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) |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
3107
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hi!
As you guys know, we're introducing Rapid Heavy Missile Launchers in Rubicon for battleships that will echo the Rapid Light Launchers in design. Well, now that the current design has been out and available for discussion for awhile, we've taken on a lot of feedback and we don't feel completely satisfied with them.
The problem we're facing is that it's very hard to create a good balance between rapid launchers and their on-size counterparts(torpedo launchers, cruise launchers, heavy missile launchers and heavy assault missile launchers). Currently I feel we have the numbers high enough that they are almost always the right choice, but if we tune them down at all they will almost never be the right choice. We would much rather that the decision to use rapid launchers depended heavily on context and that you would choose them not because they were generally better than their competition but because your specific situation called for them.
Here's the plan to improve the situation:
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:
Rapid Light Missile Launcher rate of fire set to: Rapid Light Missile Launcher I ------------------------- 7.8s Rapid Light Missile Launcher II ------------------------- 6.24s Prototype 'Arbalest' Rapid Light Missile Launcher --- 6.24s Other meta types not shown
Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher rate of fire set to: Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher I ------------------------ 6.48s Rapid Heavy Missile launcher II ------------------------- 5.185s 'Arbalest' Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher I ------------ 5.185s Other meta types not shown
Reload time for both groups set to 40 seconds.
T2 Rapid Light Launchers can carry roughly 18 charges T2 Rapid Heavy Launchers can carry roughly 23 charges
This translates to a Raven with 3x BCU, T2 Rapid Heavy Launchers and Scourge Fury missiles doing 926 dps This translates to a Caracal with 3x BCU, T2 Rapid Light Launchers and Scourge Fury missiles doing 409 dps
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.
This would provide new strategic gameplay for Rapid Missile users as well as their opponents. It would make these systems stronger against ships that can be killed inside the active window(smaller ships) but worse over longer fights, which would usually mean fights against ships in the same class or larger. It would generally be more interesting but would also leave more space for the main missile systems to thrive as well.
Let me know what you think and keep in mind that numbers may be adjusted slightly as we continue to test. Thanks |
|
Beaver Retriever
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:27:00 -
[2] - Quote
Do it.
It'll be disruptive, at least.
I'm sure the soloers will still cry, but when are they not crying? |
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
68
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:33:00 -
[3] - Quote
Holy crap that's terrible ******* idea |
Kane Fenris
NWP
112
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
intresting idea im not sure what to think of it....
did anything change at which bonuses do apply? under this circumstance i'd say all bonuses should apply but its really hard to guess what would be ballanced
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
929
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:36:00 -
[5] - Quote
....O_o this will be an asskicking and a half if you get 20 ships fit with these together |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
3108
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:36:00 -
[6] - Quote
Kat Ayclism wrote:Holy crap that's terrible ******* idea
Would love if you expanded a bit.
|
|
GallowsCalibrator
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
376
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
Sounds pretty interesting, and the idea of front-loaded DPS for missiles works well (plus it combats similarity between weapon systems which is always a good thing). It also essentially produces a new class of ship; there's a lot of instances of ships being designed as taking down larger ships effectively, less so of the reverse.
May also make utility launcher slots (for those few ships with them left) a bit more of an interesting choice to fit with an actual launcher, seeing as they generally aren't at the moment.
Do it.
And if you need consistent damage application against smaller targets you can either A: fly a smaller ship or B: fit undersized launchers. |
zbaaca
POD Based Lifeforms DarkSide.
59
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:37:00 -
[8] - Quote
will role bonus on golem affect RHML ? |
Saberlily Whyteshadow
Novum Matutinus
8
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:39:00 -
[9] - Quote
Bad idea unless you change damage bonus to blanket all damage types.. 40sec reload just to select a damage type? |
Bob FromMarketing
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
64
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:39:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Kat Ayclism wrote:Holy crap that's terrible ******* idea Would love if you expanded a bit.
why would you choose to use a weapon system with 40second downtime (think about this in a 10% tidi 4 hour fight) when you could use a weapon system that does half the applied dps (Cruise missiles, or any gun ever) and you don't spend half the time playing with your largly flaccid gentry while you watch your reload timer.
Then the FC will call for the fleet to load Mjolnir instead. |
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
3108
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:40:00 -
[11] - Quote
zbaaca wrote:will role bonus on golem affect RHML ?
Yes
|
|
Manks Girl
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
6
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:40:00 -
[12] - Quote
40 second reload time is not a good idea at all, this will kill any solo roaming or pvp and will only be something used on a larger scale. Even IF used on a larger scale why would you when you can use guns that won't have the same reload issues.
The Cerberus has been fun again with the Rapid Light Launchers and has opened up the possibility of solo roaming or in small gangs, this will make them redundant again.
