damage per second number, roughly on par with Heavy Assault Launchers and Torpedo Launchers respectively, but their ammo capacity will be reduced and their reload time will be increased increased (think Ancilliary Shield Boosters). Some specifics:
I really like the approach and I think, once it's iterated into the right place, that this could be a starting point for a proper gunnery 'tiericide' for some of the 'dual' versions of frigate/cruiser turrets.
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
972
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 09:21:00 -
[385] - Quote
Ransu Asanari wrote: So to be able to use missile ships, you have to train all races, which is an expensive proposition, and needing multiple races is usually only needed for pirate faction ship bonuses. Speaking of which, I'm hoping when the pirate ship rebalance happens, the Worm and will be as useful as a Daredevil or Dramiel. Since Blood Raiders, Sansha, and now Sisters of EVE ships are bonused to Energy Turrets, and Guristas are mostly used as drone boats, there might be some opportunity here as well.
Hopefully this was more constructive and less of a rant.
I pretty much agree with everything, but I wanted to point out one little detail - Sisters of EVE are bonused to drones, not lasers. The Astero has no laser bonus at all and the Stratios has it as a role bonus. |
Cordelia Mulholland IV
Posh Space Tarts
3
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 09:37:00 -
[386] - Quote
I like the idea and the potential changes in tactics that this will produce. Nice one CCP Rise. I do have some reservations and constructive input, but in general, sounds like it'd be fun and lead to some very exciting skirmishes.
I've read most well reasoned posts in this thread & skimmed over the hysterical omg sux so bad stuff. Let's just get one thing straight...
Such a mechanic is, in general, better suited to skirmishes / solo / tiny gang use. Just like those ASBs that you might have heard of. So, the people crying because it won't be better at killing red crosses than existing missile systems, please continue as before, you've lost nothing. People crying because it won't be of much use in huge blob vs huge blob, please continue as before, you've lost nothing. To all those who fly solo, in tiny gangs or prefer quick small scale skirmish tactics, or people who can find potential uses for such a missile system, please provide some much needed well reasoned input.
RLMLs first.
- It will add more depth & decision into gameplay e.g. Primary the RLML firing ship and remove his very effective dps as quickly as possible? Or leave him until he gets near finishing his reload? Similarly who you engage or primary first gets more interesting when you have a percentage of your dps removed for a while.
- For ships like the Rupture that have a "spare" missile slot, this will probably be the goto launcher. It's make a great addition to these hulls for small scale PvP.
- Even for slightly bigger gangs, the RLML will be great for removing light early tackle. It's a sort of small counter to the big buff that light tackle is getting with Rubicon's warp changes.
- The effectiveness of the RLML is considerably reduced by it being pointless to reload the "correct" ammo when a fight kick off. This will probably mean roaming with Kinetic or Thermal and hope you don't run into T2 Caldari / Galente. This change does fly in the face of the reducing the instances of Kinetic missile bonus that has occurred during tiericide, which essentially made it viable to pick and choose your damage type with missiles. This change reduces that for RLMLs & RHMLs.
- In general, I see the RLML being useful and adding considerations into the mix.
Now let's take the RHML.
- Main issue is scenario for use. Micro scale skirmish tactics basically require cruiser (sometimes BC) and smaller hulls. RHMLs are used on BS hulls so skirmishing is not really feasible.
- For plain vanilla solo / micro gang stuff, again BS hulls aren't usually used, but it's not unheard of. It's just not very popular. RHMLs would potentially be used for removing tackle quicker, but generally your drones do this for you if you're in a BS.
- Bringing along 1 RHML fitted BS in a small gang for it's cruiser killing capacity is probably going to slow things down too much for a small roaming gang of cruisers, particularly with the Rubicon warp changes.
- Gate camps? Yeah maybe, but slow lock time on a BS and then potentially reloading when someone else jumps in means it's not really feasible.
- For hulls such as the Tempest that have "spare" launcher slots, again I think the RHML could work well for small scale PvP.
- Reloading ammo just before a surprise fight kicks off is more likely than with cruiser hulls as at leas tyou'll probably survive until it reloads. But it'll still be a silly thing to do. You're stuck with the ammo you've already got loaded.
- What we have left is a role for the RHML as an efficient remover of heavier cruiser tackle in small gangs of BS hulls. It's quite a niche use. If you're brave (or crazy?) I guess you could go solo roaming in a RHML & MJD fitted BS hull. You do at least have a decent amount of EHP to get you through your reload. But it is really niche.
A big difference between this mechanic used for weapons and a similar mechanic used for tanks (AARs & ASBs) is that weapons have different charges that you want to load depending on circumstances. AARs & ASBs do not. Having said that, the changes may work relatively well for the RLML, but the RLML already works quite well. It would add more decision and consideration to gameplay.
The RHML however is potentially always going to have a more niche role (unless it's OP and ubiquitous) and with the burst / long reload idea, it has possibly become even more niche. If you're happy with it being quite specialized, I'd say go ahead and implement it and see how it pans out. The ASBs required tweaking after going live. I'd expect this would require it to.
|
Seolfor
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
40
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 09:38:00 -
[387] - Quote
No. Just No.
Nothing about a 'high cooldown' ability is fun, in any game. Especially when said 'ability' currently is 1/4th that cooldown.
You want to balance RLMLs/RHMLs, just tune down their ROF to what you think is appropriate.
You want some unique flavor - please add 'Swarm' ammo as suggested above - with your mechanics i.e. small clip size and 40sec reload, but major RoF boost.
