PS : and i'll put that simply, because people don't really understand this I think. Consider two RLML with no dps difference between the two (I explain here the burst dps thing and discard the dps nerf) :
- case 1 : RLML with standard reload time : X dps over 70s + 10s reload = Xdps over 80s ;
- case 2 : RLML with front loaded (burst) dps : X*2 dps over 40s + 40s reload = Xdps over 80s.
Not considering the dps nerf, the front loaded dps thing can actually be canceled if you divide your guns in two groups. That way, you retain the old functionality of sustain dps, but you also have a new functionality of burst dps if you need it.

In that case, it is far better to just nerf the RLML ROF by lets say 5% and introduce a completely new missile system with burst dps and longer reload. You can do something similar by adding new burst missiles as well. All this has been said so many times but it seems you're skimming instead of reading.

You understand something when you are able to explain it. You can be good at something and don't understand it ; and you can understand something without being good at it.

And "not good enough killboard" is not an argument, except for the lazy and the stupids.

BTW, CCP Rise and Fozzy (and certainly some others too) have a lot of pvp experience, yet people deny them it only because of their tag, so really, nobody here actually care about pvp experience or actual global vision of the game and the killboard argument is only a way to dishonnor someone and don't have to bother arguing with him. Forum pvp 101, alias Troll initiation lvl1.

PS : and i'll put that simply, because people don't really understand this I think. Consider two RLML with no dps difference between the two (I explain here the burst dps thing and discard the dps nerf) :
- case 1 : RLML with standard reload time : X dps over 70s + 10s reload = Xdps over 80s ;
- case 2 : RLML with front loaded (burst) dps : X*2 dps over 40s + 40s reload = Xdps over 80s.
Not considering the dps nerf, the front loaded dps thing can actually be canceled if you divide your guns in two groups. That way, you retain the old functionality of sustain dps, but you also have a new functionality of burst dps if you need it.

Why making two different thing when one of them can do both things fine ? If the reload thing is so disturbing for you, you can make two groups of weapons and use the second while the first is reloading. It's exactly what people do with the ASB, so it's not something people aren't able to do.

This aversion for the burst ability is just mindboggling considering how anyone pretending knowing anything about pvp should know the value of this burst ability.

this is perfectly acceptable if you're like 90% of ******** pilots and only carry scourge fury in your cargohold.

Since it doesn't look like you've ever flown an RLML ship I will try to explain this in terms you can understand. Assume you are flying an thorax (scram web cap booster mwd plate), with the "KIL2 HEAVY ION BLASTER II" which has good frontloaded dps but has the very 'insignificant' drawback of having a 40s reload time.

Assume you've cleverly solved the problem by splitting your guns into 2 groups and cramming VOID MEDIUM CHARGE into both, u engage another armor cruiser, also with scram web is now kiting you at 7+ km.

Luckily you split your guns so clearly you've solved the problem of waiting 40s so you can actually load null and hit the guy, right?

The burst ability is quite nice, provided you can finish what you came to do before having to reload.

If you have to reload, the burst ability is... well.. not so nice.

No, why are you so stubborn? ASB are way more powerful than regular T2 SB so longer reload makes sense and you still have a choice to use old SB along with cap booster whenever it suits you better. Here, proposed burst RLML with split launchers are in longer run so much WEAKER than current RLML, which means your and CCP Rise arguments are invalid. This way we are either forced to use some ****** divided dps or forced to wait 40 seconds to reload - the emphasis is on FORCED.

What happens to PvE, does anyone of you even care? Bears are having high hopes to use RHML on their Ravens etc. and I can assure you whey won't be too excited reloading for 40 sec. every now and then.

On the other hand, you will be more effective against active tanked ennemies and need less time to kill the targets you can kill than before.

You still don't understand that there is actually a nerf of RLML : they lose 20% sustain dps.

But that's not because of the 40s reload, that's because they deserve it.

You still don't understand that there is actually a nerf of RLML : they lose 20% sustain dps.

You still don't understand that there is actually a nerf of RLML : they lose 20% sustain dps.

But that's not because of the 40s reload, that's because they deserve it.

The largest issue is not simply the long term dps nerf . Its that the load between each relaod isnot enough for you to get rid of 1 enemy ship , and that is CRUTIAL. If you coudl kil a ship before reload at least your small gang continues even, they lost one and you are lost for 40 seocnds. But if you do not kill it and start to reload.. suddenly your ship lost 1 ship.. and their gang none .

On a 2 man gang or solo that is HUGE.

Increase the proposed charges to 22 and at least you woudl be sure to kill a frigate tackler and coudl even kill a non tanked cruiser.

LEss than that and you are detrimental to gang.

Fun fact: A cerb with normal light missile launchers will do MORE sustained dps than a cerb fit with rapid light missile launchers

BTW, CCP Rise and Fozzy (and certainly some others too) have a lot of pvp experience, yet people deny them it only because of their tag, so really, nobody here actually care about pvp experience or actual global vision of the game and the killboard argument is only a way to dishonnor someone and don't have to bother arguing with him. Forum pvp 101, alias Troll initiation lvl1.

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

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.

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

Except that leaving the existing RLMLs alone will not force people to abandon RLMLs and go back to using HMLs like CCP Rise wants.

Buffing HMLs would on the other hand, but apparently that's asking too much.

CCP you must remember that many players have invested training time and isk into a ship or weapons system, others have invested research time and production isk. When you play God and magically change these established ships and weapons systems you don't care about a segment of your player base and alienate them needlessly.

1) Why not this: "Fed Navy Testing Facilities are pleased to announce a breakthrough in RLM launcher technology... with the following stats...the new launcher will be available on this date..." THEN KEEP THE OLD TECHNOLOGY.
Let people fly with 'obsolete' launchers if they prefer. This happens in the real world all the time. It will add depth and soul to the game.

2) Same thing for ships: An in-game corp announces 'development of a new missile platform cruiser (example) which will make the Caracal obsolete', a spokesman says. THEN KEEP THE CARACAL ALSO. Let people fly their old Caracals if they want. Why not?
This is how it works in the world. This is how technology progresses.

Do it like this and you will stop all this outcry every time you make arbitrary changes.

GÇó Can we please get Faction FoF missiles added back to the LP store for Rubicon? (yes, some of us use them)
GÇó The 40-second reload is fine, but the ammunition capacity is a tad low. If you increase this to 25 for a T2 RLML and 30 for a Caldari Faction RLML this will probably balance out better (ditto for RHMLs, with the same % increase).
GÇó For missile switching, is it possible to implement a 10-second swap-out with the caveat that only the type and not the quantity of ammunition is replaced?

And CCP showing once again that they are a bunch of twats.


I have a brilliant idea, how about cruiser sized weapons HML's and HAM's hit cruiser sized hulls better?!!?!?!? That way RML aren't the best choice cause the project damage better.

Except that leaving the existing RLMLs alone will not force people to abandon RLMLs and go back to using HMLs like CCP Rise wants.

Apparently it is. 'Tis a pity.

Though, I guess HMLs don't need a buff because someone somewhere is using them for something. Perhaps the metrics have to show literally zero use of a weapon system before it's considered as "too unpopular".