Please review it, maybe even 20 second reload time would be acceptable but 40 seconds is rediculous. |
GallowsCalibrator
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
376
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:41:00 -
[13] - Quote
Bob FromMarketing wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Kat Ayclism wrote:Holy crap that's terrible ******* idea Would love if you expanded a bit. why would you choose to use a weapon system with 40second downtime (think about this in a 10% tidi 4 hour fight) when you could use a weapon system that does half the applied dps (Cruise missiles, or any gun ever) and you don't spend half the time playing with your largly flaccid gentry while you watch your reload timer. Then the FC will call for the fleet to load Mjolnir instead.
I don't think these are, or should be, considered as fleet-level primary damage dealers. Consider them as optional utility to make smaller ships f-off or die. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
929
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:42:00 -
[14] - Quote
Bob FromMarketing wrote:
Then the FC will call for the fleet to load Mjolnir instead.
with that in mind, i think it should be designed so if your charges reach 0 it takes 40 seconds to reload but to switch charge types (albeit without going back to a full reload) it would take the normal amount of time. (or no time, i dunno, that could be another bonus of using them) |
Bob FromMarketing
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
64
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:43:00 -
[15] - Quote
GallowsCalibrator wrote: I don't think
You're right! |
DarklordKarn
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
24
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:44:00 -
[16] - Quote
so, with 10% tidi thats... |
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
68
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:45:00 -
[17] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Kat Ayclism wrote:Holy crap that's terrible ******* idea Would love if you expanded a bit. You really need it expanded that that long of a reload time on a WEAPONS system is freaking horrid?
Yeah weapon types are situational and all, but this change makes the situation you'd ever want to use these in basically none. I wouldn't ever use this garbage when I could just use something else- hell, anything else that doesn't have a 40s reload time.
|
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
436
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:46:00 -
[18] - Quote
High damage application, 600 dps, 6k m/s burst Tengu. Yap, that will end well. |
Bob FromMarketing
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
66
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:47:00 -
[19] - Quote
Shameless doublepost
Rise, what happens when this gets removed from a Fleet Doctrine concept because 40 seconds wasted is 40 seconds wasted, and touted as a small gang or solo doctrine, but then, any solo ship that would use this, mainly the Cerb and the 100mn RML Tengu, would want to stay on field and kill off tackle now is unable to for more than 50 seconds, and once tackled with no utility highs has no way of getting out.
This change will not only kill a play style, but will kill off a currently awesome and a potentially awesome weapon system in one well placed drooling proposal. |
GallowsCalibrator
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
376
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:49:00 -
[20] - Quote
Lots of people not getting the potential of front-loaded dps against smaller targets in this thread I think. |
|
Kaeda Maxwell
Calamitous-Intent
206
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:50:00 -
[21] - Quote
A weapon system that I can only use for 2 minutes (like the new RLML's) before a 40 second reload is useless at that point I'm better of sacrificing a rig slot for a T2 rigor and carrying a crash pill on a HAM ship. To many small cruiser engagements last more then 2 minutes and there's other options for clearing tackle. Also with the prevalence of T1 logi in the current meta I'm unlike to kill anything but maybe a tackler in that time window.
Also light and heavy missiles aren't currently a dps weapon (nor are they used that way) they're an alpha weapon as showcased by talwar fleets.
Currently rapid lights are picked because of their *reliable* damage application. The problem isn't that rapid lights are to good the problem is that you nerfed heavies so much that on field damage application is worse then that of rapid lights because they have terrible explosion characteristics.
The reason things like rlml are so good, is because they apply almost all their damage, they are partially e-war resistant (td's are useless and you can load auto-targeting) and they use so little powergrid that you can still massively overtank the ships you put them on.
Rapid Heavies looked a little underwhelming and you should probably change them from the original idea, but all rapid lights really need imho is making them harder to fit so you have to sacrifice some tank in order to fit them. |
Resi Kaae
Anatidae Rising
1
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:52:00 -
[22] - Quote
I like, no idea whether it'd be balanced or whatever but it's an interesting direction to take them and I'm sure they'll be adjusted swiftly if they become problematic. |
Miaaaw
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
4
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:52:00 -
[23] - Quote
That's an interesting idea, sounds like an Ancillary Missile Launcher, so just go for a new module. Please don't break an alrdeady viable one. Rapid light missile launchers were about losing dps to shoot smaller target, that works why would you change it ? If you want to add "new" (ololol) game mechanics you don't necessarily need to remove old ones.
PS : You guys seems to rly like that burst + Long reload time thing, that lack of imagination is getting a bit boring. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
656
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:53:00 -
[24] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hi!
As you guys know, we're introducing Rapid Heavy Missile Launchers in Rubicon for battleships that will echo the Rapid Light Launchers in design. Well, now that the current design has been out and available for discussion for awhile, we've taken on a lot of feedback and we don't feel completely satisfied with them.
The problem we're facing is that it's very hard to create a good balance between rapid launchers and their on-size counterparts(torpedo launchers, cruise launchers, heavy missile launchers and heavy assault missile launchers). Currently I feel we have the numbers high enough that they are almost always the right choice, but if we tune them down at all they will almost never be the right choice. We would much rather that the decision to use rapid launchers depended heavily on context and that you would choose them not because they were generally better than their competition but because your specific situation called for them.
Here's the plan to improve the situation:
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:
Rapid Light Missile Launcher rate of fire set to: Rapid Light Missile Launcher I ------------------------- 7.8s Rapid Light Missile Launcher II ------------------------- 6.24s Prototype 'Arbalest' Rapid Light Missile Launcher --- 6.24s Other meta types not shown
Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher rate of fire set to: Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher I ------------------------ 6.48s Rapid Heavy Missile launcher II ------------------------- 5.185s 'Arbalest' Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher I ------------ 5.185s Other meta types not shown
Reload time for both groups set to 40 seconds.
T2 Rapid Light Launchers can carry roughly 18 charges T2 Rapid Heavy Launchers can carry roughly 23 charges
This translates to a Raven with 3x BCU, T2 Rapid Heavy Launchers and Scourge Fury missiles doing 926 dps This translates to a Caracal with 3x BCU, T2 Rapid Light Launchers and Scourge Fury missiles doing 409 dps
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.
This would provide new strategic gameplay for Rapid Missile users as well as their opponents. It would make these systems stronger against ships that can be killed inside the active window(smaller ships) but worse over longer fights, which would usually mean fights against ships in the same class or larger. It would generally be more interesting but would also leave more space for the main missile systems to thrive as well.
Let me know what you think and keep in mind that numbers may be adjusted slightly as we continue to test. Thanks
You simply destroyed my best ship (cerberus with rapid launchers). With that long reload time I cannot kill anythign meaningful (and i need rapid launchers because hamds do not fit with an useful fit). Mehh 1 billion isp spent on a ship that will be thrown in garbage can now. |
Bob FromMarketing
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
66
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:54:00 -
[25] - Quote
CCP Rise Bringing Solo Back |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
657
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:56:00 -
[26] - Quote
Bob FromMarketing wrote:CCP Rise Bringing Solo Back
those changes HURT solo. Solo ships that used rapid laucnhers now cannto kill anything of their size before reloading. 20K damage is not enough (specially sicne a lot will be mitigated). THey need at MINIMUM 22 charges (rapids). |
Kane Fenris
NWP
112
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:57:00 -
[27] - Quote
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:A weapon system that I can only use for 2 minutes (like the new RLML's) before a 40 second reload is useless at that point I'm better of sacrificing a rig slot for a T2 rigor and carrying a crash pill on a HAM ship. To many small cruiser engagements last more then 2 minutes and there's other options for clearing tackle. Also with the prevalence of T1 logi in the current meta I'm unlike to kill anything but maybe a tackler in that time window.
you do realize higher dps while firing will break tanks easier
and dmg goes down over time gradually if 1x reload suffice you still have 292 dps over 140s in case of fozzies RLML Cara example thats about what it does now.
|
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
70
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:58:00 -
[28] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Bob FromMarketing wrote:CCP Rise Bringing Solo Back those changes HURT solo. Solo ships that used rapid laucnhers now cannto kill anything of their size before reloading. I too have problems understanding situational irony. |
Shinah Myst
SoT DarkSide.
2
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 11:59:00 -
[29] - 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). No. ASB-like reload time is a hack, not a solution. If you can't balance them, don't introduce them. |
GallowsCalibrator
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
376
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 12:00:00 -
[30] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Bob FromMarketing wrote:CCP Rise Bringing Solo Back those changes HURT solo. Solo ships that used rapid laucnhers now cannto kill anything of their size before reloading.
Oh hey I guess the part where these launchers are meant to be used to engage ships smaller than their own size just went 'whoosh'. Here, i'll quote it for you.
CCP Rise wrote:This would provide new strategic gameplay for Rapid Missile users as well as their opponents. It would make these systems stronger against ships that can be killed inside the active window(smaller ships) but worse over longer fights, which would usually mean fights against ships in the same class or larger.
Seriously, these launchers would provide an essentially unique role in weapons in Eve at the moment (front loaded DPS with enhanced damage application; no other weapon system works this way currently). |
|
|
|
|
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 |