That would give uniqueness and choice, while balancing the module.
Making random changes that make primary weapon systems disabled for 40 seconds is plain BAD game design.
If these were new modules, that too would work, as someone said, would be a great addition for all those 1-2 launcher Hardpoints on mostly Minmatar Cruiser+ The high burst, situational dps would complement the brawl range AC fits very well indeed. Enough to really become a choice vs putting neuts, which is currently a no brainer.
Add choice, not boring game mechanics.
Please. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
8
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 09:39:00 -
[388] - Quote
This change is likely going to happen to rlm, although it's probably going to be a 20 second reload. Heres my reasoning:
It been mathmatically proven (there are several graphs and hard numbers) that hml are not viable against smaller targets (frigates and cruisers) when compared to nearly all other weapon types in a solo/small gang situation. Hams face potentially severe application issues that also make them unused on many hulls for solo/small gang. Buffing hmls by giving them enough damage application to be used consistantly vs smaller targets would make blobs of hml ships too powerful. This leads to the awkward situation where you have hulls such as the caracal/scythe fleet issue/cerb that are very good for kiting but have no really ideal damage application outside of flying in a specific gang or having to use standard crash the majority of the time. Rlms solve this problem, allowing these hulls which are very good for kiting and facing off against multiple ships a way to actually apply damage.
What ends up happening is that rlms seem to be the go to choice for everything because there are no other options that produce any similar results. Without being able to unnerf hml application it gets to the point that rlm is amazing for solo/small gang and hml/hams are really only great on hulls that can support it well such as the cyclone which will likely have a web and crash, or a cerb using standard crash and relying on the hulls projection bonus. When you look at the stats it appears that rlms are best for the majority of situations because the majority of situations are smaller engagements. Changing rlms does not mean people will switch to hmls or hams because as previously mentioned, these weapon systems just aren't flexible enough to be used with as much regularity compared to other weapon systems.
When this change happens I expect a number of solo/small gang attempts to make it work although it seems far more likely that people will merely change to flying ships such as the navy omen instead. Front loading the damage also makes it terrible in any extended fight which isn't an uncommon occurrence. They can be used to a much greater extent in large gangs but become terrible when working as anti tackle in a small gang extended fight and can easily be manipulated into either not firing and waiting for tackle, or having a significant window for tackle to come in unopposed. In this situation replacing the caracal with a navy omen solves this problem very easily and gives relatively no benefit to having the caracal in your gang.
Sure it can be useful to have front loaded missile damage on the rare occasion but that's not really something an anti tackle ship is generally needed for and even then you can still do similar damage with the navy omen. Turning frigates and intys into mincemeat but not really being usable vs cruisers essentially makes the rlm system obsolete compared to medium lasers and even medium rails.
The problem with rhml still isnt solved because you still have subpar application compared to cruise launchers. There are graphs and hard numbers to back that up as well. Allowing rhmls to work with ship application/projection bonuses would actually fix this problem although ccp seems to have no intention of doing that at the moment. Having rhmls work with ship bonuses and leaving rlms as they are would be the best option in my eyes as that keeps the caracal/scythe fleet/cerb/osprey navy as viable solo and small gang ships without having them potentially overpowered vs frigates in very small fights or difficult to actually pull their weight and therefor having decreased viability in extended fights.
As I said though I expect this change to go through in some form (especially after what happened with the hurricane) so it will probably be far more likely that small gang shifts more into ishtars with navy omens supporting, and really hurts newer players as they can't fit into fleets and be as useful in a longer fight.
The damage selection thing is also an issue I almost forgot about and now that I consider it I would not expect to see many rlm ships in solo/small gang mostly due to that alone. |
Marcus Walkuris
Aww yeahhh
25
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 10:26:00 -
[389] - Quote
I dedicated a wall of text to this topic too. I expressed training times in multiplier totals with the explanation that an x8 multiplier equals an almost exact 2 mill SP or one month with perfect attributes/implants. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=292493&find=unread
Essentially missiles need a very long and hard looking over. And they NEVER made sense as I explain and have always claimed. If you have an 18x multiplier total for gunnery support and a 21x for missiles. Excluding weapon specialization you have the scenario where if you do rush say "cruise missiles"+support you are at 1x SP multiplier less as a gunnery skill-path of small medium large turrets, plus support. 26x cruise vs 27x for a gunnery line. Very little a coincidence I'm sure. Also missiles hang on target painting as their "equivalent" of a tracking computer, 12x multiplier total right there for something effortless for gunnery users.
Missiles need the same approach in gunnery at least to the extent that: Gunnery has multiple sized weapons in the same turret group and more ammo types.(knowing quite well there usually is a optimal turret type, it is still a plus point). Missiles have 2-3 different launcher types per size bracket which allow for way less flexibility in engagement profiles, and very little ammo difference. |
Angelus Ryan
One Ronin
45
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 10:56:00 -
[390] - Quote
This isn't merely a bad idea. It is a horrible idea. Unable to select damage types, unable to switch to FoF when jammed/damped. What the hell is this change good for?
Stop pigeonholing ships and fits into fleet support roles. There are enough ways to fit ships for anti-tackle roles already! We don't need the RLML Caracal/Bellicose to become pretty much useless in solo or very small gang situations because you cannot reload damage type and cannot load FoFs without flying around like an idiot for 40 seconds.
Seriously, this is idiotic. Not every single thing in the game needs to be balanced via the ASB route. Back to the drawing board on this, please! Or better yet, just abort this idea altogether. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 138 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |